Vehicles(artillery) and economy

[Stardouser]

Is there a list of vehicles currently planned for PS2? I checked the information thread and didn't see anything. I did find this http://wiki.planetside-universe.com/ps/PlanetSide_2#Vehicles and don't see anything that looks like artillery. Is artillery being considered for the game or does that kind of thing simply not go with this kind of game? I would think that it would, simply because if any game would support a slow reload, 5 mile range, indirect fire weapon, it would be this.

Also, I had not planned on making a topic about it but at the same link I posted above, a couple of paragraphs down, it mentions a player economy. Now, I imagine we don't know much about that yet, basically all I want to know on that right now is, did PS1 have resource gathering and/or an economy?

[Hamma]

PS1 had no resources and no economy of any kind. I don't think we have anything confirmed on "Economy" yet for PS2 so I may remove that. All we know is that resources are required for upgrades etc.

The list there is pretty accurate - there is no Artillery that we know about yet and those are all the vehicles we know about although we have not seen them all yet.

[FastAndFree]

It has been mentioned that tanks might be able to mount mortars as their secondary guns

[Stardouser]

It has been mentioned that tanks might be able to mount mortars as their secondary guns

Ah, now that's interesting. I assume the PS community is on the average, anti-casualization, pro-teamwork? BF3 has mortars but they are fired through a minimap system where zero teamwork is required, audiospotting forces all enemies to show on your minimap, you just point and fire. We had rather hoped that a second player would be required to spot for the mortar, but that did not happen.

I presume you guys would have similar hopes?

[Geist]

Ah, now that's interesting. I assume the PS community is on the average, anti-casualization, pro-teamwork? BF3 has mortars but they are fired through a minimap system where zero teamwork is required, audiospotting forces all enemies to show on your minimap, you just point and fire. We had rather hoped that a second player would be required to spot for the mortar, but that did not happen.

I presume you guys would have similar hopes?

Yep. The Mortars will probably not be as powerful as the Flail from PS1(dedicated artillery), but it should require the friend with a laze pointer to use effectively.

[Stardouser]

Yep. The Mortars will probably not be as powerful as the Flail from PS1(dedicated artillery), but it should require the friend with a laze pointer to use effectively.


Ooh, Flail, now that I know the name I looked it up:
http://wiki.planetside-universe.com/ps/Flail

Bring back the Flail!

[DManTech]

Bring back the Flail!

I think a lot of PS1 players would disagree with you :)

I believe the devs have said that they want to minimize situations where a player dies and has no idea why or where it came from, which was definitely an issue with the Flail. Of course, they can't remove surprise and uncertainty completely, because that's a huge part of tactics and strategy...but I support them removing some of the instances where someone is able to kill another player half a continent away. And yes, if it's in the game, it has to involve teamwork, no BF3-style mortars please.

But as with everything else, we'll just have to wait and see in beta. I'm sure if it's something we all miss (or is in the game and isn't working well) it'll be adjusted.

[FastAndFree]

You could hear the projectiles hit the CY the entire time while you got from the spawn tubes to the door...
Let's face it the out-of-the-blue Flail Kill is mostly a myth


And in any case I would love to "divebomb" deployed Flails with my Scythe :(

[Stardouser]

I think a lot of PS1 players would disagree with you :)

I believe the devs have said that they want to minimize situations where a player dies and has no idea why or where it came from, which was definitely an issue with the Flail. Of course, they can't remove surprise and uncertainty completely, because that's a huge part of tactics and strategy...but I support them removing some of the instances where someone is able to kill another player half a continent away. And yes, if it's in the game, it has to involve teamwork, no BF3-style mortars please.

But as with everything else, we'll just have to wait and see in beta. I'm sure if it's something we all miss (or is in the game and isn't working well) it'll be adjusted.

DICE is apparently considering mobile artillery for an expansion and this is almost the argument some people over there have(they are worried more about it being "spammed" for free kills than exactly the not knowing where it came from bit). But if it requires spotting, then, while as a general rule I am against killcam, maybe people spotting for artillery could be shown in full for killcam, somehow, without going to a full killcam for other stuff?

Also, artillery hunting could be a great mission for aircraft...

[Pozidriv]

If we a re going to have artillery in any form in the game at launch im pretty sure it's going to be one of the following.

1) MBT mounted mortars or other indirect munitions.

Could be made as a short range indirect assault weapon or a more longer range tool (hopefully with a spotter mechanic)

2) Off map artillery via the "leader" cert tree (could be interesting :P)

3) Some deployable, perhaps combat engineer could set up something?

[Stardouser]

Wait a second...as far as dying to things you can't see to avoid goes, is PS2 going to have orbital strikes, and didn't people have the same complaint about it in PS1?

[Pozidriv]

Wait a second...as far as dying to things you can't see to avoid goes, is PS2 going to have orbital strikes, and didn't people have the same complaint about it in PS1?

Orbital Strikes weren't that bad... untill everyone and their mother had em :D.

[CuddlyChud]

In the beginning, orbital strikes were a lot rarer since you needed to have command rank 5 to use the big one. Also, since there was some indication of it being fired, if you were on the edge you could get out. The flail on the other hand was available to anyone who could afford to cert it, and there was no indication where the flail would hit. It became sort of spammy in that people would just fire at choke points such as doors and vehicle terminals. As far as using air as a counter goes, part of the problem was that often times people would set up in an opposing base, which meant they were surrounded by AA. The amount of effort it would take to kill a flail was often times not seen as worthwhile to the individual. Not to mention the fact that as soon as you killed one, chances are he would just pull another. Personally I think the flails were somewhat balanced in that there were limitations that you had to overcome to get one (either a cave link or a vehicle mod), but they just became really spammy once you could pull one.

[Stardouser]

As far as using air as a counter goes, part of the problem was that often times people would set up in an opposing base, which meant they were surrounded by AA.


Was the range on a Flail so big you could do that, or were the bases that close toghether? If that was a concern, surely they could tweak it to prevent that.

Also, maybe the laser for spotting could be visible? Or perhaps...visible to people with the right spec?

[Shogun]

the problem with flails was, that when air superiority was lost, there was nothing you could do against 4 lazy flailspammers surpressing all entrys on a base.

and most of them even set up their flail at places where they could retreat into a warpgate or a capital shield where they were invincible. they kept spamming for free kills all day and when someone finally came to kill them, they retreated into the shields until danger passed and came out to keep on spamming.

there was a teamwork component, with a soldier marking targets with a laserpointer, but the flail would also work without this.

if we get artillery in ps2, i want something that cannot even fire until a laserpointer is used to mark a target.

edit for stardouzer:
flails could be setup in opposing bases to take advantage of the aa and the base shields

[Stardouser]

edit for stardouzer:
flails could be setup in opposing bases to take advantage of the aa and the base shields


Ah - but maybe they should lowe the range on artillery so that if you are sitting in a friendly base somewhere, you won't be able to reach far enough to hit enemy bases?

[Skitrel]

Mortars can work, they just have to work like real mortars. ie, the people firing the mortars can't necessarily see the target, or anything to do with target acquisition. Project Reality has you being forced to measure distance on map, followed by assigning angle of mortar shot in order to hit target. And then in order to accurately hit the target you need to have people informing you that you need to be closer/further, or whether they're good hits.

Obviously, for an artillery mechanism like that to be anything other than useless they have to be significantly powerful though, unlikely if they're tank mounted. A mortar squad of sorts would be a useful tool in softening up a base immediately before an assault though, or breaking a position. Further to this, mortars don't have a whole lot of ammo and need to be resupplied, resupplies don't give much more ammo either so a whole lot needs dumping with them, making it a large logistics and set up cost and ultimately stopping their abuse because there's a barrier to entry to using them, not to mention actually being part of a mortar squad is largely unrewarding besides being the guy on the mortar.

[Pozidriv]

IMHO the best (this is not fact just an opinion) type of artillery would be a short range (for artillery) volley type artillery piece. For example 6 (could be less, like 3) consecutive shots of medium powered rounds get fired, followed by a "hefty" reload time.

This way you get some proper area supression but not that OMG WTFHAX!! oneshot kill madness.

[MrBloodworth]

As far as using air as a counter goes, part of the problem was that often times people would set up in an opposing base, which meant they were surrounded by AA. The amount of effort it would take to kill a flail was often times not seen as worthwhile to the individual.

I don't have an issue with this. Its a war game. Sounds like sound deployment to me.

[Stardouser]

IMHO the best (this is not fact just an opinion) type of artillery would be a short range (for artillery) volley type artillery piece. For example 6 (could be less, like 3) consecutive shots of medium powered rounds get fired, followed by a "hefty" reload time.

This way you get some proper area supression but not that OMG WTFHAX!! oneshot kill madness.

That actually sounds good. I'd like to see a situation where you could lead a column of like 5-10 artillery pieces, with support personnel for ammo, to do whatever you need to do with them.

Can 1 person in PS1 spot/laze for multiple Flails or does each Flail need its own spotter?

[MrBloodworth]

Can 1 person in PS1 spot/laze for multiple Flails or does each Flail need its own spotter?

It was one to one. With a long refire rate.

[Pozidriv]

That actually sounds good. I'd like to see a situation where you could lead a column of like 5-10 artillery pieces, with support personnel for ammo, to do whatever you need to do with them.

Can 1 person in PS1 spot/laze for multiple Flails or does each Flail need its own spotter?

I honestly can't remember, but i think one person could spot for multiple flails if they were in the same squad :P.

[Shogun]

i´m kind of sure it was "lazer will show on squadmap" so if you got 5 flails in the squad, all 5 could target the lazerpoint.

but it was used so rarely because flails could fire blindly, i don´t know for sure

[Stardouser]

Related thought...are aircraft expected to carry any heavy ordnance that might be worth using with lazing? And whether expected or not, how do you guys feel about it?

[Juneau]

Ill admit i havent given this much thought so feel free to tear it apart but one 'artillery' system that i always liked was Joint Operations, basically player could pull mortar and fire it on his own, but the greater the distance the greater the inaccuracy, it was a pretty steep falloff, however if another player lasered a target then accuracy would get better in that area but still not exact, how about something like that? if that still seems abit too much maybe make it so that the laser has to be held on target? cant see some of the stereotypical flail drivers getting out just to go sit and point a laser at a door :p

[SGTalon]

There is an Economy in PS. It is the soldiers and vehicles.

Read Malorn's Planetside Manifesto. Pretty amazing stuff - http://www.liberty-clan.com/topsecret/psm.pdf

[Stardouser]

There is an Economy in PS. It is the soldiers and vehicles.

Read Malorn's Planetside Manifesto. Pretty amazing stuff - http://www.liberty-clan.com/topsecret/psm.pdf

That's going to take a while to read...in the meantime, what's a zerg? It is the obvious meaning, meaning a horde of players, or something more specific?

Also, speaking of hordes of players, what is PS2's equivalent of a guild and do you have "guildchat" for it?

[DManTech]

That's going to take a while to read...in the meantime, what's a zerg? It is the obvious meaning, meaning a horde of players, or something more specific?

Also, speaking of hordes of players, what is PS2's equivalent of a guild and do you have "guildchat" for it?

Yes, zerg = horde of unorganized players.

Guilds in the Planetside world are called "Outfits", and in PS1 you had an outfit chat channel as well as squad chat and several other channels.

[sylphaen]

There is an Economy in PS. It is the soldiers and vehicles.

Read Malorn's Planetside Manifesto. Pretty amazing stuff - http://www.liberty-clan.com/topsecret/psm.pdf

Thanks for the link. I don't remember Malorn ever posting it himself or I must have missed it. It should be an interesting read.

Just for the sake of understanding, are you also a Liberty clan member ? Does the outfit still exist or has it reformed ?

PS2 will have a very interesting and explosive launch if many so many outfits pre-form.
:)

Sad thing is if PS2 is a huge success, it's unlikely that we (we as in PS1 vets) will all be on the same server.
:(

I'll definitely not miss everyone but some will be missed.

[Stardouser]

Yes, zerg = horde of unorganized players.

Guilds in the Planetside world are called "Outfits", and in PS1 you had an outfit chat channel as well as squad chat and several other channels.

That's what I thought, but why am I seeing "Zergs" referred to so often and why does the manifesto writer talk about understanding how they move? Now as I say, I have subscribed to station access and downloaded PS1 to run around and sample stuff, but that's all...when would a zerg form? If I had to guess, that would be, for example, when you lose a base/continent and everyone forms up for a counterattack?

[Shade Millith]

As much as I wish for a dedicated Artillery unit, the Flail is not it.

Should be a manned vehicle
It needs to have flimsy, ATV like health.
Very slow moving.
Must be deployed to fire, and cannot be deployed within or even near a base.
Recoil throws your aim off, possibly even pushed backwards by the recoil. Each shot must be reaimed
Very low ROF, with a very long reload time after 3-4 shells.
Laser designator cannot be aimed into a base.

Would make it a field use weapon.

[sylphaen]

That's what I thought, but why am I seeing "Zergs" referred to so often and why does the manifesto writer talk about understanding how they move? Now as I say, I have subscribed to station access and downloaded PS1 to run around and sample stuff, but that's all...when would a zerg form? If I had to guess, that would be, for example, when you lose a base/continent and everyone forms up for a counterattack?

Zerg would form through a critical mass of players adjusting their IQ and effort level to the lowest common denominator.

They are not a formal group, per se. They however do happen to move towards the same objective, usually the closest one. It's like a herd effect and almost every player has been part of the zerg at some point or another. Saying zerg is like saying "mainstream media".

An important CR5 skill was effective zerg sheepherding.

Zerg is usually used pejoratively but in reality, it's just about putting everyone (casuals, outfit players waiting for their outfit mates to log on, newbies, small squads following the main movement, etc...) attacking the mainstream objective in the same basket.

[DManTech]

...when would a zerg form? If I had to guess, that would be, for example, when you lose a base/continent and everyone forms up for a counterattack?

Probably not going to see too much of a zerg in PS1 these days, I doubt there's enough population.

I remember when an empire was on a strong offensive on a continent, fighting for bases and waiting around for the capture to go through, there was definitely a large group that was pretty disorganized and would just wander over to the next base with little planning or strategy. Meanwhile, you'd see some tactically-minded squads back-hacking a key base away from the main battle, pulling AMS's to support the offensive, or other tasks that didn't involve just running at the enemy, dying, and spawning to do it all over again.

That unorganized group is the zerg, and my intuition is that it's naturally where a lot of COD (and to a lesser extent, Battlefield) types will be. Very little strategic thinking about which base to cap next, just running to where the big battle is and throwing some bullets around.

This isn't to say the zerg is bad--I'm more of a strategic player myself, and a lot of players like me will seem to look down on the zerg, but the fact is that without the zerg, we'd have a lot harder time having fun. The zerg keeps the enemy focused on a large invasion force if nothing else, leaving room for smaller squads to go unnoticed until it's too late.

[Stardouser]

Does that mean that the masses actually listen and go where they are told? I've always had this notion that at least 15% of players would be going behind lines sabotaging or raping the enemy as they came out of their bases(if that's even possible) rather than throwing themselves at defended objectives.

[sylphaen]

Does that mean that the masses actually listen and go where they are told? I've always had this notion that at least 15% of players would be going behind lines sabotaging or raping the enemy as they came out of their bases(if that's even possible) rather than throwing themselves at defended objectives.

The zerg has a mind of its own.
:lol:

Now about that 15% figure, I wouldn't be able to be so precise but at some point, the fight only gets so large before a minority of players start to think (or be willing) to flank.

The zerg rarely worked around breaking stalemates. When 2-3 empire zergs collided though, it usually created a nice frontline with varying levels of intensity.

Dman is spot on when he says the "zerg" was important in creating fun for PS1.

[Stardouser]

The zerg has a mind of its own.
:lol:

Now about that 15% figure, I wouldn't be able to be so precise but at some point, the fight only gets so large before a minority of players start to think (or be willing) to flank.

The zerg rarely worked around breaking stalemates. When 2-3 empire zergs collided though, it usually created a nice frontline with varying levels of intensity.

Dman is spot on when he says the "zerg" was important in creating fun for PS1.

If it's similar in PS2, this could be the ULTIMATE teamwork. People who like meatgrinds and who come from CoD and BF3 could perform the zerg duty so that their faction teammates can do other things while they keep the enemy busy. I'm beginning to like this discussion...

In fact, if I knew enough about PS1 and Zergs to write something about it, I'd write up something post on BF's forums to get people salivating. Who would have thought that Operation Metro padders and large map lovers could ever work together?

[Aurmanite]

Zerg (Zer'geh)
-Free will
-Chaos
-Disorganization
-The meat in the ginder

[KrazeyVIII]

I could be wrong but hasn't it already been stated that the developers are trying to steer clear of anything related to artillery? I can't seem to find the source but I remember the reasoning being that they wanted combat to be engaging instead of pointing and clicking on the map.

Economy wise I don't think anyone really knows what's going on with it yet other then the fact that there is a system in place.

[Shogun]

oooh the zerg ;)

curse and blessing.

yes,the zerg is important to the game. they form the stage for this great warmovie ;-)
they do, what the scripted ai bots do in singleplayergames. so the tactical players can have fun and pull of their special operations.
and if you´ve got some really good high commanders who manage to control the zerg to go where you want them, it gets epic. but controlling the zerg was extremely hard to do. the zerg was usually the place for all casuals and for those who just wanted to shoot at something and didn´t care about greater goals.

the zerg was like a swarm of insects that would kill everything and move on, leaving only burnt soil.it happened very often that after a base was captured by the maximum zerg and they moved on without even repairing the defence of the base, leaving it open for recapturing. sometimes even before the hack was completed, so a single mossiedropper could cancel the hack.

in ps2, we will always have a big zerg, since it´s free to play and we will see many more casual players than we saw in the expensive ps1.
i hope the mission system helps with controlling them a little.

[Stardouser]

I could be wrong but hasn't it already been stated that the developers are trying to steer clear of anything related to artillery? I can't seem to find the source but I remember the reasoning being that they wanted combat to be engaging instead of pointing and clicking on the map.

Economy wise I don't think anyone really knows what's going on with it yet other then the fact that there is a system in place.

ouch...as a BF3 refugee I have to say we are looking for BF3 to be more strategic, less meatgrind...that would mean things like artillery.

And this is a case where, while I understand the need to somewhat emulate the other games, but DICE claims they wanted things to be more engaging, despite this, they have totally filled BF3 with lock-on weapons. As an example, lock-on Javelins of little skill where they could have had wire-guided AT of at least moderate skill.

This is one area where I really hope they are not going to emulate BF3 and CoD too much...

[sylphaen]

ouch...as a BF3 refugee I have to say we are looking for BF3 to be more strategic, less meatgrind...that would mean things like artillery.

I think artillery is something you would have to experience in-game in order to have a better idea whether you would really like it or not.

Personally, I felt it was as frustrating as back-hacking before the lattice was implemented i.e. something annoying to deal with but that can be set up again with relative ease.

An annoyance would be my feeling about the flail. Now if an extra game mechanic like artillery can be implemented and be fun for most, why not ? In that sense, however, I do not think the flail was a success.

[Stardouser]

I think artillery is something you would have to experience in-game in order to have a better idea whether you would really like it or not.

Personally, I felt it was as frustrating as back-hacking before the lattice was implemented i.e. something annoying to deal with but that can be set up again with relative ease.

An annoyance would be my feeling about the flail. Now if an extra game mechanic like artillery can be implemented and be fun for most, why not ? In that sense, however, I do not think the flail was a success.

It sounds like some people didn't like flails because of their ability to sit next to friendly shielded bases...I would say that lowering their range is a solution to that but...exactly how close together are bases expected to be? If you lower the range of artillery so that it can't fire all the way from a friendly base to an enemy base, is that going to mean it has a silly low range?

[sylphaen]

Frankly, I cannot pretend to know at which range things stop being annoying and start being fun. That's why I limited my post to highlighting that an action requiring a lot of effort for little results is usually annoying.

For instance, if respawning was instant, taking a spawn room could have been a lot more frustrating in PS1.

FYI, about the flail, some people used to flail while being AFK (using a pen to hold down the fire key) and the spotter was not even a necessity.

[SGTalon]

Thanks for the link. I don't remember Malorn ever posting it himself or I must have missed it. It should be an interesting read.

Just for the sake of understanding, are you also a Liberty clan member ? Does the outfit still exist or has it reformed ?

.

I am TR for life. Liberty is NC. I was on Emerald though. And i was a victim of every one of Malorn's tactics. Although at the time I had no idea that it was just a few guys guiding the game like that.

I think that having him on that server elevated the game to something that the Devs never imagined it could be. I just hope that there is enough flexibility to the new game to allow for creativity like that.

I just imagine that Malorn is the John Connor of PS1.

[Stardouser]

Frankly, I cannot pretend to know at which range things stop being annoying and start being fun. That's why I limited my post to highlighting that an action requiring a lot of effort for little results is usually annoying.

For instance, if respawning was instant, taking a spawn room could have been a lot more frustrating in PS1.

FYI, about the flail, some people used to flail while being AFK (using a pen to hold down the fire key) and the spotter was not even a necessity.

Well, respawns should never be instant. But I don't agree with limiting squad spawn to outdoor only(or making respawns, including squad spawns, more than 20 seconds), either; and to the extent that capturing a spawn room makes any difference, I really don't see why defenders should ever spawn right inside a room that has to be captured in order to capture a base, anyway.

But now, as far as the artillery goes, I thought you meant that it was annoying for the people getting hit by it, not by the people using it...which did you mean?

[sylphaen]

Well, respawns should never be instant. But I don't agree with limiting squad spawn to outdoor only(or making respawns, including squad spawns, more than 20 seconds), either; and to the extent that capturing a spawn room makes any difference, I really don't see why defenders should ever spawn right inside a room that has to be captured in order to capture a base, anyway.

But now, as far as the artillery goes, I thought you meant that it was annoying for the people getting hit by it, not by the people using it...which did you mean?

Sorry for not being clear.

It was annoying for the people getting hit by it... Except they were not really being hit. Flail targets were exits, courtyard areas and vehicle/repair terminals located outside.

Yes, it was tactical, it required a cert and a cave lock. But it was simply not a fun mechanic for most. I would compared it to long range tower camping. Pulling and deploying a flail also required too little effort compared to how much effort it took to go destroy them miles away.

I would much rather be shelled by a tank on a hill near the base than by a vehicle you can't even see. At least, it takes time for the tank to reach the vicinity of a base. It's also a lot more risky.

__________________

The spawns example might have been a wrong one. I just wanted to show how something can go from good to awful depending on an arbitrary value.

FYI, PS1 spawn time was adjusted based on how fast you died. Respawn could range from 5 seconds to 30 seconds (if you died a lot due to intense base defense or assault for example). During an intense battle, most had a long spawn time and even then, it could be hard to take a base. Imagine how frustrating it could have been if respawn always stayed low !

That's just an idea I wanted to describe through an example. Fortunately, PS1 spawn mechanic was adjusted to fit the game. It would also be possible to discuss base designs with claustrophobic corridos, tight doors, limited numbers of possible paths towards objectives... etc...

In the end, you have to play it to get a feel of the game and that's when some values can be adjusted to improve the game. I think artillery is one of those aspects. It can be done but it has to improve the game for most and that is hard to know without playtesting.

[Stardouser]

I would much rather be shelled by a tank on a hill near the base than by a vehicle you can't even see. At least, it takes time for the tank to reach the vicinity of a base. It's also a lot more risky.

__________________

The spawns example might have been a wrong one. I just wanted to show how something can go from good to awful depending on an arbitrary value.

FYI, PS1 spawn time was adjusted based on how fast you died. Respawn could range from 5 seconds to 30 seconds (if you died a lot due to intense base defense or assault for example). During an intense battle, most had a long spawn time and even then, it could be hard to take a base. Imagine how frustrating it could have been if respawn always stayed low !

That's just an idea I wanted to describe through an example. Fortunately, PS1 spawn mechanic was adjusted to fit the game. It would also be possible to discuss base designs with claustrophobic corridos, tight doors, limited numbers of possible paths towards objectives... etc...

In the end, you have to play it to get a feel of the game and that's when some values can be adjusted to improve the game. I think artillery is one of those aspects. It can be done but it has to improve the game for most and that is hard to know without playtesting.

Well, I do think the range should be short enough that you must get close to the base. Not so close that you have to sight right out in sight of the target base where you can be sniped out of the driver seat by someone inside the base(curious - CAN you snipe people out of vehicles?), but short enough that the people in the base know they can find it not more than 1 km away if they can get out to look for him, ie you might not be sitting on the hill right next to the base, but you might be sitting on the hill right behind that hill.

As for spawn time, I've played with spawns ranging from instant, to 15 seconds to 45 seconds and even greater too if you died a lot it could be 1:15, frankly I can't imagine how actually experiencing the game would convince me that any respawn time greater than 25 seconds is not going to be an extreme annoyance.

[sylphaen]

Well, I do think the range should be short enough that you must get close to the base. Not so close that you have to sight right out in sight of the target base where you can be sniped out of the driver seat by someone inside the base(curious - CAN you snipe people out of vehicles?), but short enough that the people in the base know they can find it not more than 1 km away if they can get out to look for him, ie you might not be sitting on the hill right next to the base, but you might be sitting on the hill right behind that hill.

As for spawn time, I've played with spawns ranging from instant, to 15 seconds to 45 seconds and even greater too if you died a lot it could be 1:15, frankly I can't imagine how actually experiencing the game would convince me that any respawn time greater than 25 seconds is not going to be an extreme annoyance.

In PS1, you could not snipe someone in/on his vehicle.

It was quite easy to locate flails, their shots were slow and left a large blue trail of light in the skies.

Slow respawns were annoying indeed. It did promote staying alive as long as you could but I found them boring, yes. FYI, there was also a hierarchy in spawn times based on which facility you were spawning in. Spawning in a base was fast, then the fastest was a tower and I think the slowest was spawning at an AMS.

Fortunately, since the gameplay speed is being for the fastest in PS2, it should be quite interesting to see the result.

Remember that there is also a balance to strike between spawning at a spawn point and waiting for a medic. If respawning is too fast and trivial, medics lose some of their appeal.

[Fenrys]

Does that mean that the masses actually listen and go where they are told? I've always had this notion that at least 15% of players would be going behind lines sabotaging or raping the enemy as they came out of their bases(if that's even possible) rather than throwing themselves at defended objectives.

They go where they are told to indirectly. The zerg reliably charge the nearest enemy in the biggest battle. Zergherding means planning your ops so those conditions will be met at the base you wish for the zerg to attack.

Aircav would sometimes go after vehicles as they came out of rear bases. For example, if you are on defense, you might pull a Reaver from a base that isn't currently being attacked, and patrol the route that's between your base that is being attacked and the nearest enemy base. Ideally you would find and destroy their AMS's (mobile spawn points) before they reached the fight.

If you were on offense and trying to take a well defended base, you might patrol around the nearest warpgate looking for Ants (which are used to fill bases' energy silos) Spawning and pulling vehicles consumes energy and the silo needs to be resupplied every once in a while, especially during heavy fighting at that base. If you can deny them the opportunity to get an Ant into the base, it will eventually go neutral and lose it's spawn point (it's assumed that since you're attacking, your team already has mobile spawn points in place nearby).

[Stardouser]

Just out of curiosity, and on the subject of vehicles, would PS vets consider it blasphemy if there were some air vehicles that were purchased/requested at a runway and needed it to take off, instead of all VTOL? I might already be incorrect in assuming they are all VTOL....

[sylphaen]

Just out of curiosity, and on the subject of vehicles, would PS vets consider it blasphemy if there were some air vehicles that were purchased/requested at a runway and needed it to take off, instead of all VTOL? I might already be incorrect in assuming they are all VTOL....

What extra purpose would it serve ?

Concerning VTOL, pretty much all PS1 air vehicles were VTOL so it's a safe assumption.

[Stardouser]

What extra purpose would it serve ?

Concerning VTOL, pretty much all PS1 air vehicles were VTOL so it's a safe assumption.

Eh, nothing. I was just dreaming about my old MMO vision for a modern themed MMOFPS where you have things like fuel that are a concern, and you have to land to refuel, and also land at the completion of a mission otherwise it counts as a loss of the aircraft if you don't return it to base. But that's a completely different idea from PS2.

I will ask, though, out of further curiosity...how many bases per continent are expected to exist that can spawn heavy attack aircraft; and also, is there any limit to how many of a certain vehicle, in this case aircraft, can spawn? I mean, if every player in your Empire was certified for them could they ALL spawn a bomber or whatever constitutes the closest thing to one? Or a tank, for that matter?

[sylphaen]

But that's a completely different idea from PS2.


:)

How many bases per continent are expected to exist that can spawn heavy attack aircraft; and also, is there any limit to how many of a certain vehicle, in this case aircraft, can spawn? I mean, if every player in your Empire was certified for them could they ALL spawn a bomber or whatever constitutes the closest thing to one? Or a tank, for that matter?

I only know about PS1. There were 7-11 bases per continent which offered different benefits. One of them was the Technology Plant. It allowed to spawn "tech" vehicles such has empire specific tanks (ES MBTs), skyguards (AA buggy) and reavers (heavy attack aircraft).

Unless you had one of those bases under your control on the continent and linked to your current base, you could not spawn those vehicles at your current base. Tech plants were critical. Some continents had 3 and others only 2 (so one empire was stuck without tech vehicles).

Another type of base, the dropship center, allowed to spawn Galaxies (air troop transport) and Galaxy Gunship (air fortress) but only at that base.

The only limit was how many people had the cert and how many people you had to man their guns. So for 2-man vehicles, the theoretical limit would be 165 or so per empire per continent


EDIT: PS1 is a free download and only 15$ a month. Maybe you should give it a try since it's hard to explain all the aspects comprehensively. The whole game is integrated and knowing one part may not be helpful to understand the whole dynamic.

If you ever decide to give it a try, choose the VS and get in touch with GOTR. I cannot speak for them but I think they will gladly accompany you through the game until PS2. I'm not currently active in-game but they are the group of guys who changed the whole game for me.

[kadrin]

I would love to see arty in PS2. Though it would need some balance because the Flail could get pretty stupid with the whole "park on hill outside of base and direct fire into doors".

I used to play spotter for a couple of friends, the satisfaction of watching the rounds come in where you directed them... those were great moments.

I always wished they'd add some sort of feedback for the Flail person for adjustments, something on the HUD to tell them how many meters away they were aiming from the point that was lazed, that way I could just say something like "25 meters left/right/up/down". It was pretty hard to direct fire onto something other than by lazing it constantly, I'd have to tell them things like "a little more to the left" or "bring it down a bit.