News: Webcast Tidbits & Recording [Archive]

View Full Version : News: Webcast Tidbits & Recording

Hamma

2012-01-26, 07:16 PM

Use this thread to post the various things learned from the cast. :)

Vehicles will have Performance, Armor and Utility slots that are customizable.
Vehicles will also have customization slots for visual changes, hood ornaments, camo, racing stripes etc.
Lightning will be best AA Vehicle at launch
Can be modified as a tank killer
Won't be screenshots for a bit. Will be very similar to Lightning as is.
Sunderer will have 4X the armor of Tanks
Liberator will be similar to AC130, guns will shoot downward so even though there won't be bombs it will be similar.
3 Seats in Lib, Pilot, Gunner, Tailgunner
Galaxy Weapons can be changed out. Possibly ground effect weapons.
Galaxy will not have a cloak bubble.
Guns can be used while it is deployed in the AMS role.
Guns do not change location on Galaxy when be deployed (yet) but can or may be moved.
Lodestar won't be returning.

Update: SOE Posted Video:

SOE Community Webcast: PlanetSide 2 Nanite Systems Vehicles - YouTube

SKYeXile

2012-01-26, 07:30 PM

Lighting is the primary AA replacing the skillguard, told ya's bitches!

Hamma

2012-01-26, 07:31 PM

I missed the mentions about the mod slots - what were they again?

Hmr85

2012-01-26, 07:32 PM

Lighting is the primary AA replacing the skillguard, told ya's bitches!

Should of just brought the skyguard back.

SKYeXile

2012-01-26, 07:32 PM

I missed the mentions about the mod slots - what were they again?

All i herd was performance, may have been an armour one too ?

DOUBLEXBAUGH

2012-01-26, 07:33 PM

1 Defensive (armor or shields to certain spots), 1 utility slot (EMP, minegaurd, etc.) and 1 performance (speed boost, or handling boost etc.). Also any weapon can be swapped out for different ones.

Duddy

2012-01-26, 07:34 PM

Lighting is the primary AA replacing the skillguard, told ya's bitches!
I still think it's a flawed model, gunning and driving a lightning was hard enough for most people without having to also be looking up!

Maybe I'm bitter, I just like the SG :(

Zulthus

2012-01-26, 07:35 PM

I really don't even care about the thousands of players anymore at this point, I'd take a 1500 cap if it meant the good stuff like weapon holstering, vehicle animations, and VARIETY in vehicles made it back in. They look sexy, but I don't really like that they're making a single vehicle able to perform every role needed.

Biohazard

2012-01-26, 07:35 PM

Performance
armor
utility

ThGlump

2012-01-26, 07:35 PM

mods: weapons. 3 utility/performance slots, 4 appearance slots

LZachariah

2012-01-26, 07:36 PM

Specific mods for vehicles include anti-mine under-armor (providing the vehicle with greatly increased resistance to anti-armor mines). This would allow the very fragile Quad Bike the ability to survive at least one mine, possibly 2. It would make the Sunderer (which is already extremely durable) to survive many mines.

Sunderer also has EMP as a slottable unlock, which unleashes a wave of EMP when activated (uses a cooldown timer) or a smoke screen ability, which could shroud soldiers as they unload from the Sunderer.

SKYeXile

2012-01-26, 07:36 PM

I still think it's a flawed model, gunning and driving a lightning was hard enough for most people without having to also be looking up!

Maybe I'm bitter, I just like the SG :(

the skyguard required 2 people, this requires one...the idea might be...dont move? ..it really depends on its weapon systems. it could be flak, high ROF projectiles or missiles.

NewSith

2012-01-26, 07:37 PM

It's sad they won't use my tortoise transport concept =(

But does absence of lodestar mean that there will be no aerial vehicle transportation at all?

ThGlump

2012-01-26, 07:38 PM

I'd take a 1500 cap if it meant the good stuff like weapon holstering, vehicle animations, and VARIETY in vehicles made it back in.

They are bragging how detailed everything is, showing screenshots how you can see threads on uniforms, and then scratch holstering due performance issue. Im with you there. Less pointless details that only looks cool, more details that are cool/usefull

basti

2012-01-26, 07:38 PM

Damn, wanted to ask how vehicles are being entered these days, but they got cut out. :(

basti

2012-01-26, 07:40 PM

Also, heres the cast for now: http://de.twitch.tv/sonyonlinetv/b/306658477

Watch it now/download it, it WILL BE REMOVED! There is apperently some legal reason for Sony to remove them from twitch.tv, but they will put it up on youtube. :)

ThGlump

2012-01-26, 07:40 PM

Yea asked it 2 times already and it never got picked up. still hope you have to be at specific position to enter

Duddy

2012-01-26, 07:41 PM

NewSith

2012-01-26, 07:42 PM

download it

HOW? TELL ME NEAOW!

Atheosim

2012-01-26, 07:42 PM

Cool/useful is one thing, but immersion is another thing entirely. The predominant portion of why I loved PS1 so much was immersion. The time and love put into every little animation made me feel like everyone was a living breathing person. Removing those things just makes it feel like I'm playing some stupid fucking videogame, which nobody wants to feel while they're playing a stupid fucking videogame.

basti

2012-01-26, 07:42 PM

Yea asked it 2 times already and it never got picked up. still hope you have to be at specific position to enter

Reading that kev? Give us some info on this already please. :(

RodenyC

2012-01-26, 07:44 PM

basti

2012-01-26, 07:44 PM

HOW? TELL ME NEAOW!

There are tools for that. Just google for "twitch.tv download" and search yourself. ;)

Graywolves

2012-01-26, 07:47 PM

Utility
Defense
Cosmetic
Weapons

I think that's how it is. Maybe Engines? I remember him talking about engines.

Either way, just between the Galaxy and the Liberator I feel like there's a bit of a problem.

Flexible bombgun on possibly multiple strafing Liberators, versus landed Galaxy spawning people...

Not to mention everything else around there.

I feel like some form of a cloaked spawn should return.

Zulthus

2012-01-26, 07:49 PM

Feels like they are catering to people who never played planetside than original planetside players.We all like fancy graphics but from what I've heard and been hearing only thing similar to PS1 are just names.

I'm with you there. I know things will be changed because it's a new game, but this so far has removed so much of what I loved from PS1 and replaced it with killcams and crap that the BF/COD crowd want. I honestly understand that they want to make money, but Planetside is a unique game. I really wish they wouldn't conform to the all the cut and paste FPS with the exact same mechanics. I truly LOVED the immersion in PS1 as someone said above, warping into a vehicle instantly and your weapons disappearing under your skin when you switch to a different one isn't the immersion PS1 had. I won't lie. I'm looking forward to what they do with PS2. But from this point, all I think it's got running for it is amazing graphics and massively multiplayer FPS. If I get accepted into Beta and it doesn't feel like BF3 all over again I'll never need another game in my life.

/worstcasescenario

I hope they prove my negative thoughts wrong.

Hmr85

2012-01-26, 07:51 PM

I'm with you there. I know things will be changed because it's a new game, but this so far has removed so much of what I loved from PS1 and replaced it with killcams and crap that the BF/COD crowd want. I honestly understand that they want to make money, but Planetside is a unique game. I really wish they wouldn't conform to the all the cut and paste FPS with the exact same mechanics. I truly LOVED the immersion in PS1 as someone said above, warping into a vehicle instantly and your weapons disappearing under your skin when you switch to a different one isn't the immersion PS1 had. I won't lie. I'm looking forward to what they do with PS2. But from this point, all I think it's got running for it is amazing graphics and massively multiplayer FPS. If I get accepted into Beta and it doesn't feel like BF3 all over again I'll never need another game in my life.

/worstcasescenario

I hope they prove my negative thoughts wrong.

I was typing out pretty much the same thing. I agree.

MooK

2012-01-26, 07:52 PM

I'm at the ATV part. I choose ATV!

Afterburner!

Kaotc

2012-01-26, 08:20 PM

i missed it, does anyone know if its hosted else where yet?

Erendil

2012-01-26, 08:22 PM

Won't be screenshots for a bit. Will be very similar to Lightning as is.

Does that mean similar in appearance, in functionality/weapons/lethality, or both?

Should of just brought the skyguard ES Buggies back at launch.

Fixed. :cool:

Raymac

2012-01-26, 08:22 PM

It should be on SOE's youtube channel eventually.

Bittermen

2012-01-26, 08:39 PM

Liberator=AC130!

So sick! I'll be flying around in those! Maybe as the gunner teehee!

Hamma

2012-01-26, 09:35 PM

Updated first post - recording was posted.

Vash02

2012-01-26, 10:17 PM

Bags

2012-01-26, 10:37 PM

I updated my sticky with relevant info from the vid~

sylphaen

2012-01-26, 10:40 PM

the skyguard required 2 people, this requires one...the idea might be...dont move? ..it really depends on its weapon systems. it could be flak, high ROF projectiles or missiles.

You very well know that in PS1, static AA is dead AA... Even more so after the reaver stealth armor buff.

We'll how it goes in PS2 but if the armor balance between AA and reavers in PS2 is similar to PS1, I foresee a huge pinata fest for the good aircav pilots.

Edit: and in a PS1 SG, you had 2 pairs of eyes. In PS2, it will be 2 AA lightnings. How will that be balanced ? Weaker AA guns ? Weaker AA armor ?

cellinaire

2012-01-27, 12:05 AM

I'd rather cautiously wait for the Beta myself, but it looks like you guys will have to wait several more years to get those holstered weapons/vehicle animation back in PS2. I'd say, prepare to be disappointed if you guys think things will be better once you get your hands on the game in Beta phase.

Not that they(dev team) hate your ideas here, PS2 will indeed be a very different game.
(well, but I intend to play this game even if those details in this podcast are all proven right, anyway. I really hope SOE listen to us in Beta this time)

PoisonTaco

2012-01-27, 12:31 AM

When they're talking about deconstruction, they mention that there's no way to deconstruct your vehicle. Once you buy it, it's there until it either gets destroyed or is left to despawn after being idle.

So is that implying vehicles need resources?

SKYeXile

2012-01-27, 12:40 AM

You very well know that in PS1, static AA is dead AA... Even more so after the reaver stealth armor buff.

We'll how it goes in PS2 but if the armor balance between AA and reavers in PS2 is similar to PS1, I foresee a huge pinata fest for the good aircav pilots.

Edit: and in a PS1 SG, you had 2 pairs of eyes. In PS2, it will be 2 AA lightnings. How will that be balanced ? Weaker AA guns ? Weaker AA armor ?

I do know that static AA is dead AA, but that was PS1. it will probably prove the same for PS2, but i think if you can find yourself some good terrain nested neara tree or something that you can cover behind when something comes in for a pass...that you can then hit them on their flyout, i think would be a good tactic.

I gather the lightning would keep most of its speed as AA, but loose some armour and HP, especially top armour and whatever turret armour it had.

id still expect the lighting to die in a single full hit air pass, as it did in PS1(though think thats changed now)

we're looking at a whole new game though and with a different sort of balance, but they did say 3 shots to the rear of a lighting by a MBT would kill it, if i remember right i thought it was about 3-4 vanguard shots to kill a lighting, from any angle, so the TTK on vehciles may remain verymuch the same, given that their speed is likely the same, in the videos the planes certainly different seem to be going as fast as jets in BF3...more similar to the speed of PS1.

the effectivness on the lighting is going to have to be dependant on how much other AA their willbe though, how often and where it can be pulled from.

I wouldn't even say the skyguard was your primary AA in planetside, because of their availability, they were no doubt the most effective, but given they could only be pulled at a tech plant, with a cert for it.

but if i had to give an answer in relation to PS1, i would think it should do less damage, or be harder to use, more like BF3...where you need to aim and if you do it can be very deadly, especially to anything that sits still and is close.

Saintlycow

2012-01-27, 12:56 AM

but if i had to give an answer in relation to PS1, i would think it should do less damage, or be harder to use, more like BF3...where you need to aim and if you do it can be very deadly, especially to anything that sits still and is close.

as long as it works better against air targets than infantry. The anti air in bf3 is so overpowered agains infantry it's not even funny.

SKYeXile

2012-01-27, 12:58 AM

as long as it works better against air targets than infantry. The anti air in bf3 is so overpowered agains infantry it's not even funny.

this is true.

QuiCKaNdDeaDLy

2012-01-27, 01:03 AM

I cant help me but the more I hear the more Skeptical I get. :(
Basicly every "new feature" they present us Im like "Nooooo why would they do this?". We told them over and over; Dont try to fix things which was not broken. They dont seem to learn.

They seem to look way too much to other Games then to Planetside 1.
With all the Information we allready got its safe to say their Gameplay wont feel like the Game we all Loved to play at all. :cry:

SOE better plans to have a LOOOOONG Beta where they can change all the Things they currently Break. Because I KNOW there will be a Huge Shitstorm coming over them when Beta starts.

Same Thing happening right now to Tribes Ascend. They now spend Months to reverse all their Changes from the Original Game.

Sorry for my Negative Feedback, I would love to post OMG THIS IS GREAT CANT WAIT blabla... but I dont feel so.

Trolltaxi

2012-01-27, 01:14 AM

They seem to look way too much to other Games then to Planetside 1.
With all the Information we allready got its safe to say their Gameplay wont feel like the Game we all Loved to play at all. :cry:

SOE wants hard $$$ from this title so they need to drift closer to the best selling FPS-s. Thinking with the sales team's head, PS1 concept was broken that needs fixing, as it wasn't a fininancial success.

I couldn't watch the cast (don't have 30 mins in the morning), but I do hope that those "racing stripes" are interpreted in a joking way... :confused: It's so close to a Hello Kitty sticker in my eyes...

Bine

2012-01-27, 01:40 AM

DOUBLEXBAUGH

2012-01-27, 01:43 AM

I have to suggest this. Give me the option to turn off killcam on those I kill. I don't care if that fully disables it for me as well, i would like to have the option to play a stealth sniper and not immediately be called out by the guy i kill my -exact- location on Longitude-latitude... Let everyone turn it off if they so choose. It should be a simple option, maybe?

In the killcam threads, way back when they told us about them, Higby said they were thinking about making 1 of teh implants you can use "jam" the killcam and they just see like a fuzzy screen instead of the kill. So you might be able to sorta turn it off to hide your sniping spot, but it will cost you 1 of your implant slots.

RodenyC

2012-01-27, 01:48 AM

When I heard the reasoning for the removal of the AMS I was thinking what is he talking about.The AMS was such a important role and made base battle more exciting.When you have guys assaulting the front gate with AMSes out there,if someone rolled a AMS to a backdoor for back hacks that made the game more fun because you had to always worry about witch door to guard and attack.Then from the other perspective that you sneaking into a base where they have no idea that you are sneaking in.

QuiCKaNdDeaDLy

2012-01-27, 02:00 AM

SOE wants hard $$$ from this title so they need to drift closer to the best selling FPS-s. Thinking with the sales team's head, PS1 concept was broken that needs fixing, as it wasn't a fininancial success.

Sorry but thats bullshit and you know it!
The reason for PS1 being behind its financial expectations wasnt pretty much Gameplay Related at all.
It had alot more to do with the Sub Model, not listening to Community at all, "patches" and New Features like BFRs, worst advertising ever, in most Countrys not sold in stores, Game laggy as fuck due to way to High Requirements (I see this happening again with this Monster GFX)...

Do I need to go on?

Ofcourse there was a few Things they would have needed to Change like 15 Mins Timers, getting faster to the Action, Balance.

But they dont needed to make an entire different Game.

Edit: OR AM I WRONG HERE?

sylphaen

2012-01-27, 02:11 AM

But they dont needed to make an entire different Game.

Agreed, trying a totally new gameplay on a large scale may be a very different beast from PS1 so it's a make-or-break type of situation.

Then if they were just rehashing PS1 into an updated PS2 with candy graphics, naysayers would jump on the ball to say that gameplay is s*** like in PS1 before even playing because nothing really changed.

I think this dev team is trying to trim the fat while keeping most of what we loved in PS1 (even if it's hard to believe when they say no-holstering, tank gunning drivers, instant vehicle entrance, etc...). I guess some sacrifices have to be made on their side.

There's 2 things we can hope:
- that the new PlanetSide recipe will still be fun and not have broken mechanics at the core (forget PS1 gameplay already, it's gone).
- that the devs stay around make sure the game *works* in all aspects.

If PS2 fails, we may never see a MMOFPS until another big studio decides to take such a cost/benefit risky vs. other potentially more profitable games.

Or it will come from China. The Chinese loved PS and I wouldn't be surprised to see such a game spring from there.

Zulthus

2012-01-27, 02:13 AM

Or it will come from China. The Chinese loved PS and I wouldn't be surprised to see such a game spring from there.

The Chinese steal every game America creates and makes a blatant rip off of it. One of the funnier ones is Final Combat. Google that shit.

//Let me make that everything
Off-topic but I read this quite a while back
http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/top_10_chinese_rip_offs.php
http://www.sharenator.com/Console_clones/#/Popstation_Console_clones_and_rip_offs-8.html

sylphaen

2012-01-27, 02:18 AM

The Chinese steal every game America creates and makes a blatant rip off of it. One of the funnier ones is Final Combat. Google that shit.

Wow... Rock-solid post. That's a 120% copy-cat of TF2 !!!
:lol:

Furber

2012-01-27, 02:33 AM

Feels like they are catering to people who never played planetside than original planetside players.We all like fancy graphics but from what I've heard and been hearing only thing similar to PS1 are just names.

QFT.

Most of us are probably interested in this game because it is supposed to be like planetside1, not because we want it to be Planetfield: Modern Warside 2

QuiCKaNdDeaDLy

2012-01-27, 02:33 AM

Slightly Offtopic:
If Quake was done today - YouTube

cellinaire

2012-01-27, 02:45 AM

...Wait. these are all so mind-boggling and nettlesome for now. I just guess I shouldn't weigh in until I get to play extensively and rigorously in Beta. ;(

QuiCKaNdDeaDLy

2012-01-27, 02:56 AM

I just guess I shouldn't weigh in until I get to play extensively and rigorously in Beta. ;(

My Experience with million other Games shows me that you should bring your Concerns rights now while the Core Mechanics are still in its Development. We all know the changes in Beta will be most likly halfassed compromises between both Worlds because the evil Publishers push them to release and they dont have enough time...

SKYeXile

2012-01-27, 03:03 AM

My Experience with million other Games shows me that you should bring your Concerns rights now while the Core Mechanics are still in its Development. We all know the changes in Beta will be most likly halfassed compromises between both Worlds because the evil Publishers push them to release...

i think you're right there, its good to get discussions going now.

But to be honest the more i hear and more features i know about PS2 the more i like it, when details were first brought out, about classes , no AMS, and a whole bunch of other crap, yea i was very sceptical. But I have certainly played alot of FPS's and MMO's attempting to be PvP orientated, i mostly like where they're headed so far.

Yetiee

2012-01-27, 04:21 AM

Air-Horns.

All that needs to be said.

Vancha

2012-01-27, 05:11 AM

Just once, I'd like to see a webcast where people didn't jump in and go "OMG THE GAME'S ROOOOWINNED!"

Feels like they are catering to people who never played planetside than original planetside players.We all like fancy graphics but from what I've heard and been hearing only thing similar to PS1 are just names.
Actually, I felt that PS2 could end up more similar to PS1 after watching this than I did before, with sunderers still having EMP to shut down base shields, ATVs still rolling over minefields etc. All their examples sounded far more "Planetsidey" than I'd expected, for a game made so many years later.

So is that implying vehicles need resources?
I'd say it's definitely implying that.

Basicly every "new feature" they present us Im like "Nooooo why would they do this?". We told them over and over; Dont try to fix things which was not broken. They dont seem to learn.

They seem to look way too much to other Games then to Planetside 1.
With all the Information we allready got its safe to say their Gameplay wont feel like the Game we all Loved to play at all. :cry:

Same Thing happening right now to Tribes Ascend. They now spend Months to reverse all their Changes from the Original Game.
I can't think of a single "new feature" that didn't have a valid reason behind it. Entering vehicle animations? Development time (hopefully it won't be instant, though), holstered weapons? People on screen. Classes? Cooler toys to play with. AMS removed? Rolled into the Galaxy.

As of now, every fear I see needs to be verified. Even for things like drivers controlling their own guns, we're unable to know whether it'll be an improvement or not...And I don't think it is safe to say it won't feel like Planetside. There will be differences of course, but I think the things that actually matter, the experiences that made us fans of the game, may very well exist in PS2.

As for Tribes Ascend, lets see how well it does for all their reverting, shall we? I know their beta is filled to the brim with ex-tribes players, so it could be that their catering to their old niche market hurts them in the long run.

When I heard the reasoning for the removal of the AMS I was thinking what is he talking about.The AMS was such a important role and made base battle more exciting.When you have guys assaulting the front gate with AMSes out there,if someone rolled a AMS to a backdoor for back hacks that made the game more fun because you had to always worry about witch door to guard and attack.Then from the other perspective that you sneaking into a base where they have no idea that you are sneaking in.
The point was, the AMS itself wasn't very fun. It wasn't interactive and it wasn't interesting. It's impact, sure...but the vehicle itself? Nope.

Keep in mind that the galaxy isn't the only form of spawning we'll have, either. It could well be that someone with the necessary certs could sneak 'round to a backdoor (if they still exist) and have people spawn on him. Hell, we still don't really know the feel of the engine either. Maybe having galaxies land inconspicuously won't be as unlikely as we're expecting.

But they dont needed to make an entire different Game.

Edit: OR AM I WRONG HERE?
You're wrong.

Planetside was on to a good thing, but we're kidding ourselves if we think that there isn't a lot that could be improved upon, especially for other people. I'm not saying this should become "Planetfield: Modern Warside 2" (that joke/jibe's getting old, *yawn*), but it needs to have more widespread appeal and far better longevity. So long as the "big" experiences remain intact...That's what really matters.

Hamma

2012-01-27, 06:04 AM

As for Tribes Ascend, lets see how well it does for all their reverting, shall we? I know their beta is filled to the brim with ex-tribes players, so it could be that their catering to their old niche market hurts them in the long run.
This is probably the case - it wouldn't be the first time they screwed up a Tribes game for this reason.

Like it or not folks we aren't getting a reskinned PlanetSide 1 - that would make no sense. We are getting a modern FPS with the scale and feel of PlanetSide 1.

Tikuto

2012-01-27, 06:09 AM

I find it terrifying by how unsettled they are through-out the whole cast.

QuiCKaNdDeaDLy

2012-01-27, 06:11 AM

We are getting a modern FPS with the scale of PlanetSide 1.

Fixed!

You cant have both...

Hamma

2012-01-27, 06:21 AM

You can have both...

Fixed!

Please don't quote me and modify it.

And most importantly don't remove things you have absolutely know way at all of knowing.

ringring

2012-01-27, 06:27 AM

I must admit when I heard the reason for the removal of the AMS I though "was that it!", it seemed so bizarre consideraing how important amses are to the ebb and flow of battles.

To be good, an ams had to be placed close to the infantry battle lines. Badly placed AMSES resulted in people spawning and then a phutzerg to the place where the fight neede to occur, like inside the base.

The deployed gal appears to me that the result will be a phutzerg, ironic when one of the aims is to speed the game up.

It's already been said that 'spawn on squad leader' can't occur within a base, which I am taking to mean within the courtyard too. That makes sense, and I hope it stays that way. I hope within bases there are capturable spawn point for the attackers and indeed if there is only one spawn point for the dewfenders they will also spend a lot of time running from the spawns to the battle.

Apart from that above I liked what I heard. Sundy, great armour but poor offensive weapons. Lightning as SG sounds fine and the detail on the customisation sounded great.

I supppose that the 'utility' slot applies to aircraft too, which means aircraft can deploy flares. Is that an effective nerf against Striker / Skillfire and whatever the NC AA is called (sorry never played NC)? If it is, there needs to be a compensating balance.

CutterJohn

2012-01-27, 06:39 AM

Edit: OR AM I WRONG HERE?

You're wrong. Almost every single aspect of PS1 was subpar, when taken by itself. Infantry combat was nowhere near as good as any other fps offering. Vehicle combat was nowhere near as good as any vehicle centric games. Air combat was nowhere near as good as any games featuring air. It was full of boring and tedious gameplay mechanics.

What it did right, and why all of it was tolerable, was the massive scale. That was the amazing aspect of the game. The gameplay itself was decidedly mediocre.

and your weapons disappearing under your skin when you switch to a different one isn't the immersion PS1 had.

Yeah, I loved the immersive qualities of dual HA or AV on your back. Or best, dual Deci's. :D

As for the vid, really nifty stuff. I love the concept for upgrades in vehicles. I wonder if infantry will follow a similar model? I can kinda see that replacing the implant mechanic.

Lightning as AA! Woot!

And I can't wait to light shit up with a Liberator. Sooo much more appealing than the bombs.

ringring

2012-01-27, 06:46 AM

You're wrong. Almost every single aspect of PS1 was subpar.
It was full of boring and tedious gameplay mechanics.

The gameplay itself was decidedly mediocre.

Ha, I certainly cannot agree with these snips. I think you may have exaggerated a little to make a point.

Vancha

2012-01-27, 07:00 AM

Vash02

2012-01-27, 07:04 AM

I think he is just attacking a straw man. Half the stuff he is talking about no one has argued against.

SKYeXile

2012-01-27, 07:07 AM

I certainly can agree with these snips. I think you make a point.

Why fuck with peoples quotes and take shit out of context?

CutterJohn

2012-01-27, 07:12 AM

Ha, I certainly cannot agree with these snips. I think you may have exaggerated a little to make a point.

Not a bit. If you made a game that just featured PS1s infantry combat, it would laughed into obscurity. If you made world of tanks or battlezone 3 or something with PS1 vehicles, it would be horrible. An air combat game with PS1s aircraft? Worst air combat game ever made.

Vash02

2012-01-27, 07:25 AM

Not a bit. If you made a game that just featured PS1s infantry combat, it would laughed into obscurity. If you made world of tanks or battlezone 3 or something with PS1 vehicles, it would be horrible. An air combat game with PS1s aircraft? Worst air combat game ever made.

And a musket compared to a modern day rifle is terrible. Seriously, who is arguing that we keep the mechanics exactly the same as PS1? what people dont like are the changes being made, not that changes are being made.

SKYeXile

2012-01-27, 07:29 AM

And a musket compared to a modern day rifle is terrible.

even compared to shooters of its time though...

Halo had it bet for infantry Combat, freelancer was well before planetsides time..tank combat? well...*shrugs*

some people are going to like changes that are been made, others aren't, you cant make a game for everybody and please everybody, they shouldn't have to try, and anyway those that do, generally fail.

Just because a vocal monitory is against something, doesn't mean everybody else is to, it probably means they're happy with what's been said and feel no reason to post about it.

Vancha

2012-01-27, 07:31 AM

And a musket compared to a modern day rifle is terrible. Seriously, who is arguing that we keep the mechanics exactly the same as PS1? what people dont like are the changes being made, not that changes are being made.

There's plenty of people who've asked why they can't just re-skin Planetside and re-release it.

Plus, lets face it, there are people who'll claim to accept the need for change and complain about any that are made regardless.

ringring

2012-01-27, 07:33 AM

That's because you've quote-mined him.

Was Planetside's infantry combat alone great? No.

Was Planetside's air combat alone great? No.

Was Planetside's tank combat alone great? No.

It was the combination that was great. Being able to have them all working alongside each other within relative balance in such a large-scale environment.

Those three individual aspects could be (and look like they may well be) much improved.
I know :D

I did it because I thougt his 'money-shot' quotes exaggerated the point / post as a whole. PS the game, adding everything together was/is the best.

I am here, as are we all, hoping that PS2 will be the new best game ever.

Gandhi

2012-01-27, 08:03 AM

I'm pretty excited for some changes, like the faster pacing, the new customization system, the new skill system and the more distinct empires. Even the modern FPS mechanics are fine and needed, though I'm hoping for some customization in the iron sight system so I'm not stuck with blocking half my screen every time I want to be more accurate.

But some things are really disappointing to me, like OSOK snipers, killcams and the move away from teamwork for the MBTs. I feel like the tanks especially could have been made so much better by reinforcing teamwork through things like built in voice comms and being able to mark targets for each other.

Then there's the changes that are kind of a shame, but understandable. Like getting rid of vehicle entry/exit animations and the move toward fewer, multi-purpose vehicles rather than lots of different vehicles with clearly defined roles. Cost and resource saving mostly, and that's fine.

What I haven't heard anything about is the audio. Nice sound effects can make a world of difference in a game like this, I'm hoping they're not being overlooked.

Vash02

2012-01-27, 08:22 AM

I feel like the tanks especially could have been made so much better by reinforcing teamwork through things like built in voice comms and being able to mark targets for each other..

I believe vehicle voice comms are being implemented in PS2.

Graywolves

2012-01-27, 09:46 AM

I think the Galaxy in its current form is going to be a nightmare to balance.

The AMS indirectly was defended by the players it spawned and directly defended itself through being concealed. The cloaking allowed it to be hidden and not be focused or spawn camped.

The Galaxy is massive and can not cloak. Indirectly it still has 100's of players pouring from it. But now it has 4 turrets on it. Are these turrets destructible or does the whole galaxy need to be destroyed? Finding the Galaxy won't be any part of the battle at all except for certain situations. Infantry fights away from facilities will become less because the de facto objective in this game is to remove your opponents spawn. Infantry is already coming from the Galaxy but there's also turrets cutting down opposition.

So the threats of the Galaxy come to Vehicles, air and ground.(This is a good moment to note that an AA Galaxy could be rediculous and that an AV Galaxy will have little threat on the ground.) The Liberator's bomber or gunner is no longer fixed, so it doesn't need to fly directly over the Galaxy to destroy everything around it. Ground Vehicles will lay waste as well.

Bottom Line: The Galaxy as a spawn is too obvious. If it has too much armor and too powerful turrets, it will become an advanced fortress. Would the Galaxy have too little armor it would be destroyed too quickly and would not be useful in Gal Drops. (too much armor could also result in forced spawn camping)

CutterJohn

2012-01-27, 09:56 AM

And a musket compared to a modern day rifle is terrible. Seriously, who is arguing that we keep the mechanics exactly the same as PS1? what people dont like are the changes being made, not that changes are being made.

The guy I responded to wanted PS2 to basically be a reskinned PS1. And most every time there is a ruckus about a changed mechanic, the most popular answer seems to be 'do it like PS1'. OSOK snipers, 1 man tanks, no ams.. I mean people even argued to have ANTs! Worst idea ever, but people want it back.

I don't like all the changes they are making, but I support them, since they will bring in a wider audience, more people, and the single most important aspect of PS, the thing that makes or breaks the game, and trumps all other considerations, is population. Without it, the game dies.

and the move away from teamwork for the MBTs

Thing that bugs me about that is that everyone calls it teamwork. Its not. I got no small number of kills just hopping onto the gun of some random persons tank and playing rail shooter. You can work together, but there is not much you can do to improve upon it.

The driver/gunner vehicle style was a balance choice. It wasn't about teamwork. PS2 tanks will be balanced differently.

FriendlyFire

2012-01-27, 09:59 AM

I am fine with the Galaxy being "too obvious," as long as it lives long enough to be defended. Gals should create some great battles and/or distractions on the battlefield.

Also... what happened to deployable towers?

Oryon22

2012-01-27, 10:11 AM

You're wrong. Almost every single aspect of PS1 was subpar, when taken by itself. Infantry combat was nowhere near as good as any other fps offering. Vehicle combat was nowhere near as good as any vehicle centric games. Air combat was nowhere near as good as any games featuring air. It was full of boring and tedious gameplay mechanics.

What it did right, and why all of it was tolerable, was the massive scale. That was the amazing aspect of the game. The gameplay itself was decidedly mediocre.

This is so goddamn true. Broken down, the individual forms of combat were mediocre, but it was the integration of all of these ingredients that were so appealing. It wasn't about playing the absolute best FPS, etc, it was the teamwork and using everybody's unique "role" tactfully on the field to complete objectives.

I'm confident the team will give us everything we loved about PS1, but expand upon the individual pieces of PS1 that were a bit "dull" on their own (infantry, vehicle, support, etc).

BlazingSun

2012-01-27, 10:14 AM

The only thing I didn't like was the mentioning of the killcam .. I don't think that this will add anything to the game. (And that's coming from someone who loved his V-V-B ... "Don't waste my time!")

Figment

2012-01-27, 10:31 AM

Classes? Cooler toys to play with.

No, the reasoning behind classes is restrictions on multi-combat roles, it is merely an alternative to the certification system with some different consequences.

AMS removed? Rolled into the Galaxy.

An action or design decision is not a reasoning. At all. The reasoning they gave for removing the AMS is that they don't want "hide and seek" gameplay, but battlefield objectives and in your face action (source: recent webcast)

Both are questionable reasonings, I might add.

As of now, every fear I see needs to be verified. Even for things like drivers controlling their own guns, we're unable to know whether it'll be an improvement or not...

90% certainty it will be worse however; as in more individualistic, larger masses of armour (totals) as everyone will get their own vehicle, less concentration on driving due to having to divide attention between a target behind you and a tree in front of you, a lot more aircraft (facing a lot more AA, even in the sky) and probably more vehicle camping - even if they can't fire in, they can still camp choke points like doors for anything that tries to come out.

The point was, the AMS itself wasn't very fun. It wasn't interactive and it wasn't interesting. It's impact, sure...but the vehicle itself? Nope.

There could have been alarms and sirens and arcade game consoles on it to make it more exciting. Wouldn't actually have improved gameplay.

If you define interaction by the amount of times you'd grab items from it, repaired them and other units inside the cloak bubble, drove it or blew it up, I've had more interactions with AMSes both friendly and enemy than with ANY other vehicle in game! Both as infantry and vehicle player, friendly and hostile.

There was a LOT of interaction with AMSes, using it in combination with Routers is incredibly interactive; re-equiping there constantly; finding and taking them out either straightforward or through infiltration jacking, using it to mask the approach of your units on an enemy base from enemy scout aircraft, even using an enemy AMS in their own CY to breach their CY, I could go on...

It doesn't have to do handstands to be good at its role or be interactive.

It was so good and able to do all those interactions properly, because it provided a resting position FROM combat and only because it is passive is it able to function as a spawnpoint for non-zerg situations. Why should everything be high profile?

So I'd say that reasoning is flawed and very coloured at the least. It was highly interactive, inventive, practical and functional and therefore highly succesful in multiple battlefield roles: defense, offense, field, base. It could be useful for any situation. The Galaxy-AMS does not seem very useful in a lot of situations.

Keep in mind that the galaxy isn't the only form of spawning we'll have, either. It could well be that someone with the necessary certs could sneak 'round to a backdoor (if they still exist) and have people spawn on him.

I suppose you've missed out on the droppod-in-the-field mechanics + timers + certification being severe limitations to spawning on squadleader? This is (deliberately) not a sustainable form of spawning.

Hence there is at least need for another form of spawning, my guess would be "towers/bunkers/outpost" spawnpoints and nearest action footzerg ribbons.

Hell, we still don't really know the feel of the engine either. Maybe having galaxies land inconspicuously won't be as unlikely as we're expecting.

It would require next to no open areas if you don't want them to be instant targets of hundreds of people. I'm sure certain continents with canyons can be quite suited, but it would extremely limit the type of continents you could create. Cyssor? Behind some rolling hills, possibly, but right near a bridgefight would be Magrider bait. Hossin? 90% of the continent would be too open, too flat and too hard to land between the trees. Desolation type dessert? HUGE open terrain to cross with infantry: sniper heaven.

Compared to a cloaked AMS in all these situations, a cloaked AMS could be placed virtually everywhere as long as it is not in the direct route of the enemy and can most certainly cut a long piece of the walking distance away.

Which means you are actually closer to the action with a cloaked AMS and have a better chance of survival.

Sure, the AMS itself may not be the center of attention, but then who'd want their spawnpoint to be the center of attention?

Graywolves

2012-01-27, 10:51 AM

Long post with good points

I agree. With the Galaxy I foresee a few possibilities. No matter what it's going to be the focus of all fire (Neutralizing the spawn has always been top priority).

1. Galaxy gets completley destroyed too easily.

2. Galaxy is too powerful and we have stalemates in the field.

3. Armor, turrets, etc is JUST right but infantry alone can't assualt it well.

4. Too weak and no longer can be used for dropping troops.

Depending on how OS works, I think the Galaxy will be too strong.

The reasoning for mixing the AMS with the Galaxy seems flawed, once you deploy the AMS the pilot is still finished with his role/part as piloting an AMS.

Another factor is that sometimes one side has complete air superiority, you can't really move the Galaxy anywhere in that case, it is too big to fly low and get anywhere unseen.

ratfusion

2012-01-27, 11:08 AM

I understand the concern of the AMS going away, I thought it was a very clever game play mechanic of PS1. I disagreed with the webcast stating that it wasn't very fun, it was very rewarding if you placed the AMS at the right time in the right spot to change the tide of battle.

I don't understand why Galaxies will deploy. Why not let people spawn in them airborne and continually bail out.. the unlimited dropship. This lets you have an AMS in the courtyard .. but only as long as you can stand the AA heat.

This also helps with the goal of fast paced combat, deployed Galaxies have to be well off their target or be shot up. Dropship Galaxies can hang around at the flight ceiling as long as their escort can keep them clean.

Figment

2012-01-27, 11:24 AM

@ratfusion: That'd still make it problematic for special ops. teams. Spec Ops teams want their spawn point to require as little manpower as possible, because their main concern is holding and they need as much manpower for that as possible.

Taking 1-5 people away to fly and/or guard the Galaxy constantly is not going to make their holds more sustainable. That is why passive defenses are so important to these players.

Probably also why people like me are so adamant about that particular element: we are used to working in small groups, not just by choice due to practicality, but also because the best strategic moves often get little support from people - not in the least because they're not confident in it getting enough support to be succesful. :P

I'd really like to hear Higby's ideas about Special Ops and other tactical groups in PS2. What size combat groups they are thinking off, what scenarios they have in mind, how fast do they expect both friendlies and enemies to redeploy to your location (particularly behind enemy lines), etc.

I mean, a SEAL or SAS team does not usualy exist of 50 people. Snipers usualy work in pairs. Etc. If you work behind enemy lines, it is likely that they have more spawnpoints locally available and can reach it faster by air (they could perhaps even cut you off almost completely from reinforcements with air superiority).

WNxClerve

2012-01-27, 11:43 AM

Reading through all of this I'm noticing something dramatic that hasn't been touched on directly. The way this game is predicted to playout has completely changed from PS1. Every tactic we've honed with precision, every play style, weapon, piece of equipment, landscape, structure, HUD, frame rate, lag, every aspect of this game has changed. We're trying to dissect each piece in comparison to PS1 and other games they are using for a foundation. WE have a new challenge before us, we need to devise how to play this game while being fun for the majority of players new and old.

When I first heard of classes, I wasn't happy. But then try to remember BR23 cap. You had a role to play. You we're able to change it but you never had everything all at once. Squads needed to be balanced to get things done, or they specialized in specific areas. You don't get have the one man army prospect. Team play.

I'm not against ANTs being gone, but I hope they leave in the battle of attrition NTU "resource" created. You needed to keep up the pressure on a base and eventually you are going to conquer it. Team effort, small squads don't get this done. Exception was starting a drain in the middle of nowhere, and even then you typically needed a solid group to make sure it went through, and then called in reinforcements when it did to start the continental campaign.

Galaxy advanced fortress. I have my reservations in comparison to an AMS. But having this means that the foot zerg tactic in an enemy courtyard is gone. End of story. No more. Find something else like say you must own the courtyard with Sunderers, Aircraft, MBTs before moving the Galaxy in closer. Team play to secure an advanced position. In the end all this means is a tactic has been changed, must find another way to get it done.

They haven't stated how territory=resources will be in effect. Will it be based similar to tactical map view from PS1? The only comparison I can fathom is that it is something similar in, concept only, to having a tech plant, amp station, dropship center etc... You must "aquire" said land rights/resources for your empires control to be able to use/pull said equipment. Bases won't be the only important acquisition on the field of battle.

All this boils down to is how we get things done has been modified, the principal goals haven't changed. A no statement outright doesn't help anything. Get a little creative and think what does this really mean for the game? How must we adjust our tactics? It actually isn't all that different from PS1. The key elements of how things got down have been broken down to a science and now we simply have a new challenge of doing the same thing again. Remember when hacking 1st level was useful? Only being able to hack med terms and lockers? When there weren't so many Adv Hackers available due cert expansion? Things changed. BFRs changed the battlefield granted, it's not the only reason why people left. Business model, new games, "HACKERS" and having run through the height of its interest all contributed. Cave's were fun. Gal drops were common and had regular escorts. Yes I love this game with all it's quirks but I'm really excited to try something new.

Shogun

2012-01-27, 11:43 AM

airborne galaxy spawning troops would be too overpowered.

a galdrop is always a challenge to defend. but imagine a fully loaded gal doing a galdrop with a hundred of dead soldiers ready to spawndrop at the same moment from this hotdropping gal! that will be hundreds of soldiers rushing through the same door in just some seconds! there would be no way to counter this kind of blitzkrieg tactics fast enough.

Vancha

2012-01-27, 12:04 PM

No, the reasoning behind classes is restrictions on multi-combat roles, it is merely an alternative to the certification system with some different consequences.
That was not the only reason. It was stated that the certification system limited what they were able to add, supposedly due to the resulting possible cert combinations being too powerful (which ties into the reason you mentioned) and that with the class system they'd be able to give us more interesting abilities.

An action or design decision is not a reasoning. At all. The reasoning they gave for removing the AMS is that they don't want "hide and seek" gameplay, but battlefield objectives and in your face action (source: recent webcast)

Both are questionable reasonings, I might add.
Granted, I worded that badly. My point was, people complained that without the AMS there'd be no (wait, let me go find the line), "mobile and place-able spawn point that can be destroyed by an enemy", with the upshot being that such a role had been rolled into the Galaxy.

90% certainty it will be worse however; as in more individualistic, larger masses of armour (totals) as everyone will get their own vehicle
Will they? How do you know there'll be enough resources for that?

less concentration on driving due to having to divide attention between a target behind you and a tree in front of you
Is that a bad thing? Lightning drivers seemed to manage. Additional difficulty doesn't seem bad at all.

a lot more aircraft
For any reason other than a larger population? And again, how do you know there'll be enough resources for that?

they can still camp choke points like doors for anything that tries to come out.
Can they?

There could have been alarms and sirens and arcade game consoles on it to make it more exciting. Wouldn't actually have improved gameplay.
Not even for the person driving the AMS? ;)

If you define interaction by the amount of times you'd grab items from it, repaired them and other units inside the cloak bubble, drove it or blew it up, I've had more interactions with AMSes both friendly and enemy than with ANY other vehicle in game! Both as infantry and vehicle player, friendly and hostile.

There was a LOT of interaction with AMSes, using it in combination with Routers is incredibly interactive; re-equiping there constantly; finding and taking them out either straightforward or through infiltration jacking, using it to mask the approach of your units on an enemy base from enemy scout aircraft, even using an enemy AMS in their own CY to breach their CY, I could go on...

It doesn't have to do handstands to be good at its role or be interactive.
I was talking about the interaction of the driver sitting in the driver's seat. When I said the only thing interesting was it's impact (i.e. post-deployment, while in use), I was talking about the things you mentioned. Thank you for proving my point.

The AMS was slow and annoying to drive, and assuming you weren't picked off by a reaver en route, you had the joy of turning up to find someone else had driven one there while you were on the way, upon which you could either get out and deconstruct it, or deploy it nearby and babysit it from cloakers, hoping the other one would get blown up and you'd finally be able to utilize it.

Like many people who reminisce about Planetside, you're remembering the good bits and forgetting the tedium. For example, now when aircraft start camping our spawn point, we can get into a gunner position and defend ourselves instead of trying to rush to the terminal to pull out an AA set-up (assuming you had one), turn around, pull out the relevant weapon and fire it before we're sat staring at the respawn screen again.

Besides, most of what you mentioned could end up being on the Galaxy. Hell, we might be able to have 12 people spawn at a Gal, have them get in and drop them over the base and then redeploy so we can do it again. That'll be a hell of a lot more interesting than sitting in the driver's seat of an AMS ever was.

It was so good and able to do all those interactions properly, because it provided a resting position FROM combat and only because it is passive is it able to function as a spawnpoint for non-zerg situations. Why should everything be high profile?

So I'd say that reasoning is flawed and very coloured at the least. It was highly interactive, inventive, practical and functional and therefore highly succesful in multiple battlefield roles: defense, offense, field, base. It could be useful for any situation. The Galaxy-AMS does not seem very useful in a lot of situations.
How do you know a Galaxy won't also provide a resting position from combat? I mean, in any battle you'd need a rest from, the AMS wasn't going to be in plain view, otherwise it'd be fired upon regardless of it's cloaking bubble. It'd be behind a hill or a mountain, out of line-of-sight of the enemy.

What do you mean the Galaxy does not "seem" very useful? How do you know? I'm getting the feeling your internal framework currently consists of a Planetside 1 spec-ops mission where the amount of people involved barely reach double digits. In which case, yes, it does not sound like the Galaxy will be ideally suited, but we still can't really know.

I suppose you've missed out on the droppod-in-the-field mechanics + timers + certification being severe limitations to spawning on squadleader? This is (deliberately) not a sustainable form of spawning.

Hence there is at least need for another form of spawning, my guess would be "towers/bunkers/outpost" spawnpoints and nearest action footzerg ribbons.
Yes, I'd forgotten about that. What are "nearest action footzerg ribbons"?

Who knows what other forms of spawning might still be in store? You'll have to wait and see.

It would require next to no open areas if you don't want them to be instant targets of hundreds of people. I'm sure certain continents with canyons can be quite suited, but it would extremely limit the type of continents you could create. Cyssor? Behind some rolling hills, possibly, but right near a bridgefight would be Magrider bait. Hossin? 90% of the continent would be too open, too flat and too hard to land between the trees. Desolation type dessert? HUGE open terrain to cross with infantry: sniper heaven.

Compared to a cloaked AMS in all these situations, a cloaked AMS could be placed virtually everywhere as long as it is not in the direct route of the enemy and can most certainly cut a long piece of the walking distance away.

Which means you are actually closer to the action with a cloaked AMS and have a better chance of survival.

Sure, the AMS itself may not be the center of attention, but then who'd want their spawnpoint to be the center of attention?
Wait, why are you using Planetside's continents as examples? This is a different game. The relative spaces, distances and speed of travel could be very different to the thing you're using as context.

Edit:Reading through all of this I'm noticing something dramatic that hasn't been touched on directly. The way this game is predicted to playout has completely changed from PS1. Every tactic we've honed with precision, every play style, weapon, piece of equipment, landscape, structure, HUD, frame rate, lag, every aspect of this game has changed. We're trying to dissect each piece in comparison to PS1 and other games they are using for a foundation. WE have a new challenge before us, we need to devise how to play this game while being fun for the majority of players new and old.
Well at least someone gets it.

BorisBlade

2012-01-27, 12:30 PM

So if the lightning is one man and its the best AA, why would you get an AA max unless you are standing on a wall? The skyguard was different cause it needed two people to get the mobility, extra armor, and extra firepower, if you were solo you picked up a max. Now unless im hiding in a bunker or somethin, you always want the lightning. Honestly between lightning vs AA max and lightning vs solo use main tank, I'm not seeing them doin very good jobs of giving these vehicles their own niche's they just dont differentiate them enough at all. Then come buggies later, try to fit them in when they must have a pilot who only drives and a gunner, why not just get a tank? or two lightnings? These things look cool but functionality wise i think are being handled very poorly. Screwing up the manpower aspects as well as giving main guns to pilots in too many vehicles, was a very huge mistake. It was always a big balancing factor in PS as well as helping to give each its own role or niche to differentiate vehicles better, now its completely screwed up and makes no sense.

I seriously hope beta makes these obvious mistakes very apparent and unlike PS1 testing, they actually pay attention and fix stuff before releasing it.

Graywolves

2012-01-27, 12:32 PM

I drove the AMS less than 4 months ago and enjoyed it.

PS - I wish people read my longer posts.

Vancha

2012-01-27, 12:36 PM

I drove the AMS less than 4 months ago and enjoyed it.

PS - I wish people read my longer posts.

Some people enjoy cutting themselves. What did you enjoy about it?

WNxClerve

2012-01-27, 12:36 PM

Vash02

2012-01-27, 12:43 PM

I drove the AMS less than 4 months ago and enjoyed it.

PS - I wish people read my longer posts.
I read it and agreed fully.

Taking out the AMS because the drive to the fight is boring seems a bit :doh:

now Gal pilots will have to land, get out and sit in the topside AA turret to make sure a reaver doesent start nibbling his gal while everyone spawning runs off to the action. An AMS driver, in the meantime, could just go and join them.

Vancha

2012-01-27, 12:55 PM

I read it and agreed fully.

Taking out the AMS because the drive to the fight is boring seems a bit :doh:

now Gal pilots will have to land, get out and sit in the topside AA turret to make sure a reaver doesent start nibbling his gal while everyone spawning runs off to the action. An AMS driver, in the meantime, could just go and join them.

What's to stop an AMS getting nibbled by a reaver? Lets be honest, the cloaking bubble didn't really stop it being found due to the breadcrumbs of troops. It was everything between the AMS and enemy that stopped it from being obliterated.

WNxClerve

2012-01-27, 12:55 PM

now Gal pilots will have to land, get out and sit in the topside AA turret to make sure a reaver doesent start nibbling his gal while everyone spawning runs off to the action. An AMS driver, in the meantime, could just go and join them.

Think a little bit beyond this. This isn't an AMS with a cloaking bubble. You're visible to the world. You are spewing out hundreds of soldiers who are pouring into a facility. The enemy wants you dead. You've got a flight crew with you and you've been given the task to make sure soldiers keep poring into the base. Frontline fortress defense. Not everyone likes going into the mosh pit of death, lots from PS1 were close to the interior battle healing and resurrecting while still there were always a few roaming around outside to keep away the pests.

No not everyone is going to want to do this, but you are going to need to find someone that does want to do this. Keep in mind the population we're looking at here. What seems to be happening is SOE is finding lots of different things that need to be done to be successful thus catering to a much wider group of players with a greater degree of interesting jobs that need to be done.

You yourself may not want to do this but some will want to do this, now play nice and work together to kick the NC and TR off the continent!

Figment

2012-01-27, 01:13 PM

Granted, I worded that badly. My point was, people complained that without the AMS there'd be no (wait, let me go find the line), "mobile and place-able spawn point that can be destroyed by an enemy", with the upshot being that such a role had been rolled into the Galaxy.

Only partially rolled into the Galaxy. Only outdoor field combat spawnpoints and even then only a portion of the AMS applicability. I cannot accept you equalizing the two vehicles on any usability level, for they do not work in all the same situations.

The Gal is more suited to hot combat (where an AMS would already be discovered) and could be used in some imaginative high altitude positions you'd need a Lodestar for in PS1, but everywhere else it's a lesser alternative.

Will they? How do you know there'll be enough resources for that?

How do you know there won't be if everyone gets their share of resources? We both know that two vehicles survive longer than just one and that this is roughly exponentially true for more vehicles.

So if you can indicate that there are major downtimes between vehicle acquisitions, be my guest. But you'd have to explain why Higby mentioned vehicle timers as well if resources alone are restriction enough. Timers indicate frequent acquisition, after all.

Is that a bad thing? Lightning drivers seemed to manage. Additional difficulty doesn't seem bad at all.

Yes, it is a bad thing, I'm not interested in explaining it, but if you can't figure it out for yourself, fine. When chasing Lightning's, APCs or heavy tanks in a Fury, Lightnings hit more rocks and that's what got them killed because they'd stop firing to look at what the hell they just hit, would lose a good angle, would become easy stationary targets and they take more damage from collissions. Let alone driving them into minefields while they fire backwards. Buggies and MBTs avoid those more effectively thanks to the dedicated driver. APCs and heavy tanks play much smarter in PS1 and therefore survive more easily as they reach safety much easier.

Basically, you are dumbing down the game, tremendously and unnecessarily because some short attentionspan ADHD kids get bored driving and tarring the entire population with this brush: "people didn't like it". Say what? I LOVED being the driver of a Thunderer. I wouldn't have want to gun as well, because I'd constantly die to everything. I want to work with my friends, be able to trust on their abilities and enhance their abilities.

Driver gunnery represents weaker, individualistic killwhoring for the "modern gamer" of hyperactive screaming epeen kiddies. How the hell is that an improvement?

For any reason other than a larger population? And again, how do you know there'll be enough resources for that?

How do you know there won't be? Ever heard of the Law of Large Numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers)?

Can they?

No of course you cannot aim at the ground in front of a shield, the wall next to a shield or the shield itself or the person coming through a shield.

Camping means waiting for a target. OF COURSE THEY CAN CAMP. Don't act like a fool.

Not even for the person driving the AMS? ;)

No. I don't think it'd improve AMS gameplay for the driver if you get chased even more than you already were. Returning fire could have been an improvement (see Hayoo's MULE ANT concept with a gunner) on the run, but would normally only give your position away.

As spawnpoint holder, you don't want uninvited guests or any form of unfriendly attention. Simple as that.

I was talking about the interaction of the driver sitting in the driver's seat. When I said the only thing interesting was it's impact (i.e. post-deployment, while in use), I was talking about the things you mentioned. Thank you for proving my point.

Then be clear, but I've never had problems with driving beyond a couple bad map designs where you'd get stuck on the hill (road to Mithra from warpgate). Beyond that, it's been a great pleasure driving them. But hey, I'm an infil, I do stealth. Stealth is avoiding combat. You should try it, it's trickier than you think if everyone is out to find and kill you.

The AMS was slow and annoying to drive, and assuming you weren't picked off by a reaver en route, you had the joy of turning up to find someone else had driven one there while you were on the way, upon which you could either get out and deconstruct it, or deploy it nearby and babysit it from cloakers, hoping the other one would get blown up and you'd finally be able to utilize it.

Then you're a bad driver and/or teamplayer if that's what you think and if that annoys you. If you can't appreciate someone else being thoughtfull enough to bring a spawnpoint, that's your problem, not a vehicle problem.

And hey, perhaps you could have used Reveal Friendly now and then. I know, nobody uses it except me when I check for AMSes and ANTs and if there are friendlies I can work with in the far away from zerg spot I'm going to resec or cap...

But consider that if you didn't have some placement restrictions, there'd be too many spawnpoints to take out. Three near a base is a good number and the deployment radius was effective enough to restrict AMS spam.

Like many people who reminisce about Planetside, you're remembering the good bits and forgetting the tedium. For example, now when aircraft start camping our spawn point, we can get into a gunner position and defend ourselves instead of trying to rush to the terminal to pull out an AA set-up (assuming you had one), turn around, pull out the relevant weapon and fire it before we're sat staring at the respawn screen again.

And you are forgetting that you can't prevent them from finding you in the first place. And that most likely the Galaxy will die faster than you think, a stationary turret and gun is crap (only the top and tail gun will be somewhat useful, all (other) guns will have horrid blocked angles and you only have two or three you can aim at an enemy due to the Galaxy being in the way and your angles).

Being a cloaker, I've gunned enough stationary hijacked Galaxies to understand their firing angles.

You seem to trust too much in a concept you don't quite seem to understand.

Besides, most of what you mentioned could end up being on the Galaxy. Hell, we might be able to have 12 people spawn at a Gal, have them get in and drop them over the base and then redeploy so we can do it again. That'll be a hell of a lot more interesting than sitting in the driver's seat of an AMS ever was.

You think you can survive back and forth trips and that once you drop people they won't be picked off by waiting enemies, that nobody will pursue your Galaxy and that everyone will allow you to drop time and again?

Sorry, but you are the one who thinks vehicles, including Galaxies will be restricted in numbers. You also seem to forget that Galaxies will be in relatively short supply upon destruction, as you'll have to go back to warpgate or tech plant (confirmed as only locations of acquisition) to get a new one. WHICH MEANS, that in player economy psychology, a single Galaxy is far too precious to constantly risk!

Hadn't thought of that yet, had you? :p

How do you know a Galaxy won't also provide a resting position from combat? I mean, in any battle you'd need a rest from, the AMS wasn't going to be in plain view, otherwise it'd be fired upon regardless of it's cloaking bubble. It'd be behind a hill or a mountain, out of line-of-sight of the enemy.

1. Size.
2. Not having been spotted yet.
3. Quiet before the storm (preparations, example would be Router assault setup by having people spawn, bind and deconstruct till Router is active)
4. Applicable positions (directly related to points 1 and 2)

Use some imagination, please. Your simplistic view on gameplay really, really hurts. Can't you ever at least run a scenario and try to figure something out for yourself?

What do you mean the Galaxy does not "seem" very useful? How do you know? I'm getting the feeling your internal framework currently consists of a Planetside 1 spec-ops mission where the amount of people involved barely reach double digits. In which case, yes, it does not sound like the Galaxy will be ideally suited, but we still can't really know.

2000 players per map. At least a 1000 of them are enemy. Your team will consist of 3-30 players, if you are a zergfit let's go extreme and say 50-200. Zergfit for whatever reason comes to resecure behind their lines and brings 10=50% of their crew.

You really don't want people isolated outside defending an undefendable position. You'd just leave the Galaxy there to be destroyed so you can focus manpower where you need it.

Sorry, but you're not a really strategic person, are you? And if you're saying our type of spec ops are passé... Wow. That just ruined the whole game because it's only catering to the masses. Literally. Enjoy your "new game" then, but apparently you are someone who does not think of others than yourself.

As said before, Galaxy will be fine for the larger masses, it'll be horrid for smaller groups. Why do you assume everything in PS2 will be about mass combat for both sides? And why is removing good options for niche, tactical gameplay a good thing?

You never answered that question. Seems like you are the one stuck in your own mindset by not considering players who like alternatives to your gameplay.

Yes, I'd forgotten about that. What are "nearest action footzerg ribbons"?

Nearest action footzerg ribbons? Spawnpoint --> footzerg --> action --> farm --> commander annoyance.

You know, those lines of red dots and Phoenix rockets that give away your AMS position or those people that don't grab vehicles or get an AMS closer in when they really should be, because logistics of walking from the solid spawnpoint to base are literally murder.

Who knows what other forms of spawning might still be in store? You'll have to wait and see.

Well according to your argument above about them adding the option to the Gal because there had to be something, there won't be any other mobile / freely placeable CE type spawnpoints either. So solid and already in place, droppod, or Galaxy.

Wait, why are you using Planetside's continents as examples? This is a different game. The relative spaces, distances and speed of travel could be very different to the thing you're using as context.

I use it because I then don't have to get into a lengthy depiction of a continent as the names provide us all with a visual sample. And because there isn't much more terrain options beyond flat(tish), foresty, swampy, hilly and canyony. AND because ALL the images we have seen sofar of terrain in PS2 is either canyon or extremely open terrain. Just look at games like FarCry 2, everything that is in there, we had on one a couple continents in PS1, but then we had way more climate differences. Don't forget that these continents aren't created for hiding or positioning Galaxies, but for vehicle combat. You can't put cliffs everywhere if you want to create versatile gameplay for ground vehicles.

So, please give me any reason (preferably based on known footage) why I should: 1. have to assume otherwise 2. how these continents do not give a proper impression of terrain in the field.

The only thing that is different sofar is the CYs as they have been much improved with more buildings to use as cover (for infantry and smaller vehicles, not Galaxies that fly over them and don't fit well in between, nor have good firing angles in there). Even that terrain is better suited to an AMS.

Maps in PS2 CANNOT be that different! They simply CAN'T, because we've had almost the entire range for maps on such a scale with PS1 already and the new game will have an entire range of map types again, which will have to be suitable for infantry, vehicles and aircraft. Both short, medium and long range units. That means that infantry will have at least on more than one occassion a few hundred meters to cross from the nearest hills before they get to the walls of a base. Placing a stationary Galaxy in that area is as much suicide as parking next to a nuclear bomb test: it'll be gone in mere seconds.

The largest field obstructions we'll be seeing are cliffs and hills, followed by rocks or rock formations (not suitable for every map) and trees (again, not suitable for every climate map). However, I don't think we'll see these things equally on every map, because then every map becomes too much of the same thing and same gameplay. You'll want to vary. That means open terrain, enclosed terrain, etc. I can imagine there'll be bases you can almost assault from above by placing the gal on an overlying ridge, but not on continents like Cyssor next to a river or lake shore, because that will probably be mostly flat, open terrain.

Either way, it will severely restrict placement of a large object that says "SHOOT ME WITH ALL YOU GOT" to further off, covert areas, further away from the action - certainly not in direct line of sight. That'd be suicidal even if it could survive a little damage.

PoisonTaco

2012-01-27, 01:25 PM

Figment

2012-01-27, 01:27 PM

Think a little bit beyond this. This isn't an AMS with a cloaking bubble. You're visible to the world. You are spewing out hundreds of soldiers who are pouring into a facility. The enemy wants you dead. You've got a flight crew with you and you've been given the task to make sure soldiers keep poring into the base. Frontline fortress defense. Not everyone likes going into the mosh pit of death, lots from PS1 were close to the interior battle healing and resurrecting while still there were always a few roaming around outside to keep away the pests.

No not everyone is going to want to do this, but you are going to need to find someone that does want to do this. Keep in mind the population we're looking at here. What seems to be happening is SOE is finding lots of different things that need to be done to be successful thus catering to a much wider group of players with a greater degree of interesting jobs that need to be done.

You yourself may not want to do this but some will want to do this, now play nice and work together to kick the NC and TR off the continent!

So why not COMPLEMENT these Royal Galaxy Palatial Guard guys with stealthy, sneaky AMS bastards?

I don't see an argument. In fact, you say cater to more people and things and then go and restrict options? Sounds like a paradox to me.

Figment

2012-01-27, 01:38 PM

How about we save the argument for when we actually know how the game plays out? This is not PS1, this is PS2. Things are going to be different whether you like it or not. Just because the Galaxy is the AMS doesn't mean it's the end of the world.

In fact as the devs were talking about the Galaxy being the AMS they said they're going to make it fun, they're going to make it so you can defend it. It won't be perfect. Maybe the defense will be too good, maybe it won't be good enough.

Right now the information we're being given is just small bits about the game. The devs can tell us all they want about what vehicle x and upgrade y can do but we still don't have the big picture. At the end of the day the devs are trying to make a fun game. I personally like what I'm hearing and I'm looking forward to seeing how it will all play out.

Figment just relax, the game is going to be all right. If all else fails there will be plenty of opportunity to point out how wrong the devs are with testing feedback. :)

Then let's close the forums right now, because there's no need for us to be discussing PS2 yet.

Let alone put out "danger signs" for devs to look at, rather than wait till it's too late and we get either quick hot fixes or way overdue patches.

Think Phantasm 12mm. Like you do now, people said "wait and see". Me and others were 100% accurate in abuse predictions. It took two weeks of incessant invisible 12mm infantry whoring, a lot of forum whining, people quitting and a huge dent to dev credibility for it to be changed.

Could all have been prevented if use scenarios are actually taken serious. It's not like I'm making these things up as I go. Just because PS2 is not PS1, does not mean it is incomparable. I can compare PS1 with CoD easily, in fact, I use my infil and Mag Scat, Boomer, kniving and Sweeper experience from PS1 to utterly pwn my buddies in CoD MW. Where as far as I know I have both a different control system and am at all times completely visible. Sure, there are tweaks, but they are pretty minor. Thing is, player behaviour is exactly the same: predictable and easy to exploit. Bait still works, open areas and choke points work, rounding corners ahead of rounding it works. Basic combat strategies for any FPS remain the same.

Lessons from great generals such as Sun Tzu, Caesar, Alexander and Napoleon will always be applicable, even if we don't use parts of it like square formations to fend of cavalry anymore. Basics were applicable to PS1 and will be applicable to PS2 as though it'll be more like BF3, BF games in general are also comparable to PS1 on many levels. The main differences will be in its details and scale. More general things mostly require basic extrapolation.

Sorry, not to mean this as an insult, but in general people that say wait for beta often lack one thing: imagination.

WNxClerve

2012-01-27, 01:39 PM

For all this flaming between Figment and Vancha I'm only seeing a complaint that a favored tactic has been removed.

Sunderer seems to me a good solution to foot travel. For one, you're safe all the way into the courtyard. When you do deploy, you've got 11 buddies with you ready to go. Sounds kinda like an old fashion Max crash with a courtyard twist. Instead of a never ending line of foot zerging you'll get waves of infantry.

Assuming strict PS1 mechanics I could see some real difficulty for this. Mostly in the wait time between waves if an empire can't organize properly. I'm kinda more curious about the outbuildings of base and their potential value for both defenders and assaults. Spawn hut control?

polywomple

2012-01-27, 01:43 PM

imagination

more like making problems out of nothing

lol

though I dont think the MBT should be one manned

PoisonTaco

2012-01-27, 01:49 PM

Sorry, not to mean this as an insult, but in general people that say wait for beta often lack one thing: imagination.

Imagination is all well and good, but when you start envisioning a game that doesn't exist you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

They took out the respawn truck, so what? If they took it obviously there's going to be alternatives because nothing is more frustrating than being killed, and having to run all the way across a huge map only to die again and repeat the process.

They're going to need ways of getting people into a fight without a lot of travel time. With the AMS gone my best guess is that there's more spawn points out in the world itself. Or maybe there's something that can be constructed or placed by a commander/engineer. Something like the drop pod beacon from BF2142.

I don't really care how they do it, AMS or no AMS, all I want is a fun game. I'll take the wait and see approach because this is going to be a different game than PS1. Also keep in mind that we're going for territory control and bases won't be the main focus points. Perhaps that has changed the dynamics and maybe that's one reason why the AMS got cut.

All I'm really saying is that we simply don't know enough about this game to judge whether or not the inclusion of x feature is a good decision or a bad one.

Figment

2012-01-27, 01:52 PM

For all this flaming between Figment and Vancha I'm only seeing a complaint that a favored tactic has been removed.

I've not been flaming Vancha in these posts. I do want to get him to think about certain things a bit more.

Sunderer seems to me a good solution to foot travel. For one, you're safe all the way into the courtyard. When you do deploy, you've got 11 buddies with you ready to go. Sounds kinda like an old fashion Max crash with a courtyard twist. Instead of a never ending line of foot zerging you'll get waves of infantry.

I'm not sure if Sunderer is a good alternative at all times, it is not a replacement for a spawn point, it's a partial replacement for a footzerg. One problem is it could become predictable, which means other people would set up countermeasures (probably the double/triple Sund drops with two empty ones one full one can be used to overcome such countermeasures at least partially - particularly CE).

It is however becoming more viable as you can drive in relatively safely compared to PS1 (4x tank armour seems to at least allow some, especially with mine damage mitigation from a defense slot), depends a bit on how many guns will be trained on your big, juicy exp target of course (likely more in zerg situations than in PS1 given the presence of more people). The smokescreen will also help and it is likely people will wait with getting out till they fired from their Sundy portholes. Depends on how much health at that time it has left.

Can't deconstruct to force everyone to get out, so hope you can at least force a drop by locking it (think they were interested in that idea with respect to forcing a Galaxy drop, so not too concerned with that).

Assuming strict PS1 mechanics I could see some real difficulty for this. Mostly in the wait time between waves if an empire can't organize properly. I'm kinda more curious about the outbuildings of base and their potential value for both defenders and assaults. Spawn hut control?

(@this and @Taco) that's indeed why I said local solid spawn points are more likely. :) The more sectioned setup of the bases seems to suggest something similar, of course it will still require you to get into the base first and depends on how easy it is to reach and take such positions.

If it's organizable depends on how easy it is to acquire Sunderers locally and how willing people are to get into a big target en mass, instead of playing fodder (like in PS1, could hardly get people in). That you can shoot out of m may help, as long as they don't get motion sick from looking sideways. :)

EDIT: @Taco: I'm not setting myself up for disappointment, I'm trying to prevent disappointment and make sure devs thought things true. If critique doesn't apply and they already covered it, great! If not and my critique is valid (considering I'm very explicit about the conditions they can check whether it is), then they can do something with it. However, what I don't need is someone blocking constructive critique from reaching devs because they try to keep a blank slate.

WNxClerve

2012-01-27, 02:10 PM

So since we're all in this now let's try work this out. PS2 proposed base capture cycle:

Main forms of troop transport:
Galaxy
Sunderer
Quad Bikes

Escort services:
Empire specific aircraft
Empire specific MBT
Liberator

The initial assault is typically the easiest, form a raid and at some point someone calls GO! Right now the sketchy part is how to keep a sustained assault moving forward. AMS->Galaxy is the main hitch we've got right now and the revealed options haven't given a good indicator of what can be done. Speculating the outbuildings or perhaps an engineering solution cause a Galaxy close or at distance isn't going to cut (consistent mini Sunderer raids would likely get old and would seem to be against the idea of "instant action")

Let me know what I missed and other ideas we can pitch to the devs to solve this or keep nagging them for how they have solved it already :)

Figment

2012-01-27, 02:17 PM

Don't forget mossie/reaver/scythe drops for transport, especially once they unlocked the bailing skill.

This strategy will be returning as well and will be seen by many as faster, more agile, more drop spots, has the potential of air superiority and a lower profile than a Galaxy drop, though not the respawn.

Overall it will probably be considered more efficient than Sunderers and ATVs for transport, especially over longer distances and difficult terrain. It COULD put a greater drain or strain on resources, but I'm not sure if people would be too concerned with that as long as they can grab stuff.

Nobel

2012-01-27, 02:29 PM

QuiCKaNdDeaDLy

2012-01-27, 02:34 PM

Gammit10

2012-01-27, 02:41 PM

They are bragging how detailed everything is, showing screenshots how you can see threads on uniforms, and then scratch holstering due performance issue. Im with you there. Less pointless details that only looks cool, more details that are cool/usefull

Amen. I would at least like the option.

WNxClerve

2012-01-27, 02:48 PM

How about this Compromise regarding the AMS Situation:
Mr. Higby and his Minions create a LowresModel for an AMS right now while they do this Kind of Stuff anyways and implement it in the Code so we can try both Variants in Beta and see what is best for the Game. This shouldnt take much time in the Current Dev. Process and they will have a Joker when the Gal Idea turns out to be an Epic Fail.

I prefer an Ace myself but I won't pick on the joker. What we do in Beta is likely to be the most important development process for this game. They are making this uber expensive, grand scale and visually stimulating game for us after all.

Tossing ideas back and forth now with, important word here, constructive criticism is the beginning of the process. Call this if you will a pre experience gaming forum in the development process.

The courtyard AMS, what other ideas can we come up with. I like the idea of having a real combat engineer. What type of restrictions would we impose for say a spawn beacon? Distance? Keep in mind to this may or may not include an eq layout, maybe need to setup a dispenser (TF2) nearby. Aegis Field Gen comes to mind with this.

QuiCKaNdDeaDLy

2012-01-27, 03:00 PM

Stop trying to be Battlefield 3, Stop trying to be TF2, Stop trying to Be Modern Warfare, Stop Sopa

This is Spa... uh Planetside!

WNxClerve

2012-01-27, 03:11 PM

Stop trying to be Battlefield 3, Stop trying to be TF2, Stop trying to Be Modern Warfare, Stop Sopa

This is Spa... uh Planetside!

Alright, so what's your idea then?:huh:

Figment

2012-01-27, 04:04 PM

Figment, I think you are trying to say something to others, yet perhaps not taking the advice yourself. Look at this from multiple perspectives. As the game is so speculative, and vastly different due to the HEX system, we dont know a lot of things yet, so keep in mind how the AMS might not be the best for these situations.

For instance in a HEX without a base, two cloaked spawn points just might not be as fun as two mobile "fortresses" that creates visible objectives for players.

Also, in bases, we have no idea how spawning works there, for all we know in each section of the courtyard there could be different spawn room. So that might replace in courtyard AMS's.

Speculation is great, but we don't know the details yet, simply because it wouldn't work in PS1 doesn't mean the new game hasn't accounted for these differences yet. Coming at this in a "this is how it will work because Ive played Planetside 1 for a long time" isnt a logical argument, its okay if this is your speculation, but that just isnt the feeling I get by your positions.

Which is why I run many scenarios and I NEVER, EVER stated it will be per definition like such and such or that I'm always right. I've ALWAYS said it is always under the conditions stated and that my judgements and evaluations are based on those. However, a lot of conditions are derived, I know they may not all be true, but the likeliness of them all being wrong is rather slim, because alternatives would often be either much worse or not possible.

I mean, you're the what, twentieth person to mention solid capturable spawns in the last few days as an alternative we don't know about yet, even though I've been mentioning these for months as complementary to the Gal and have been comparing those with "BF2 capture the flag" spawnpoints among other thing. I DO consider non-PS1 things continuously. If I make a PS1 analogy, it's cause I think it's the best thing to illustrate with and because this community happens to know that context as well.

Yes, I do think of and use different conditions, look at what is more likely and then go with that in posts. My posts are lengthy enough without running through the 5, 6 alternative scenarios (and why I don't see those happen) I've come up with as well, not? :p So please stop telling people to stop comparing to PS1 (or other things). There's enough information to go on.

As for the hexes, each hex will have their own objectives to capture it, since you cannot expect a Gal to be there to become an objective all the time. As such, a Galaxy is not a needed objective, it's an extra objective. An AMS could also be an extra objective, don't quite understand why it would have to be visually present to the enemy for it to be an objective.

In my mind at least, missions could perhaps be applied hex wide, as they could be facility, even unit specific: "Locate and destroy AMS units in grid C6", "Expand/Conquer/Defend Auraxium Mine", "Destroy enemy MBTs" or a specific deployed Gal. Hell, I'm even thinking of what submenus and categories you could have for missions, macro vs typed, you name it...

Hexes without a base of their own, will most likely (as been hinted at in earlier dev responses), be controlled from towers, outposts or nearby bases in nearby hexes (multi-hex control). They did also mention that control of positions, ridges etc. would also be important. It IS possible that a Galaxy makes this somehow possible by placing it in a certain area and keeping it clear. Could also be you can do this from your Vanguard or even that you need a minimum amount of players to do so. Think they did say something on the matter (just passing through wasn't quite enough iirc), but can't quite recall the exact phrasing.

It could also be you'd have to deploy your empire's towers or other fortifications or upgrades (as deploying towers will apparently be possible). So capture/replace/destroy those of your enemy to make them lose control of the hex. Obviously these new towers would also serve as spawnpoints. It is even possible they'll have a sort of a huge flying base following the zerg around if we go all the way to left field theory. There could also just be things as simple as flags on hilltops. All those things are possible, but not equally likely. Problem is, none of those make the Gal the most or more logical choice for a spawn point in EVERY situation where a solid spawn is not enough. It's got it's own role and I'm fine with that, but to say it is enough now is not considering scenarios where it is not enough or not what you are looking for. THAT would be shortsighted.

Unfortunately, as most likely alternative, solid spawnpoints are often decent to defend, but poor, because everyone will soon enough know where these are located and you can't get these specific points physically closer to where you need to spawn to get that next spawnpoint. Which means you can lose a fight or create a stalemate on travel time alone. That's not something exclusive to PS1, that's true for any red vs blue situation if distances between spawnpoints are somewhat long.

Another rhetoric question. What's the first thing that gets attacked and camped in a cave? The Redoubt or mod: solid and known spawn points are the first thing people home in on. They appear completely different from a normal base, fastly more cover around it, yet it ends up working the exact same even though context changed. How do you keep it defended? By manning the Sentry Turrets and protecting it outside with infantry et all, right? So basically, just like they describe the Galaxy.

How long can you keep that up when the turrets die quickly? Usualy not very long. Okay, but Galaxy turrets don't die one by one. So, what if they'd have to hit the Redoubt itself, so they take out all turrets even those that didn't have line of fire out along with the spawnpoint? More hitpoints, so takes a bit longer, might even have a shield, but since it's a bigger target and you can probably avoid line of sight with turrets now and then, may actually be a bit easier, not? That's how I think taking out a Galaxy fight will go even if it has cover around it and people firing from its guns and people around it in the field. The sole difference is it might try to relocate (making it an airborne barn to fire at that hovers further from the ground, thus is less covered by terrain). It doesn't mean it is at all times without a chance, but it is not the only option either.

In contrast, how long can you keep up that AMS nearby that the enemy can not home in on till it is found? The mechanic of a cloaked spawn is simply much more safer and more versatile than a Gal, try to apply a Gal or AMS to ANY scenario, ANY terrain, ANY FPS game you can think of. How often is the Gal actually better? Only in a few situations. Even a smaller deployable spawn (yes, including a portable CE construction without cloak) could be a better option at times, simply because it is less obvious. I doubt they'd do that last one though due to their other design considerations and decisions.

Also consider the shorter TTKs: you will have more need for close by spawn points, because the longer you run with a short TTK, the deadlier distance becomes. I'm not thinking of a PS1 setting here, at all. But the same is true in PS1: long travel distance == easier kill. Why couldn't I assume such things?

So yes, I'm thinking predominantly in a PS2 context. But just because some things change, are combined or alternatives are used, doesn't mean everything changes or past experience from MANY games (not just PS1) is invalid completely. One should always run lots of scenarios (some with assumptions/conditions/concepts much wilder than would ever be done), I just don't share 'm all here. Only the most likely ones.

FriendlyFire

2012-01-27, 04:27 PM

http://troll.me/images/y-so-srs-cod/y-so-srs-cod.jpg

I put Figment on my ignore list. Seriously. I am no longer interested in his opinions.

The Gal is a great idea and will change how we fight on the battlefield.

Vancha

2012-01-27, 04:34 PM

Edit: That took entirely too long to write. Fuck your long posts, Figment! :cry:

My god, every one of these replies is probably redundant by now.

Only partially rolled into the Galaxy. Only outdoor field combat spawnpoints and even then only a portion of the AMS applicability. I cannot accept you equalizing the two vehicles on any usability level, for they do not work in all the same situations.

The Gal is more suited to hot combat (where an AMS would already be discovered) and could be used in some imaginative high altitude positions you'd need a Lodestar for in PS1, but everywhere else it's a lesser alternative.
No, they might not work in the same situations, but then we have no reason to think situations will be identical in both games. Whereas in Planetside you want AMS' inside the CY, or just outside the CY walls, or by a backdoor, in Planetside 2 it might be the epitome of foolishness to have a spawn point that close to the base and there might not be backdoors.

How do you know there won't be if everyone gets their share of resources? We both know that two vehicles survive longer than just one and that this is roughly exponentially true for more vehicles.

So if you can indicate that there are major downtimes between vehicle acquisitions, be my guest. But you'd have to explain why Higby mentioned vehicle timers as well if resources alone are restriction enough. Timers indicate frequent acquisition, after all.
I don't know. We don't know either way. That's the point.

If resources are plentiful, then couldn't the timers prevent a larger mass of vehicles?

Would two gunnerless, base vehicles necessarily win against a fully skilled-out prowler with a gunner (who may himself have gunnery skills)? Admittedly, I'm not aware of how strong the gunner weapons are supposed to be.

Not to mention, we know there'll be environments that are unsuited to troops, tanks or aircraft. So there, if nowhere else, tanks will not rule.

Yes, it is a bad thing, I'm not interested in explaining it, but if you can't figure it out for yourself, fine. When chasing Lightning's, APCs or heavy tanks in a Fury, Lightnings hit more rocks and that's what got them killed because they'd stop firing to look at what the hell they just hit, would lose a good angle, would become easy stationary targets and they take more damage from collissions. Let alone driving them into minefields while they fire backwards. Buggies and MBTs avoid those more effectively thanks to the dedicated driver. APCs and heavy tanks play much smarter in PS1 and therefore survive more easily as they reach safety much easier.
Yeah, that's really something you're supposed to learn not to do within a day or so. I hit rocks/mines when I drove a lightning, but that's because I was a bad lightning driver.

Basically, you are dumbing down the game, tremendously and unnecessarily because some short attentionspan ADHD kids get bored driving and tarring the entire population with this brush: "people didn't like it". Say what? I LOVED being the driver of a Thunderer. I wouldn't have want to gun as well, because I'd constantly die to everything. I want to work with my friends, be able to trust on their abilities and enhance their abilities.
Making something harder is dumbing down the game? How is it dumbing down to have to drive and gun, while also having a gunner, rather than one person having to just concentrate on driving and one person just having to shoot what the driver's made available? Yes, you've removed the co-ordination that might exist between the driver and the gunner, but I don't think you could call the extent of that in Planetside so complex that giving the driver the main gun is "dumbing down", especially when you've already elaborated on the difficulty of doing both at once.

Driver gunnery represents weaker, individualistic killwhoring for the "modern gamer" of hyperactive screaming epeen kiddies. How the hell is that an improvement?
Or, it represents me being able to go after an important target instead of relying on either someone who can't shoot straight, or someone who yells at me for going after the important target over the juicy killwhore-alluring target.

You need to be careful not to discount everything in modern FPS' simply because they're in modern FPS'.

How do you know there won't be? Ever heard of the Law of Large Numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers)?
I don't really see how that applies here. What are your samples?

Again, we don't know either way. Not to mention, aircraft haven't changed in regards to what needs gunners and what doesn't.

No of course you cannot aim at the ground in front of a shield, the wall next to a shield or the shield itself or the person coming through a shield.

Camping means waiting for a target. OF COURSE THEY CAN CAMP. Don't act like a fool.
How do you know the shields in question won't be one-way? How do you know that the amount of room available for vehicles compared to the amount of possible exits for infantry at a base won't make camping impractical? How do you know there will be few enough chokepoints for camping to be in any way useful?

That's just off the top of my head. Try and imagine all the ways they might have tried to reduce the type of camping we saw in Planetside...

No. I don't think it'd improve AMS gameplay for the driver if you get chased even more than you already were. Returning fire could have been an improvement (see Hayoo's MULE ANT concept with a gunner) on the run, but would normally only give your position away.
How would an arcade game get you chased even more? A little mini-game similar to the bejeweled add-on I used during long rides in WoW would have broken up the tedium nicely. :p

Then be clear, but I've never had problems with driving beyond a couple bad map designs where you'd get stuck on the hill (road to Mithra from warpgate). Beyond that, it's been a great pleasure driving them. But hey, I'm an infil, I do stealth. Stealth is avoiding combat. You should try it, it's trickier than you think if everyone is out to find and kill you.
The only thing I did as much as sniping was infiltrating spawn rooms.

Then you're a bad driver and/or teamplayer if that's what you think and if that annoys you. If you can't appreciate someone else being thoughtfull enough to bring a spawnpoint, that's your problem, not a vehicle problem.

And hey, perhaps you could have used Reveal Friendly now and then. I know, nobody uses it except me when I check for AMSes and ANTs and if there are friendlies I can work with in the far away from zerg spot I'm going to resec or cap...

But consider that if you didn't have some placement restrictions, there'd be too many spawnpoints to take out. Three near a base is a good number and the deployment radius was effective enough to restrict AMS spam.
Aw, you were doing so well with the whole "not speaking for other people" thing, too. And your assumptions are wrong.

I understand the need for the placement restrictions, but considering the number of OS' now, they could probably be scrapped (I'm assuming everyone and their dog still has them?)

And you are forgetting that you can't prevent them from finding you in the first place. And that most likely the Galaxy will die faster than you think, a stationary turret and gun is crap (only the top and tail gun will be somewhat useful, all (other) guns will have horrid blocked angles and you only have two or three you can aim at an enemy due to the Galaxy being in the way and your angles).

Being a cloaker, I've gunned enough stationary hijacked Galaxies to understand their firing angles.

You seem to trust too much in a concept you don't quite seem to understand.
As if you could prevent anyone finding an AMS? Again, the only time the cloak bubble did anything was when there was basically no one using it.

You have a lot of experience with Planetside 2's Galaxy's fire angles, do you?

You think you can survive back and forth trips and that once you drop people they won't be picked off by waiting enemies, that nobody will pursue your Galaxy and that everyone will allow you to drop time and again?
I played long enough to know the full extent of an empire's potential laziness. No, it's probably not likely, but at least once, it'd be possible. ;)

Sorry, but you are the one who thinks vehicles, including Galaxies will be restricted in numbers. You also seem to forget that Galaxies will be in relatively short supply upon destruction, as you'll have to go back to warpgate or tech plant (confirmed as only locations of acquisition) to get a new one. WHICH MEANS, that in player economy psychology, a single Galaxy is far too precious to constantly risk!

Hadn't thought of that yet, had you? :p
It depends on the frequency of tech plants and warp gates, surely?

1. Size.
2. Not having been spotted yet.
3. Quiet before the storm (preparations, example would be Router assault setup by having people spawn, bind and deconstruct till Router is active)
4. Applicable positions (directly related to points 1 and 2)
1. Depends on environment and it's size relative to it.
2. Depends on pilot, it's sound effects, the environment and it's size relative to it.
3. Still may apply (not the router example, obviously), assuming a galaxy can have passengers and the ability to deploy into a spawn point.
4. See 1.

Use some imagination, please. Your simplistic view on gameplay really, really hurts. Can't you ever at least run a scenario and try to figure something out for yourself?
My imagination is why I disagree with you. You seem to run a single scenario from which you create your criticisms, but you don't seem to think of all the possible scenarios in which they might not apply. Again, lots of the scenarios you talk about are applicable to PS1 where they might absolutely not be to PS2.

2000 players per map. At least a 1000 of them are enemy. Your team will consist of 3-30 players, if you are a zergfit let's go extreme and say 50-200. Zergfit for whatever reason comes to resecure behind their lines and brings 10=50% of their crew.

You really don't want people isolated outside defending an undefendable position. You'd just leave the Galaxy there to be destroyed so you can focus manpower where you need it.

Sorry, but you're not a really strategic person, are you? And if you're saying our type of spec ops are passé... Wow. That just ruined the whole game because it's only catering to the masses. Literally. Enjoy your "new game" then, but apparently you are someone who does not think of others than yourself.

As said before, Galaxy will be fine for the larger masses, it'll be horrid for smaller groups. Why do you assume everything in PS2 will be about mass combat for both sides? And why is removing good options for niche, tactical gameplay a good thing?

You never answered that question. Seems like you are the one stuck in your own mindset by not considering players who like alternatives to your gameplay.
I don't know what "your type" of spec ops are. I don't know who you are. Again, you speak for me and make assumptions that are incorrect.

I don't know how well suited the galaxy will be for smaller groups. I said it's probably likelier that it won't be that great, but I don't know how you get from that to me saying anything about spec ops. I don't know what will be available to smaller groups in terms of spawning and being able to survive behind enemy lines. I could try and fabricate guesses, but for all I know they already have things planned to accommodate what you want, in which case adding those things to the Galaxy could be pointless.

Nearest action footzerg ribbons? Spawnpoint --> footzerg --> action --> farm --> commander annoyance.

You know, those lines of red dots and Phoenix rockets that give away your AMS position or those people that don't grab vehicles or get an AMS closer in when they really should be, because logistics of walking from the solid spawnpoint to base are literally murder.
Oh, sorry. I thought you were saying "Nearest action footzerg ribbons" were an alternate form of spawning, such as being able to spawn where there was a high density of allied troops or something.

Well according to your argument above about them adding the option to the Gal because there had to be something, there won't be any other mobile / freely placeable CE type spawnpoints either. So solid and already in place, droppod, or Galaxy.
Because they rolled the AMS into the Galaxy, there won't be freely placeable CE type spawnpoints? Nope. I don't remember saying that.

I use it because I then don't have to get into a lengthy depiction of a continent as the names provide us all with a visual sample. And because there isn't much more terrain options beyond flat(tish), foresty, swampy, hilly and canyony. AND because ALL the images we have seen sofar of terrain in PS2 is either canyon or extremely open terrain. Just look at games like FarCry 2, everything that is in there, we had on one a couple continents in PS1, but then we had way more climate differences. Don't forget that these continents aren't created for hiding or positioning Galaxies, but for vehicle combat. You can't put cliffs everywhere if you want to create versatile gameplay for ground vehicles.

So, please give me any reason (preferably based on known footage) why I should: 1. have to assume otherwise 2. how these continents do not give a proper impression of terrain in the field.

The only thing that is different sofar is the CYs as they have been much improved with more buildings to use as cover (for infantry and smaller vehicles, not Galaxies that fly over them and don't fit well in between, nor have good firing angles in there). Even that terrain is better suited to an AMS.

Maps in PS2 CANNOT be that different! They simply CAN'T, because we've had almost the entire range for maps on such a scale with PS1 already and the new game will have an entire range of map types again, which will have to be suitable for infantry, vehicles and aircraft. Both short, medium and long range units. That means that infantry will have at least on more than one occassion a few hundred meters to cross from the nearest hills before they get to the walls of a base. Placing a stationary Galaxy in that area is as much suicide as parking next to a nuclear bomb test: it'll be gone in mere seconds.

The largest field obstructions we'll be seeing are cliffs and hills, followed by rocks or rock formations (not suitable for every map) and trees (again, not suitable for every climate map). However, I don't think we'll see these things equally on every map, because then every map becomes too much of the same thing and same gameplay. You'll want to vary. That means open terrain, enclosed terrain, etc. I can imagine there'll be bases you can almost assault from above by placing the gal on an overlying ridge, but not on continents like Cyssor next to a river or lake shore, because that will probably be mostly flat, open terrain.

Either way, it will severely restrict placement of a large object that says "SHOOT ME WITH ALL YOU GOT" to further off, covert areas, further away from the action - certainly not in direct line of sight. That'd be suicidal even if it could survive a little damage.
Alright, watch the initial Planetside 2 teaser and tell me how close to the tower you think the Galaxy at the end would need to be for the troops that would be spawning at it to have a reasonable chance of capturing the tower and how far away from the tower it'd need to be to have a chance of surviving longer than 10 seconds.

Graywolves

2012-01-27, 04:43 PM

Some people enjoy cutting themselves. What did you enjoy about it?

As an AMS driver you are key to victory. Placing your AMS in a good location is important. The Drive itself was peaceful and nice or hectic and involved me nearly flipping the thing over (if it could flip).

No one HAD to drive an AMS and generally, people who didn't want to pull an AMS didn't have to.

Some people want to just killwhore, some just want to play support, some just want to fly, some just like driving. Many people enjoyed deploying an AMS and prepping it.

Bad Gal pilots were already in large numbers, I think we're gonna see a lot of chaos.

polywomple

2012-01-27, 05:02 PM

The gal had one strategy that was important above all other strategies.

Ramming. eyeeaaah.

Rbstr

2012-01-27, 05:10 PM

This is a game, not a PhD thesis.

Lrn 2 brevity, dudes.

Vancha

2012-01-27, 05:22 PM

The Drive itself was peaceful and nice or hectic and involved me nearly flipping the thing over (if it could flip).

Fair enough. I get the nice and peaceful thing, as well as the novelty of flipping it over. I drove plenty of AMS' over the years, but the experience always drifted just a little too far into "boring", especially if I had to go uphill...

This is a game, not a PhD thesis.

Lrn 2 brevity, dudes.
Usually it's just all the quotes I include that make my posts stretch the page, but in this case...Well, I still blame Figment, actually.

Hamma

2012-01-27, 05:30 PM

Vancha and Figment, please agree to disagree or add eachother to your ignore lists. Nobody is reading your massive novels and quote chains in these threads.. so there's no point in cluttering them.

SKYeXile

2012-01-27, 05:32 PM

Vancha

2012-01-27, 05:44 PM

Vancha and Figment, please agree to disagree or add eachother to your ignore lists. Nobody is reading your massive novels and quote chains in these threads.. so there's no point in cluttering them.
Ahrm, massive novels? They're novellas at best, or otherwise novelettes...

Uh, that is to say, I mean, aye aye Cap'n!

Make them kiss.
We're actually married.

SKYeXile

2012-01-27, 05:49 PM

We're actually married.

all makes sense then.

SKYeXile

2012-01-27, 05:54 PM

this webcast has been picked up by afew people now, massivly, MMORPG, rpgreporter, curse.

Figment

2012-01-27, 09:15 PM

Vancha and Figment, please agree to disagree or add eachother to your ignore lists. Nobody is reading your massive novels and quote chains in these threads.. so there's no point in cluttering them.

Nobody HAS to read them. :P

Vancha just cares, that's one thing I do respect about him (not being sarcastic). He is taking the time to read and respond and he is getting sharper. :)

That said, most important thing to comment is that we know more than enough. Bases look bigger, clearly designed for bigger fights as there will be more people on cont and they will need space. From that fact alone you can go through a deduction process.

Q: Smaller, equal or larger corridors and choke points? Only three options.
Q: Less, equal or more entrances to base?
Q: objective? Answer: hold to capture (time cap confirmed!)

Fact: larger populace, with spawns in base
Consequence: new objective, must keep cap position and spawns down

Q: easier, equally hard or harder with small crew?

Q: attacker need? More troops or Respawn nearby.
Q: how? Options: deployed, visible gal (confirmed), drop on sl outside of base (confirmed), tower or other nearby outpost (consider this confirmed), capture in base solid spawn (unconfirmed), ams (out: hide & seek), construct minispawn (basically ams?)
Option 1: too vulnerable to leave alone, must be defended, more manpower needed. 2. Infrequent, sl must be in open, cannot coordinate inside, useful for approach & regroup. 3. In adjecent hex, too far away? Must cross open terrain to base? 4. As 5 & 6 pretty much dismissed due to Gal gameplay reasoning, last option.
Medics last alternative, makes it hard as they are lighter armed than freely class changing, respawning, heavily armed, enemies.

Logic dictates, what, for smaller groups? I considered all options, think there aren't that many likely choices. Main need I see is more manpower and reinforcements. But hey, this is ALL based on PS1, right?

cellinaire

2012-01-27, 11:26 PM

My Experience with million other Games shows me that you should bring your Concerns rights now while the Core Mechanics are still in its Development. We all know the changes in Beta will be most likly halfassed compromises between both Worlds because the evil Publishers push them to release and they dont have enough time...

That's all good and fine, when our concerns are somewhat valid and backed up with logic(which is at least a bit convincing, of course). Not concerns from our disconcerted minds with the sense of fear.

Yeah we cannot stop posting up concerns just because there's at least slight chance of them succeed with their plans, but if you cared these details so much, then why didn't you bring your concerns last year, or in 2010?

(and don't you worry. I've played SOE's staple of games for over 8 years, been through SOE's many fiascoes, and know well what you're talking about.)
;)

Vancha

2012-01-28, 05:19 AM

Nobody HAS to read them. :P

Vancha just cares, that's one thing I do respect about him (not being sarcastic). He is taking the time to read and respond and he is getting sharper. :)
Oh please, you aren't that clever darling. If you were, you wouldn't try so hard to flaunt it.

Logic dictates, what, for smaller groups? I considered all options, think there aren't that many likely choices. Main need I see is more manpower and reinforcements. But hey, this is ALL based on PS1, right?
Yep. Your scenarios are still being imagined with the PS1 engine. You're still making undue assumptions. You're still trying to fit the same spec ops tactics into a new game (which isn't to say spec ops won't be possible, but that it might involve different things. Maybe this time it'll be more like actual spec ops.)

I'm looking at the wikipedia page on special operations and you know what stands out? "Special ops are typically carried out with limited numbers of highly trained personnel that are able to operate in all environments, utilize self-reliance, are able to easily adapt and overcome obstacles, and use unconventional combat skills and equipment to complete objectives."

I'm actually excited about getting to develop a whole new repertoire of tactics for Planetside 2, while you're complaining that you don't get to use the same ones you've been using for years in another game? If you're so clever, then why isn't this making your mouth water? If your guesses turn out to be correct, then the challenges and puzzles that creates for spec ops thrills even an idiot like me, so shouldn't you be all over it? You could be the person to create the foundation of spec ops in PS2, yet you're complaining that they aren't being boring and letting you play in the exact same way you've been playing for nine years? What's with that?

Figment

2012-01-28, 06:30 AM

Yep. Your scenarios are still being imagined with the PS1 engine. You're still making undue assumptions. You're still trying to fit the same spec ops tactics into a new game (which isn't to say spec ops won't be possible, but that it might involve different things. Maybe this time it'll be more like actual spec ops.)

From where I stand, you are the one who is making assumptions at this point.

I'm not making any specific PS1 related assumptions AT ALL.

Are you saying it's better to not hold a base from the protection of a building?

Are you saying it's better to split up when faced with an enemy that outnumbers you, rather than concentrate fire?

Are you saying it's better to lead a squad from outside a facility when you can't see what's happening inside?

Are you saying you wouldn't best do this by holding choke points?

Are you saying it's best you leave control nodes and spawn points alone?

Because if you make any of those assumptions, you will fail hard in any FPS game that is about conquest. These are all general combat strategies that were applicable in PS1, because they are applicable to ANY hold situation.

What will you do if I'm completely right?

I'm looking at the wikipedia page on special operations and you know what stands out? "Special ops are typically carried out with limited numbers of highly trained personnel that are able to operate in all environments, utilize self-reliance, are able to easily adapt and overcome obstacles, and use unconventional combat skills and equipment to complete objectives."

Limited numbers is the key word here. Ever heard of numerical leverage though? Try playing World of Tanks, that game shows you what a small difference in numbers does, especially out in the open (which is there everywhere). You need to compensate for that and in respawn games where the enemy can respawn, you need to as well.

I predict farming to be a lot more difficult, which is fine, but that doesn't mean that it should be nigh impossible to beat impossible odds.

I'm actually excited about getting to develop a whole new repertoire of tactics for Planetside 2, while you're complaining that you don't get to use the same ones you've been using for years in another game? If you're so clever, then why isn't this making your mouth water? If your guesses turn out to be correct, then the challenges and puzzles that creates for spec ops thrills even an idiot like me, so shouldn't you be all over it? You could be the person to create the foundation of spec ops in PS2, yet you're complaining that they aren't being boring and letting you play in the exact same way you've been playing for nine years? What's with that?

I'm already way ahead of you with developing new strategies and tactics for quite a few units based on what we know so far. I've also looked at things like how the hex grid will affect combat and how you can speed that up without requiring huge risks (regardless of map layout the basic strategy will be valid, the mere notion of the hex grid being applied is enough, all you need is suitable locations for such tactics).

However, I'm not stuck in the notion that since it's a new game and there's going to be a massive populace, you'll have a massive populace to work with at all times and everything is going to be different, let alone for the better. I'm not naive enough to convince myself that there aren't any oversights from devs till beta.

I'm looking at the extreme pops for a reason, yes I played spec ops, but if I had issues with zerg fights (beyond expecting eternal stalemates due to on-cont sancs), I'd post those concerns as well. So far the zerg's fight seems pretty guaranteed, but the smaller groups will have it extremely difficult. They'll be facing larger numbers as a given, with more than likely more chokepoints to hold, with enemy spawns being potential multiples and due to the size of bases could well be spread out more, while their own spawnpoints are going to be extremely hard to defend manually. If I was thinking of a PS1 perspective, I'd never have considered that there might be local hard point spawns!

What I'm saying is, that small scale ops are essentially dead without good spawning/reinforcement options. That will be true no matter what when you are facing a bigger enemy with harder to hold bases. And they will be. It doesn't matter if the exact execution of a hold will be slightly different from PS1, I'm looking forward to new bases and objectives and all that sort of thing myself. HOWEVER, without a good spawning point, I can already predict you now that even with a group of 10 you won't get anywhere against even a 2% resecure crowd unless they are very, very stupid.

Why is this a potential problem? Because I see 10 as a decent sized squad that should be able to accomplish goals on their own, while getting more than 5 along to a far away objective is going to be tricky already. if you need just that to defend the Galaxy, then it's pointless to even attempt anything.

Let alone if you need to find and convince 40-60 people, JUST because your spawnpoint(s) need to be actively and continuously defended "because that gives a visual objective and there'll be active fights over it". If that is the best reasoning used, then it's IMO shortsighted as it completely negates the existence of other types of players and is only catering to the straightforward action type fights, not?

From what I've seen from the design decisions and rationales, the gameplay is centered around zergfights. Massiveness is the keyword for the devs and that's fine for the basics of the game, were it not that there's a huge percentage of players that likes out of zerg and some intimicy as a small group as well. That means it should be made possible for them in some way to accomplish objectives. Two is a crowd, there will be players who play in pairs. Should they be at all times limited to specific fights because they couldn't accomplish things on their own?

Though you clearly don't know me too well and can't see through my arrogance and presumably your dislike for my tone and probably me, I'm more flexible than most players in adapting to new situations. I'm used to playing with less than equivalent tools as I chose to do so for 8 years. That doesn't mean that every situation can be adapted to without at least some key tools to use for these situations, I know full well what the minimal needs are. If you ever relied on HA and aircav on a regular basis, I cannot imagine you understand what it is to fight from a deliberately inferior tools at all times, and still win. I like a challenge more than anyone else, but that doesn't mean I'm suicidal.

FFS Vancha, you're the one who does not even appreciate that the mere notion of say 1000 enemy players per continent changes the entire response team mechanism already and the perspective of both sides, base layouts and dimensions. You're not going to tell me that a hallway is easier to defend as a chokepoint than a door or corridor. Things like the exact base layout are almost completely irrelevant as defense WILL focus on chokepoints regardless. That will be true for ANY game where a choke point is a tactical advantage. Stuck in PS1? You are stuck in painting people with the "Stuck in PS1" brush. Get off it.

Vancha

2012-01-28, 07:40 AM

Yeah, boss said not to do those. Lets take this to PMs if you want to make replies that size.

First Quote - You're assuming spec ops in Planetside 2 will still consist of a small group trying to hold a base in the manner of Planetside. For spec ops, that's a pretty direct course of action. It may be that spec ops in PS2 will be more about the indirect.

Second Quote - No, it should be impossible to beat impossible odds. Bad odds on the other hand, should be beatable. Again I refer to the wikipedia article, "Special operations are usually conducted in a low-profile manner that typically aim to achieve the advantage of speed, surprise, and violence of action against an unsuspecting target."

If you've hung around long enough and made enough noise to draw sufficient enemy attention for your men to be dying quicker than they can be brought back to life or returned to the battle, your operation may simply have gone on too long/failed.

Third Quote - ...Yeah, I can't condense a reply to that enough to keep this practical. I'll reply to the rest in PM.

Figment

2012-01-28, 07:49 AM

1. Yes, I assume that will be ONE of the things people will do, because they're strategic targets and it'll not always be possible to get zergsize groups to get there. "When you need to get something done, do it yourself." It'll happen.

I've never assumed that's all they'll do, I'm quite happy there'll be other objectives, but they're not a concern to bring up, so why would I? I am presuming sabotage of mining sites amongst other things is quite likely alternative to disrupt the enemy by means of resource system. I won't accept however that bases are only for large fights. That'd narrow down gameplay too much. I don't expect all people to be content with zerg or full time resource pillaging or say... tower whoring. You?

2. Fair enough - bad phrasing for impossible odds on my part. However, spawns/reinforcements will be required if your numerically larger enemy has it as well to even get those bad odds. Agreed?

3. Which is what will happen without access to spawns/reinforcements much sooner than absoluteley needed. Agreed?

Vancha

2012-01-28, 08:49 AM

1: I don't know. I don't know how fun or how in depth resource pillaging and tower whoring will be. I don't know what other possible tactics spec ops will have available to them. Once I get to play, I'll use my imagination. ;)

2: In a battle with a small force vs a big force? Sure, but that's not what I think matters. Surely the point of spec ops is to cause enough problems that it evens the playing field in the bigger battles? I don't know whether there'll be sufficient spawning/reinforcement mechanisms for that.

3. Agreed, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

BlazingSun

2012-01-28, 08:54 AM

Is this a debate club?

Mastachief

2012-01-28, 09:10 AM

Lots of TL:DR going on

SKYeXile

2012-01-28, 04:14 PM

Is this a debate club?

argument club.

Argument Clinic - YouTube