Your problems, abuse and exploit concerns

[Figment]

Now that we know some more basics of the game, let's start considering how people would use it in unintended ways, would come across problems or would see options to exploit. We can then go into beta and playtest specific concerns.

Please provide:


Related to design decision

Problem description

Context

User Scenario(s)

Optional solutions



And you can add which game mechanics might already provide a (partial) solution.


Example:


Related to design decision
Vehicles can't be deconstructed, but have to be destroyed.


Problem description
(Un)intended griefing through acquisition of multiple vehicles.


Context
Limited space around vehicle acquisition areas and chokepoints providing the ability to setup a blockade.


User Scenario(s)

Player pulled wrong vehicle at vpad, leaves vehicle at end of autodrive path as he exits as soon as possible to get a new vehicle
Player(s) deliberately block entrances or exits with vehicles to create walls and obstacles, with the intend that other (friendly!) players have to remove these before being able to pass through.


The next person may have to be forced to gain griefpoints by destroying a friendly, abandoned vehicle in order to move passed it, or is blocked and gets stuck.


Solutions

Limited resources so not too many vehicles can be pulled per player. (PS2 Resource system?)
Faster auto-deconstruction in such choke points (akin to parking next to doors in PS1)
Vehicles without owner can be claimed and moved by other players (Need certification, or can you drive any vehicle in PS2?)
Vehicles can push or ram other vehicles out of the way (PS2 Sunderer)
Ability to pass through friendly obstructions (Akin to PS1 TRAPs)
Provide incentive to player to move their vehicle out of the way - allow recycling of vehicles with a return of a small portion of resources (currently not possible in PS2)
No grief points for destroying non-owned, friendly vehicles.

[Shogun]

mission system

players can set up missions for others to accept and complete.
completing missions gives more xp.

my problem: what keeps players from just spamming every possible nearby missiongoals to the system, to make everything the zerg does more rewarding in terms of xp. especially if the mission-giver gets xp, too if his mission is completed by some players.

solution: hard to come by!
missions could be placed by voting, but as we all know, the zerg learns to exploit any voting systemv very fast. any ideas?

[Figment]

@Shogun:
Some temp and more sustainable solutions for your problem:


Limited amount of missions per player. Either on a time limitation basis (Y minutes/hours) or a numerical limitation: for instance, maximum X active missions, or X missions within Y minutes/hours.
Expensive certification to set goals outside of your platoon (short term solution, not long term in system where you can get everything eventually). Would prefer having to give up something else type of cert tree, but oh well.
Use them more as indicators than actually providing exp bonuses
Only one mission per objective possible at the same time (to avoid multiple people spamming same objective to get a lot of points for completing one objective for many missions at the same time).
Set mission expiration time.
Allow reporting of players who mission spam or otherwise abuse the system
Limited amount of text characters.
Allow setting of limited amount of players that can accept the mission (to try and prevent everyone going there as the person setting the mission: missions could create zergling tunnelvision!).


Got some more ideas and concerns about it. Abusive language in the descriptions is one, while too short macro descriptions or too few options may also pose a problem ("securing the gen" may be interpreted as "destroying the gen" by some zerglings, for instance).

[Azren]

Related to design decision
Driver guns for main battle tanks

Problem description
Driver guns for main battle tanks makes effective driving near impossible in said vehicles. It reduces the situational awareness of the driver, often resulting in premature destruction of the vehicle. These constant deaths will lower the number of players who are willing to gun for the MBTs resulting in the predominant use of single manned tanks.
MBTs are supposed to be a team vehicle, hence lightnings, ATVs, assault aircafts, ect. were added for solo use.

Optional solutions
Remove the driver's option to use the main gun on any 2+ seater vehicle. The use of a secondary gun would be acceptable.
An other solotion could be to allow drivers to choose if they want to control the main guns or the secondary guns.

[nomotog]

mission system

players can set up missions for others to accept and complete.
completing missions gives more xp.

my problem: what keeps players from just spamming every possible nearby missiongoals to the system, to make everything the zerg does more rewarding in terms of xp. especially if the mission-giver gets xp, too if his mission is completed by some players.

solution: hard to come by!
missions could be placed by voting, but as we all know, the zerg learns to exploit any voting systemv very fast. any ideas?

Limit the amount of missions you can have active at a time (1 or maybe 2 with upgrading.) and let missions form multiple people stack. It is a form of vetoing the important objectives will have lots of people calling missions on them. That will make that them give out more exp there fore convincing more people to accept that mission. That fulfills the goal of the mission system to give direction to people.

[Bags]

Wait, did they release beta already or something?

[SKYeXile]

Related to design decision
Driver guns for main battle tanks

Problem description
Driver guns for main battle tanks makes effective driving near impossible in said vehicles. It reduces the situational awareness of the driver, often resulting in premature destruction of the vehicle. These constant deaths will lower the number of players who are willing to gun for the MBTs resulting in the predominant use of single manned tanks.
MBTs are supposed to be a team vehicle, hence lightnings, ATVs, assault aircafts, ect. were added for solo use.

Optional solutions
Remove the driver's option to use the main gun on any 2+ seater vehicle. The use of a secondary gun would be acceptable.
An other solution could be to allow drivers to choose if they want to control the main guns or the secondary guns.

thats not the optimal solution, thats the solution you want.

the best solution would be, lets the driver drive and aim in 3rd person. it allows them to have more situational awareness, but it also means still that not everybody is going to be good with a tank. also given that tanks require resources to pull, not everybody is going to want to be driving their own tank, gunning one might be a better options for some players.

[ThGlump]

There should be camera at front, so even if you aiming in different direction, you can still see in front of a tank on a smaller display, located somewhere at the edge of screen. That would be best if they want to keep driver/gunner viable without making tanks too much stationary.
And another display for driving in reverse would be nice. Come on, its future, no reason they shouldnt use technology we can use today.

[VioletZero]

My big worry is how they're going to handle boosting with the mission system.

Proposed fix: Limited selection of missions people are allowed to do.

[nomotog]

My big worry is how they're going to handle boosting with the mission system.

Proposed fix: Limited selection of missions people are allowed to do.

What do you mean by boosting?

[SKYeXile]

What do you mean by boosting?

powerleveling. i doubt it willbe possible.

[VioletZero]

What do you mean by boosting?

High level guild members getting commander positions and giving cheesecake missions to their guild mates to power level them.

[SKYeXile]

High level guild members getting commander positions and giving cheesecake missions to their guild mates to power level them.

they weren't that stupid to reward doing nothing in PS1, i doubt they will start now.

[nomotog]

High level guild members getting commander positions and giving cheesecake missions to their guild mates to power level them.

I'm not worried about that myself. I imagine that your meant to be on mission most of the time, so someone setting up missions for you is just normal leveling. not powerleveling. Then they could just jump on anyone's mission no need for a guild. Also the computer can put up counter missions to your missions.

[sylphaen]

In the end, while the mission system will be a nice tool to focus efforts of the zerg, I do hope that it is not intrusive to the point of being required (i.e. feeling that you must do mission lest you fall behind in XP/rank or whatever the reward is).

Hopefully, the missions' rewards will be provided by the players setting the missions (transfer of your own points or greater percent allocation of points from a global pool of points being one way to reward mission players).

If missions cost something to somebody, you can bet that missions will be set for critical stuff. Not what's going to be blown up anyways.

It may feel like farming from quests otherwise.

[Azren]

thats not the optimal solution, thats the solution you want.

the best solution would be, lets the driver drive and aim in 3rd person. it allows them to have more situational awareness, but it also means still that not everybody is going to be good with a tank. also given that tanks require resources to pull, not everybody is going to want to be driving their own tank, gunning one might be a better options for some players.

3rd person gunning would make this game an arcade, do you want that? Next up would be auto aim maybe? Making driving easy is not what I would want, same with flying. The game needs to require some level of skill to operate the vehicles.

[SKYeXile]

3rd person gunning would make this game an arcade, do you want that? Next up would be auto aim maybe? Making driving easy is not what I would want, same with flying. The game needs to require some level of skill to operate the vehicles.

PlanetSide.......is an arcade style game...its certainly not realistic.

Go play world of tanks, use only 3rd person view and use auto aim, report back to me on your progress.

[Azren]

Tried that game before, got bored of it fast. No comparison really.

[Tool]

Regarding the concerns for missions, I personally would rather have the system open for players instead of limiting it out of concern for farming. I'm very excited about the prospects of this new system so I welcome the chance to delve into some ideas and potentials.

One possibility to quell the issue of farming is to perhaps have a % based bonus applied to exp gained while on a mission. This bonus could be applied to whatever forms of exp there is going to be. For example combat exp (kills, assists, suppression) or support exp (heals, revives, transports, etc.) Therefore exp would have to gained first and accepting missions provide a tangible benefit.

Along with the above thought, the higher the leadership level of the player posting a mission as well as a derived difficulty level (which could be determined by such things as the amount of enemies in the mission area, any opposing missions players have against the objective, etc.) could determine the bonus % applied to the mission.

As I've stated elsewhere here on the forums, I think it would a very fun ability for players to use the mission system to coordinate their efforts down to relative specifics. In way to allow outfits to truly specialize in an area and use mission requests suited to what they need to complete theirs goals.

With this ability you can give players a real sense of coordination in their respective empire. As well as linking the two major player groups prevalent in planetside, combat and support.

Ill paint a picture as well. Think of an infantry outfit, the train to be an infantry unit and spend their outfit certs to further their effectiveness in infantry combat. With the above idea, the need for members to sacrifice certs in order to provide things like transportation, reconnaissance, or engineer support aren't as necessary as they were in PS1. The mentioned outfit can spend all its resources on being a great infantry fighting force and use the mission system for its suport needs.

This isn't to say generalized outfits will be penalized, because all players can make use of the system.

Ill continue this later perhaps as I'm using my phone and its a bit off topic for this thread.

[ringring]

RE: Missions:
I'd rather missions gave no XP whatsoever. I don't think it is necessary.

Say, a mission is capture a tower. The said tower is defended, the fight itself and the consequent xp from kills will be sufficient reward.
Similarly if a mission is to capture a a particular target within a base, say shield generator.
On the other hand, if a mission is to cature a specific 'hex' which is not defended, the tactical minded people and outfits will do it anyway because is helps towards their overall goal.

The only possible downsides with missions is:
- trolls, putting up missions designed to annoy (yep, difficult to believe),
- 'commanders' putting up missions contradictory to each other, ie the equivalent of counter globalling
- 'commanders' putting up a mission that is strategically wrong (not out of mischief but simply not seeing the right response to a situation).

I'm not so 'stoked' (mot de jour) about missions. I see them as ok for new people as it makes the game more accessible but the long standing organised outfits may well ignore them.

[Hmr85]

Limit the missions to outfit/squad/platoon IMO and get rid of the xp.

[Tool]

Limit the missions to outfit/squad/platoon IMO and get rid of the xp.

Don't you feel this would in a way be unecessary then, to have missions with such a restriction I mean? As most platoon level groups would communicate directly to achieve their goals.

I think the concept of missions is to allow different groups to coordinate quickly and temporarily to achieve goals. Where-as in ps1, outfits were usually self sufficient or relied on one or few other specific outfits for specific needs.

At least, its how I picture the system to be. Probably wrong of course but speculation is fun.

[nomotog]

Don't you feel this would in a way be unecessary then, to have missions with such a restriction I mean? As most platoon level groups would communicate directly to achieve their goals.

I think the concept of missions is to allow different groups to coordinate quickly and temporarily to achieve goals. Where-as in ps1, outfits were usually self sufficient or relied on one or few other specific outfits for specific needs.

At least, its how I picture the system to be. Probably wrong of course but speculation is fun.

That's how I picture it too. Like if you want to launch a massive gal assault you could set up missions to capture and secure all the tech bases on the map. A simple and easy way to get everyone working with you to achieve a goal.

[HitbackTR]

RE: Missions:
I'd rather missions gave no XP whatsoever. I don't think it is necessary.

Say, a mission is capture a tower. The said tower is defended, the fight itself and the consequent xp from kills will be sufficient reward.
Similarly if a mission is to capture a a particular target within a base, say shield generator.
On the other hand, if a mission is to cature a specific 'hex' which is not defended, the tactical minded people and outfits will do it anyway because is helps towards their overall goal.

The only possible downsides with missions is:
- trolls, putting up missions designed to annoy (yep, difficult to believe),
- 'commanders' putting up missions contradictory to each other, ie the equivalent of counter globalling
- 'commanders' putting up a mission that is strategically wrong (not out of mischief but simply not seeing the right response to a situation).

I'm not so 'stoked' (mot de jour) about missions. I see them as ok for new people as it makes the game more accessible but the long standing organised outfits may well ignore them.

I agree with this. In Planetside I liked the way you could earn experience from say... operating turrets, equipping different weapons etc while in sanctuary. Otherwise you earned xp only from being effective at putting other people down in the field in combat. That system wasn't broken then, (not in PS's heyday anyway) and it still isn't now and as the saying goes "if it ain't broke don't fix it. I am really not feeling the whole mission system even though the devs are trying to implement it to give depth to the game.

The fact is that the combat in Planetside was always it's own reward and it was ALWAYS why you kept logging in, i.e., to win an objective or mount a successful defense. To me the whole idea of 'missions' comes across as tacky in much the same way as merits did in Planetside. It didn't add to one's gameplay experience even though it was fun earning the merit. Having said that merits didn't drive anyone I knew to keep logging in. It was the gameplay alone, that sense of beating your opponent which really drove you to keep playing, not because it would mean that a decal would be added to your armour.

[Tool]

I do agree on quite a few of your points Hitback however the structure of PS1 made the game feel very individualized regarding the combat regardless of how many were fighting. At least, that's how I felt playing.

I hope that missions can give more sense of empires fighting one another instead of differen outfit who just happen to wear the same colors so at other outfits in a different color.

[Neksar]

Related to design decision
Driver guns for main battle tanks

Problem description
Driver guns for main battle tanks makes effective driving near impossible in said vehicles. It reduces the situational awareness of the driver, often resulting in premature destruction of the vehicle. These constant deaths will lower the number of players who are willing to gun for the MBTs resulting in the predominant use of single manned tanks.
MBTs are supposed to be a team vehicle, hence lightnings, ATVs, assault aircafts, ect. were added for solo use.

Optional solutions
Remove the driver's option to use the main gun on any 2+ seater vehicle. The use of a secondary gun would be acceptable.
An other solotion could be to allow drivers to choose if they want to control the main guns or the secondary guns.

I do agree with whomever said this was the solution you preferred, rather than a solution to a problem. I don't like this design decision either, to be honest. I'd prefer it if some sort of certification allowed the driver to transfer control of both weapon systems to the gunner, with the caveat that the gunner have access to only one at a time, with some small damage bonus (though I suppose a small damage bonus wouldn't be noticed on a MBT).

[JDNight]

The fact is that the combat in Planetside was always it's own reward and it was ALWAYS why you kept logging in, i.e., to win an objective or mount a successful defense. To me the whole idea of 'missions' comes across as tacky in much the same way as merits did in Planetside. It didn't add to one's gameplay experience even though it was fun earning the merit. Having said that merits didn't drive anyone I knew to keep logging in. It was the gameplay alone, that sense of beating your opponent which really drove you to keep playing, not because it would mean that a decal would be added to your armour.

I agree completely. I played for the combat. I played for the fun of the tactical and strategic decisions I made on a minute to minute basis. I played to help my team take an objective. I played to see my team win! Exp just sort of happened.

Missions are a good idea, but their main function should be to help the platoon, squad, and higher commanders communicate and give direction. They should not be viewed as a primary source of reward. Although a small reward might be in order.

It would be beneficial to use missions to allow experienced players to help and guide newer players. However, there is a difference between using a gun or piece of equipment well, and being an effective guide or trainer.

[Hmr85]

Don't you feel this would in a way be unecessary then, to have missions with such a restriction I mean? As most platoon level groups would communicate directly to achieve their goals.

I think the concept of missions is to allow different groups to coordinate quickly and temporarily to achieve goals. Where-as in ps1, outfits were usually self sufficient or relied on one or few other specific outfits for specific needs.

At least, its how I picture the system to be. Probably wrong of course but speculation is fun.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't you feel this would in a way be unecessary then, to have missions with such a restriction I mean? As most platoon level groups would communicate directly to achieve their goals.

No, not really, I can think of a few times when my outfit was running 2 or so platoons that I would of loved to have this option. It gives me the ability to designate multiple mission objections. I can give a primary objective to both platoons of lets say capture the CC. But I can also designate sub missions down to individual platoons/squads. As you noticed from the The9 video the objectives changed as they changed locations inside the base.

Example of this being platoon 1 goes in and their sub. objective is to neutralize the spawn tubes in the north east portion of the facility. So there is their mission.

While my sub objective for platoon 2 is to take out the generator on the south west to open the path for the entrance to the CC. But my overall objective for both at the Very top is capture the CC.I hope this make sense.

Sure we have ventrillo running to communicate. But it helps everybody keep up with the overall objective and progress they are making. This is one of the main reasons I think that missions should be limited to squads/platoons/outfits. A individual player does not need to have the ability to just set random missions up in the game. I might would even go as far as saying just limit it to platoon/outfits. I still standby that they should remove xp for missions. Will have to wait and see.

[Azren]

I do agree with whomever said this was the solution you preferred, rather than a solution to a problem. I don't like this design decision either, to be honest. I'd prefer it if some sort of certification allowed the driver to transfer control of both weapon systems to the gunner, with the caveat that the gunner have access to only one at a time, with some small damage bonus (though I suppose a small damage bonus wouldn't be noticed on a MBT).

It is a solution nevertheless. I may prefer this solution, but so does the majority of the community. Only a small portion is fixed on having a driverMainGunner main battle tank, the others are open for compromises. The option to allow the driver to choose which gun he wants to control would be a very good compromise for example.

Well if it was up to me, I'd just make it PS1 style, but I don't see that happening...

[Tool]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, not really, I can think of a few times when my outfit was running 2 or so platoons that I would of loved to have this option. It gives me the ability to designate multiple mission objections. I can give a primary objective to both platoons of lets say capture the CC. But I can also designate sub missions down to individual platoons/squads. As you noticed from the The9 video the objectives changed as they changed locations inside the base.

Example of this being platoon 1 goes in and their sub. objective is to neutralize the spawn tubes in the north east portion of the facility. So there is their mission.

While my sub objective for platoon 2 is to take out the generator on the south west to open the path for the entrance to the CC. But my overall objective for both at the Very top is capture the CC.I hope this make sense.

Sure we have ventrillo running to communicate. But it helps everybody keep up with the overall objective and progress they are making. This is one of the main reasons I think that missions should be limited to squads/platoons/outfits. A individual player does not need to have the ability to just set random missions up in the game. I might would even go as far as saying just limit it to platoon/outfits. I still standby that they should remove xp for missions. Will have to wait and see.

I understand your point and what you say makes me think directly of MAG and it's FRAGO ability of leaders. If you haven't played MAG before I'll explain;

Squad leaders could designate specific targets for their squad to focus on, FRAGO. Nearly anything could be FRAGOed like Gates, Vehicles, Objectives, Assets (artillery, sensors, etc.) It gave a clearly defined goal for the squad and offered bonus exp on top of any gained while killing, healing, repairing, etc. near the FRAGOed target.

When I think of a mission system I picture something a little different, a layered system based on mission type, location, difficutly, etc. A tool that players can use to coordinate efforts and link up quickly and efficiently.

All in all I'm eager to see what the PS2 team has in place for it.

[Princess Frosty]

Honestly I'm a little bit concerned with the mixing of Galaxy's and spawn points, with visible parked galaxy's being a massive target for air, I suspect to get a lot of those AC130 style air support ships just bombing the crap out of the spawn points, probably with Anti-infantry ammo which will tear apart all the people spawning in PJ's but leave the galaxy largely intact, I can see that being a real deathzone everytime one is parked, because the zerg is just gonna endlessly spawn out of the closest spawn point like with the AMS's except now they'll be easier to see, you wont be afforded the cover of things like trees and jungle as you wont be able to navigate a galaxy in there like you would an AMS.

I just find it very hard to see that working well, not unless AA is super effective, and especially with roles being more locked down so there's presumably less ability for standard Rexos to pack anti-air.

[Figment]

Well they are puting a gun on top of the Galaxy, which potentially could be an AA gun (some guns would have that option). As such, the Lib will want to take out the spawnpoint itself as well, considering it's a big threat. And a target you can't miss. Once it's gone you can kill the remainder pretty easily as long as they didn't have good infantry AA.

Plus, could be AA MAXes return, which this time around might actually be pulled from such a deployed Galaxy. In that sense, a hovering airborne threat may not be as big as in PS1.

Personally, I'd be more concerned with a Striker army. :)

[Grognard]

Honestly I'm a little bit concerned with the mixing of Galaxy's and spawn points, with visible parked galaxy's being a massive target for air, I suspect to get a lot of those AC130 style air support ships just bombing the crap out of the spawn points, probably with Anti-infantry ammo which will tear apart all the people spawning in PJ's but leave the galaxy largely intact, I can see that being a real deathzone everytime one is parked, because the zerg is just gonna endlessly spawn out of the closest spawn point like with the AMS's except now they'll be easier to see, you wont be afforded the cover of things like trees and jungle as you wont be able to navigate a galaxy in there like you would an AMS.

I just find it very hard to see that working well, not unless AA is super effective, and especially with roles being more locked down so there's presumably less ability for standard Rexos to pack anti-air.

Well I am hoping that, as I have heard someone speculate, spawning is done interior to the Galaxy, rather than outside like an AMS. This way the AA gunners can clear the skies of Liberators first, then the Squad can bail out the back as a unit, when given the all clear...

[Princess Frosty]

I'm not talking about bailing from the galaxy, I'm talking about having to park them on the ground and use them as a forward spawn points and the relative downsides to the AMS.

The AMS was about stealth, you'd hide them under trees and stuff like that and it made them difficult to spot, and bomb. That made them somewhat reliable as spawnpoints at least for a short while.

The Gal sounds more like it will have defend itself through brute force and I don't think it's likely to have the fire power to really do that effectively is all.

[Figment]

Firepower maybe, hit points? No. Mostly since too many hitpoints would make it OP (takes too long/unable to kill in lower pop areas while it camps - ESPECIALLY in Gal groups covering eachother).

Would probably want to test how hard it is for a bunch of ground or aircav units to take out even a portion of a fleet of Galaxies.

[Raymac]

The Gal sounds more like it will have defend itself through brute force and I don't think it's likely to have the fire power to really do that effectively is all.

In PS1, an AMS could survive much much longer if it relied on firepower to defend it than simply its cloak. As a single Reaver, I'd find and take out an undefended AMS very easily. In fact, it was the first thing I would do on a rapid response call would be find the AMS which was usually undefended, and take it out. If that same AMS had an AA unit guarding it and someone to repair it, then I simply wasn't able to take it out no matter how many strafing runs I would do.

The downside of guarding something though, is that it is EXTREMELY boring if it is not being attacked. So maybe the size of the Galaxy might not help much on the sneaky side of gameplay, but actually help on the action side of gameplay?

I'd still like to see a cloak ability be an unlockable skill for the Galaxy for spec ops teams.

[Grognard]

I'm not talking about bailing from the galaxy, I'm talking about having to park them on the ground and use them as a forward spawn points and the relative downsides to the AMS.

The AMS was about stealth, you'd hide them under trees and stuff like that and it made them difficult to spot, and bomb. That made them somewhat reliable as spawnpoints at least for a short while.

The Gal sounds more like it will have defend itself through brute force and I don't think it's likely to have the fire power to really do that effectively is all.

100% agree, which is precisely why I created this thread...

( http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38741 )

...which is about advancing a 5 Galaxy "Cluster", that should be a sustainable player generated forward base. If one goes down, there are still 4 to cover the approach of a replacement. This will have the brute force to "hold the line" from all directions, if deployed in a semi-dispersed star formation.

[Rbstr]

Nothing more fun that worrying about hypothetical tactics when we've got no idea how much HP the thing has, DPS of the things that shoots it, he mobility of the Galaxy, how much room is avalible to park galaxys or ect, ect, ad infinitum.

Think about it this way, with a more densly "obstructed" map, the visibility of a Galaxy (and people) could be quite low. This means folks rely on radar and/or a spotting system more. It may be that its not likely to be in a very open position often. Scale also seems to be extended to some extent, for bases, at least. That means the big galaxy might not really be all the huge a target.
Then, I think stealth (radar invisibility), but not cloaking, for higher level Pilots.

As it stands, the only time AMS are hard to find is when there are very few people in a fight. Otherwise they're quite obvious. By making it visible you are more able to tell where the threat is from in a small fight...but depending n the galaxy's parameters it might not be any easier to remove the spawn.

[Grognard]

Nothing more fun that worrying about hypothetical tactics when we've got no idea how much HP the thing has, DPS of the things that shoots it, he mobility of the Galaxy, how much room is avalible to park galaxys or ect, ect, ad infinitum.



Aaah, we talk... and we speculate... its a forum thing, cause we like the game n stuff. :huh:

[Hmr85]

There is a thread that came up last year about this. Last year being December. I said this formation was probably the best way to form a good defense/base. With repair capability's. Anyways check it out :P MS paint ftw. The wall was based on what little we knew about engy deployables. I guess you could do the shield now. I would more than likely replace 2 of the sunderers with lightnings for the added AA. Move the bottom sunderer up into the middle.

This image could be improved on with what we know now but is just a general layout.

http://i363.photobucket.com/albums/oo77/Hmr85/GalStrat.png

[Figment]

@Rbstr: Gal has been confirmed as having no cloaking option right now, not even at higher stages. No cloaked spawns are considered because the lead vehicle designer said they don't think it is fun to play hide and seek.

(That's why they put in infils and cloaked snipers.)

So I'd disagree with their evaluation and it's a bit of a strange design stance comment all things considered.


A Galaxy doesn't have to be bad at all times, it's simply not performing at peak efficiency due its size and needs to be complemented with a smaller, mobile spawnpoint that drives over ground. Even if it isn't cloaked: smaller means more flexible and less conspicuous.

The current Sunderer could be a decent platform for it, though it's getting to fill an awful lot of roles already.

[ringring]

@Rbstr: Gal has been confirmed as having no cloaking option right now, not even at higher stages. No cloaked spawns are considered because the lead vehicle designer said they don't think it is fun to play hide and seek.

(That's why they put in infils and cloaked snipers.)

So I'd disagree with their evaluation and it's a bit of a strange design stance comment all things considered.


A Galaxy doesn't have to be bad at all times, it's simply not performing at peak efficiency due its size and needs to be complemented with a smaller, mobile spawnpoint that drives over ground. Even if it isn't cloaked: smaller means more flexible and less conspicuous.

The current Sunderer could be a decent platform for it, though it's getting to fill an awful lot of roles already.

From memory I think they said, there was no cloaked bubble on the galaxy because it would be too big. The AMS was out because of the hide and seek element was no fun.

I think that's what was said.

There has been mention of a 'spawn' or 'respawn beacon'. I don't know what those are. Maybe a field deployable spawnpoint, whic if so would remove my worries.

@ dukenukem .... the gal can't fill with respawning troops as it flies around, it has to be landed an deployed.

[Grognard]

@Rbstr: Gal has been confirmed as having no cloaking option right now, not even at higher stages. No cloaked spawns are considered because the lead vehicle designer said they don't think it is fun to play hide and seek.

(That's why they put in infils and cloaked snipers.)


Nah thahts funny rahght there... :rofl:

[Udnknome]

Limit the missions to outfit/squad/platoon IMO and get rid of the xp.

For Missions > rather than giving out xp, how about outfit contribution points. Then arbitrarily rank them each week and reset all the points. You'd be supprised how far people will go just to be number 1, with no other reward than that.

[Xyntech]

This thread is a good idea, but perhaps still a bit premature. We do have quite a bit of info though, so at least it's a decent way to pass the time while waiting for beta.

Most of my concerns are still in a wait and see position. I'd really like to know a lot more, especially first hand in beta, before I start deciding what I think will and wont be exploited.

Quite frankly, the best way to see what is exploitable in the game is to exploit the shit out of it in beta. Write detailed reports about it, and then keep exploiting it and telling everyone else how to exploit it until it gets fixed.

Open beta is for stress testing, and dickishly exploiting something that has been well documented but not yet fixed is pretty lame (unless it's been weeks that it hasn't gotten fixed), but closed beta is a time for eliminating bugs, so if there is something to exploit, keep doing it, because those things need to get all due attention.

[Irondove]

Problem:
I watched a youtube video featuring first gameplay of Planetside 2 at GDC. In part 3 of this 4 part gameplay, matt higby features some close quarter combat and at 5:50/9:36 matt higby gets killed by his team mate AGAIN. So if team killing is enabled, whats to stop some jerk shooting his fellow teammates, or worse a bunch of his pals helping him.

Solution:
Don't enable team killing, i don't want to get shot in the back when a tank starts shelling me, while trolls me over voice chat.:doh:

[Raymac]

Problem:
I watched a youtube video featuring first gameplay of Planetside 2 at GDC. In part 3 of this 4 part gameplay, matt higby features some close quarter combat and at 5:50/9:36 matt higby gets killed by his team mate AGAIN. So if team killing is enabled, whats to stop some jerk shooting his fellow teammates, or worse a bunch of his pals helping him.

Solution:
Don't enable team killing, i don't want to get shot in the back when a tank starts shelling me, while trolls me over voice chat.:doh:

Friendly Fire worked just fine in PS1 with the grief system. Since you didn't play, basically if you racked up too much friendly fire over a short period of time, you would get warnings and then you would have your weapons locked, meaning you can't shoot anymore.

Also, the players policed themselves. If someone was blatantly teamkilling, they would get their name broadcast so everyone could TK them. It all worked well so it was never a problem.

Also, holy shit this thread is old.

[mirwalk]

I have this problem in BF3. I HATE HATE HATE aircraft if not done well. My biggest issue is that with a good pilot an aircraft becomes nigh untouchable. Tracking missiles miss with afterburner and you get slaughter by the pilot with anything short of another aircraft.

PS1 didn't have as much of an issue due to having decent AA abilities and I hope that continues. When your average soldier has to be in a plane to deal with another plane, there is an issue.