Ground vehicle driving

[Figment]

Considering drivers apparently will not get third person, nor any situational awareness, we need:


Rear view mirrors
Side view mirrors
When reversing, a beeping noise to warn cloakers/infantry
A distance to obstruction warning signal
When driving anywhere, a beeping noise to warn cloakers/infantry
When rotating anywhere, a beeping noise to warn cloakers/infantry
Pedestrian crossroads in bases, canyons and elsewhere
Penalty drivers license (special grief system for collissions and driving over friendlies)
Penalties for infantry doing dutch crossings
Driving licenses being revoked upon too much friendly damage
Huge bumpers and crumplezones for collissions.
Horns
GMs with a degree in traffic police




All of that, or third person. :rolleyes:

Please note that third person can be done such that it still only shows those units who are actually spotted for vehicles as well:

World of Tanks - Spotting System Testing (Pagorki) - YouTube

[Warborn]

This is why we need friendly fire. Without friendly fire, how will stupid infiltrators who wander around like assholes in the middle of bases where vehicles are liable to drive through while also being cloaked? Those people need to die. That is why friendly fire needs to be in the game. Every cloaked friendly someone kills with their bumper should reward the driver and give grief points to the infiltrator for being dumb.

[Toppopia]

This is why we need friendly fire. Without friendly fire, how will stupid infiltrators who wander around like assholes in the middle of bases where vehicles are liable to drive through while also being cloaked? Those people need to die. That is why friendly fire needs to be in the game. Every cloaked friendly someone kills with their bumper should reward the driver and give grief points to the infiltrator for being dumb.

Yeah that is true... You need friendly fire or else people will run in front of teammates and block their shots and be annoying. And people need to have more situational awareness. and the minimap will show teammates behind you so it will be easyish to see them.

[Figment]

Yeah that is true... You need friendly fire or else people will run in front of teammates and block their shots and be annoying. And people need to have more situational awareness. and the minimap will show teammates behind you so it will be easyish to see them.

If friendlies are on the minimap, how the hell would you hit cloakers in front of you?

Answer: people don't look at the minimap.

[Mechzz]

The TB video shows 3rd person on the magrider just before it kills the lightning, so the mechanic is in the game.

I was never aware of 3rd person view in a vehicle being particularly abusable, or is that just naive old me again?

[Figment]

The TB video shows 3rd person on the magrider just before it kills the lightning, so the mechanic is in the game.

Looked through the video and neither Magrider bit has third person.

[Wargrim]

I like the idea of having 3rd person view only for a dedicated driver. Part of the fun of driving and operating the main gun at the same time is the challenge of getting used to the limited view you have. ( Unless it is a game where your viewing port is even smaller than your screen. Luckily that is not the case here. )

[Figment]

I like the idea of having 3rd person view only for a dedicated driver. Part of the fun of driving and operating the main gun at the same time is the challenge of getting used to the limited view you have. ( Unless it is a game where your viewing port is even smaller than your screen. Luckily that is not the case here. )

Driving in World of Tanks with just sniper view (what you get in PS2) is horrible tbh.

[Mechzz]

Looked through the video and neither Magrider bit has third person.

At 17:46, after he captures the control point, he leaves the building and enters the magrider. Then, for a second or two, he is in third person before the lightning appears.

[Figment]

At 17:46, after he captures the control point, he leaves the building and enters the magrider. Then, for a second or two, he is in third person before the lightning appears.

I stand corrected. :) Thanks.

[Mechzz]

I stand corrected. :) Thanks.

Sorry, just me being lazy and not bothering to quote the time in the first post. Watched the vid like 5 times already and couldn't be arsed looking for it :)

It's only a few secs and easy to miss, since it's so natural.

I'm for 3rd person on vehcs until someone points out how it can be abused.

[Figment]

Honestly third person is not really abusable if executed well. I wouldn't mind third person on infantry either if it is just showing those who have been detected by your team.

Would also encourage leaning around corners. It's a very natural thing to do (and leaning WOULD expose you a bit).

With a similar spotting system to WoT, it's fine IMO.

[Stardouser]

Aircraft are getting uber cockpits.

Why not give vehicles a 3D cockpit and just include a rear facing camera?

[MacXXcaM]

I would like 3rd person in vehicles as well as aircraft. 3rd person infantry views wouldn't be too bad either but I can certainly live without it.

[Baneblade]

As long as 3rd person is tied to the vehicle and not the turret.

[Figment]

Looks like a very divided poll so far.

[MacXXcaM]

Higby said they didn't want 3rd person on vehicles since it would give you the ability to "wall hump". He gave the example of pulling up next to an obstruction in 3rd person and being able to see troop movement etc. on the other side without the vehicle being seen.

Imo Planetside was never so much of a war simulator. Combat has always been quite open and with a higher ttk that wouldn't be a problem.

[Pozidriv]

Biased poll is biased. Still, voted for no 3rd person cam. Btw, how many here have driven anything that isn't a truck and weighs more than 20 tons?

I can tell you, when you roll around with 60 tons of layered composite armour, nothing really compares to it :D. Also reversing kinda sucks, no rear view mirrors or side view mirrors (unless you're in a non-combat situation).

You have to rely on the instructions of your commander because he is the only person who has 360° view from the tank.

[captainkapautz]

I was never aware of 3rd person view in a vehicle being particularly abusable, or is that just naive old me again?

Naive old you. ;)

Biased poll is biased.

This, too.


I'm personally against any kind of 3rd person view, for any vehicle, given that the 1st person views are adequate.


P.S.: Crap, just realiesed that I voted for the wrong one, took "No 3rd for GV" instead of "No 3rd for anyone". :/

[Mechzz]

Naive old you. ;)


Go on, go on....spill the beans. What have I been missing all this time? :huh:

[Figment]

Biased poll is biased.

How is it biased? How did you NOT have options?

[captainkapautz]

Go on, go on....spill the beans. What have been missing all this time? :huh:

That:
Higby said they didn't want 3rd person on vehicles since it would give you the ability to "wall hump". He gave the example of pulling up next to an obstruction in 3rd person and being able to see troop movement etc. on the other side without the vehicle being seen.

For example.
Yes, not as bad as wallhumping in 3rd person was in PS1, but still a legit concern.

Or that 3rd person pretty much stops infantry from going the "Sneak up to Boomer"-route, because gives you a 360° perimeterview at all times.


Edit:
How is it biased? How did you NOT have options?

No 3rd person for GV: I'll gladly get run over by/collide with friendlies and stuck on terrain

That, right there is a biased poll option.

[Mechzz]

^^^

oh that ;););)

No real advantage there imo. Not like standing at a stair head with a jackhammer in yer blue mitts, is it?

[Figment]

That, right there is a biased poll option.

No it's not. It's a consequence you are willing to take.

Unless you would enlighten me how none of those three things would happen a lot, A LOT more than with 3rd person.

If you think it won't happen more often, you're not really ready for this debate, tbh. And pozidriv from your reply you may want to think again, the commander does not. When he has got no third person and only will have an approximate 120 degrees rotating field of vision, typically focused on a random enemy (not the most important one), just like the gunner, then he cannot command and direct the gunners in his tank. This will in most cases not even include the area ahead of the tank, let alone what's next or behind it.

[Baneblade]

No it's not. It's a consequence you are willing to take.

Unless you would enlighten me how none of those three things would happen a lot, A LOT more than with 3rd person.

If you think it won't happen more often, you're not really ready for this debate, tbh. And pozidriv from your reply you may want to think again, the commander does not. When he has got no third person and only will have an approximate 120 degrees rotating field of vision, typically focused on a random enemy (not the most important one), just like the gunner, then he cannot command and direct the gunners in his tank. This will in most cases not even include the area ahead of the tank, let alone what's next or behind it.

Truth be told, it will happen regardless. And your poll is biased, clearly favoring TPV.

[Pyreal]

In BF3 I always fought in first person, but I do like the expanded view of 3rd as well. I voted in favor of 3rd.

[captainkapautz]

^^^

oh that ;););)

No real advantage there imo. Not like standing at a stair head with a jackhammer in yer blue mitts, is it?

Well, if I can see around or over a wall in 3rd person, then it kinda is an advantage.

Granted, nowhere near as much as an advantage as 3rd person is on infantry.

I do want proper useable 1st person view in vehicles, any vehicle for that matter, but from the magrider-footage atleast it looks like GVs have good cockpitviews.

[Mechzz]

Well, if I can see around or over a wall in 3rd person, then it kinda is an advantage.

Granted, nowhere near as much as an advantage as 3rd person is on infantry.

I do want proper useable 1st person view in vehicles, any vehicle for that matter, but from the magrider-footage atleast it looks like GVs have good cockpitviews.

Yeah, on a scale of 1-10 in terms of advantage gained with 3p, if infantry is 9 - 10 then a vehicle gets like 1-2 in my book.

Where lack of 3p may be a drawback is in a busy cy. But if the pedestrian gets the grief points then there's no issue. They shouldn't be running into my magdrive field in any case.

[Figment]

It's not a biased poll, you can always vote "Other" if you disagree with the sixth option.

Yeah, on a scale of 1-10 in terms of advantage gained with 3p, if infantry is 9 - 10 then a vehicle gets like 1-2 in my book.

Where lack of 3p may be a drawback is in a busy cy. But if the pedestrian gets the grief points then there's no issue. They shouldn't be running into my magdrive field in any case.

There's such a thing as shared responsibility. Both drivers and pedestrians are at fault, but especially Magrider drivers should mind the road for they have mobility advantages like strafing that someone else cannot predict or get out of the way off as easily.

You also forget CSHD, what you avoid on your screen, may get hit on another.

[Mechzz]

It's not a biased poll, you can always vote "Other" if you disagree with the sixth option.



There's such a thing as shared responsibility. Both drivers and pedestrians are at fault, but especially Magrider drivers should mind the road for they have mobility advantages like strafing that someone else cannot predict or get out of the way off as easily.

You also forget CSHD, what you avoid on your screen, may get hit on another.

My tongue was slightly in my cheek as I wrote that, but you've driven in a busy CY too. Peeps just run around and there's no traffic lights to separate traffic and pedestrians. And who knows, maybe with the new vehicle spawning we won't need to mow down 10 rexos just to get out of the cy?

[Figment]

May I challenge the people to record themselves playing a Lightning or World of Tanks unit without ever switching to third person, just to get an idea of what it's like. I would suggest to avoid accidental switching, to bind the "T" to F12 and post the results here.


I'd be curious how long you'd be able to drive without getting carsick, hitting an object in the road or losing control of the vehicle while gunning and driving.

[Mechzz]

I'd be curious how long you'd be able to drive without getting carsick, hitting an object in the road or losing control of the vehicle while gunning and driving.

I always thought part of the fun of driving a lightning was the comedic potential for tree-humping while trying to slip away through trees after upsetting some MBTs. And gunning in 3rd person I always found pretty hopeless. May explain why I graduated to the magrider as soon as certs allowed.

[captainkapautz]

May I challenge the people to record themselves playing a Lightning or World of Tanks unit without ever switching to third person, just to get an idea of what it's like. I would suggest to avoid accidental switching, to bind the "T" to F12 and post the results here.


I'd be curious how long you'd be able to drive without getting carsick, hitting an object in the road or losing control of the vehicle while gunning and driving.

Meh, noone ever said it's gonna be easy.

And Lightning as in PS1 Lightning? I always felt it worked better in 1st person/in turret view myself, but that was a long while ago.

I'll give it a whirl this week and see.

[Baneblade]

May I challenge the people to record themselves playing a Lightning or World of Tanks unit without ever switching to third person, just to get an idea of what it's like. I would suggest to avoid accidental switching, to bind the "T" to F12 and post the results here.


I'd be curious how long you'd be able to drive without getting carsick, hitting an object in the road or losing control of the vehicle while gunning and driving.

I used to drive the Enforcer and Vanguard from FPV, just to handicap myself.

[Ceska]

I'm for a 3rd view that makes it hard to aim, and that is more focused on the driving direction that on the aiming direction

[Raka Maru]

I liked the 3rd person driving view especially in a quad or buggy. It plays more like a racing game when crossing a continent.

[IMMentat]

Allow 3rd person in larger vehicles but only show the front 1/2-1/3 of the vehicle and angle the view towards the ground so you can't distance shoot with it (basically make it a parking camera).

Bring back the head-turn option when inside an open cockpit vehicle that was in PS1 (also in battlefield jeeps? and far cry 2).

Remove the crosshairs and widen the CoF on any weapon used in 3rd person to prevent use of chest high terrain as 3rd person sandbag entrenchments (Splash damage is nto what it used to be on MBT weapons from what I have seen o far).

[Figment]

Allow 3rd person in larger vehicles but only show the front 1/2-1/3 of the vehicle and angle the view towards the ground so you can't distance shoot with it (basically make it a parking camera).

That's not a parking camera. You couldn't see even a meter behind you, which means while backing up you're bound to hit stuff all the time and if you get stuck you can't see how you might get unstuck.

Which is very deadly and not very fun.

Bring back the head-turn option when inside an open cockpit vehicle that was in PS1 (also in battlefield jeeps? and far cry 2).

Considering this is done for aircraft, I'd presume it's done for vehicles as well?

Remove the crosshairs and widen the CoF on any weapon used in 3rd person to prevent use of chest high terrain as 3rd person sandbag entrenchments (Splash damage is nto what it used to be on MBT weapons from what I have seen o far).

No need to change cone of fire if you're already removing the crosshairs. Firing is not really what 3rd person is needed for, it's more for observing, driving, target selection, ie. situational awareness. (As said before anyway, I'd not want the driver to gun, in which case you're the commander and you're job is in part guiding the gunners).

[Baneblade]

If the only reason to have it is maneuvering, then make it a bird's eye camera.

[Zulthus]

This poll certainly isn't biased.

I should have voted no 3PV for ground vehicles. Here's why:

The driver can sit in 3PV and see when infantry units are sneaking up to put C4 on. That's just the main reason they shouldn't have it. 3rd person doesn't help an aircraft like that; it can only be used effectively to maneuver, nothing else. It can be abused much easier on ground vehicles.

[Figment]

If the only reason to have it is maneuvering, then make it a bird's eye camera.

It is the main reason, next to target selection, yes. Tunnelvision (especially when perpendicular to your driving direction) is just silly. Wouldn't be fun if people would ram hills and terrain all the time and feel like their skill is impeded by their forced lack of situational awareness.

[Baneblade]

Well there is as much situational awareness as a grunt gets...

[Figment]

Well there is as much situational awareness as a grunt gets...

A grunt turns on a dime and doesn't have to drive at 60 kph through a dense amount of enemies or forest.


That said, I'm not in favour of removing third person from infantry. At most changing spotting system.

[Pyreal]

A grunt turns on a dime and doesn't have to drive at 60 kph through a dense amount of enemies or forest.


That said, I'm not in favour of removing third person from infantry. At most changing spotting system.

There shouldn't be a spotting system! (if you mean like BF3)

Minimaps with enemy locations are BS.

[Erendil]

If the only reason to have it is maneuvering, then make it a bird's eye camera.

Switching back and forth between top-down bird's eye view and 1stPV view would be frustrating and disorienting, IMO, doubly so if you alternate between using ground vehicles and aircraft with similar frequency since you'd have the topdown view w/ GV but behind-view with aircraft.. Better for the two views to have a similar perspective.

This poll certainly isn't biased.

I should have voted no 3PV for ground vehicles. Here's why:

The driver can sit in 3PV and see when infantry units are sneaking up to put C4 on. That's just the main reason they shouldn't have it. 3rd person doesn't help an aircraft like that; it can only be used effectively to maneuver, nothing else. It can be abused much easier on ground vehicles.

3rdPV doesn't help aircraft like that because they are already immune to the tactic because they can fly, so that point is moot IMO. Plus it's no guarantee that the driver will both see the bomber and move out of the way fast enough before the c4 goes off. And as I said above, IMO 3rdPV can be abused more easily by aircraft than GV's, not the other way around.


As you all can probably guess I voted YES for full 3rdPV perspective just like in PS1. Here's why:


It's needed to maneuver around obstacles, especially at high speeds.
The Mag needs 3rdPV if it's going to have any success at strafing or driving in reverse.
Driving purely in 1stPV over uneven terrain, while moving fast or for long periods can cause eye strain and headaches/nausea for some players. 3rdPV can alleviate that.
It's potential for wallhumping abuse is next to nothing since vehicles are huge, loud, and always show on the minimap so you should always know where they are.
It's incredibly FUN to use. And having FUN is why we're all here, right?
It can be used as a balancing factor for the smaller, faster vehicles (i.e. ATV, Lightning) by giving their 3rdPV camera a view that's slightly farther out
It'll probably be needed for ATV's to simply keep control of the vehicle while move at top speed.


And yes, I believe it should point along the turret, not the front of the vehicle, due to the above-mentioned disorientation that switching to a topdown view could cause.

Honestly, I don't understand why some people are so against 3rdPV for vehicles. If it's useful, not unbalancing or OP'd, not open to abuse, relieves eyestrain while driving, and is hellaciously fun, why not include it?

[Figment]

@Pyreal:

1. What I mean is only show those players who have been spotted (and for instance leave them sighted for 3 seconds after being spotted). This includes IMO a leaning function.

2. Play PlanetSide today with a radar viral on. It's not fun to be the defending party at all. Not seeing enemies on radar makes you to dependend on random allies telling you where enemies are on an individual basis. That's completely unworkable with the amount of enemies we're talking about here and how fast information becomes outdated with the thrust pads and fast TTKs, etc.

Not to mention "DEFEND THE CONTROL CONSOLE!" "WHICH ONE!?". Completely impossible to communicate clearly without a functional minimap. IMO radar should show spotted enemies. It is still a game and information is crucial in this sort of game.

I'm not saying show them on radar by default, I'm not saying show them on radar just by firing like in CoD, do show them on radar if they have been detected by other players of your empire. Hell, add silencers like in CoD for all I care. IMO PS1 did spotting fairly well aside from the Interlink and Mosquito radars which were over the top with information and that you could look around corners while being on the other side of a wall.

[captainkapautz]

Minimaps with enemy locations are BS.

Yeah, they were bullshit in PS1 as well. :rolleyes:

[Virulence]

A close-in chase cam similar to what the Vanguard third person was in PS1 is what I'd prefer.

[Xyntech]

What if vehicles in third person could only see enemy units who would be visible from their first person field of view, with enemies behind terrain, buildings, and to the sides and rear of the vehicle fading out of view?

You could still have friendlies be visible at all times, to help you avoid running them over.

Obviously there would be the potential for hackers finding some workaround to keep those enemies visible at all times, but at least then it would be a clear cheat, not like 3rd person was before where people argued whether it was an exploit or a feature.

3rd person isn't such a vastly exploitable thing for vehicles anyways, so a hacker exploiting it wouldn't even be gaining that much benefit for the risk involved.

I'm pretty sure Forgelight and other modern engines are capable of pulling this off.

[Pyreal]

Yeah, they were bullshit in PS1 as well. :rolleyes:

I was thinking more along the lines of BF3, Putz.

[IMMentat]

@Figment
Removing crosshairs does almost nothing to most half decent players, they just learn the mid-point of the gun (assuming small CoF) and adjust accordingly (or put a marker onto their monitor to simulate the crosshair).

If the driver view is near the central (or widest) part of the vehicle there will be less requirement for 3rdPV, it's when the view is from the front bumper or tip of the gun-barrel that mauevering gets difficult.
In the end it's all down to how carefully the main view is positioned, if you can not see or easily estimate the outer edges of your vehicle (hardest to do on curved/vanu/arrowheaded surfaces) then that tree/rock/missile you thought you had avoided is going to take some of your paintwork as a punishment for your difficulties.

[MacXXcaM]

As you all can probably guess I voted YES for full 3rdPV perspective just like in PS1. Here's why:


It's needed to maneuver around obstacles, especially at high speeds.
The Mag needs 3rdPV if it's going to have any success at strafing or driving in reverse.
Driving purely in 1stPV over uneven terrain, while moving fast or for long periods can cause eye strain and headaches/nausea for some players. 3rdPV can alleviate that.
It's potential for wallhumping abuse is next to nothing since vehicles are huge, loud, and always show on the minimap so you should always know where they are.
It's incredibly FUN to use. And having FUN is why we're all here, right?
It can be used as a balancing factor for the smaller, faster vehicles (i.e. ATV, Lightning) by giving their 3rdPV camera a view that's slightly farther out
It'll probably be needed for ATV's to simply keep control of the vehicle while move at top speed.


And yes, I believe it should point along the turret, not the front of the vehicle, due to the above-mentioned disorientation that switching to a topdown view could cause.

Honestly, I don't understand why some people are so against 3rdPV for vehicles. If it's useful, not unbalancing or OP'd, not open to abuse, relieves eyestrain while driving, and is hellaciously fun, why not include it?

100% agreed.

Also, I agree with the guy who said BF3 spotting is BS ^^

[Mechzz]

I'm not seeing anyone putting forward ways in which 3pv can be abused in a ground vehicle apart from wall-humping. In a game like PS2 wall-humping cannot be a significant issue, can it? Or am I missing something?

Usually when this type of topic comes up, peeps come crawling out of the undergrowth with the "omg, it's sooo OP, nerf it now!" arguments.

Yet on this topic, nada, niets.

So either:
1. There's a conspiracy of silence which is hiding a huge exploit (in which case I hope the devs know about it and don't put in 3pv to prevent it)

or

2. There is no meaningful advantage from 3pv other than the positive ones people have put so eloquently.

I for one don't see why we can't/shouldn't have 3pv.

[captainkapautz]

I was thinking more along the lines of BF3, Putz.

The problem in BF3 was NOT that you saw spotted enemies on the minimap.

The problem was 3D-spotting and spotting from across the map and the spot taking ages to go away and everyone everywhere seeing you across the map.

If spotting handles like it did in Hardcore then it'd be perfect: only see the enemy on your minimap and only as long as someone sees him.

[MacXXcaM]

If spotting handles like it did in Hardcore then it'd be perfect: only see the enemy on your minimap and only as long as someone sees him.

I actually prefer the way Red Orchestra 2 did it:
you point at a specific spot on the map where you saw an enemy. You have a marker set to the spot which now everybody can see for a limited amount of time but it's not sure there actually was an enemy player and the marker is not moving with him. It feels pretty realistic this way.

The BF3 3D spotting is the worst imaginable way to do it.

[Baneblade]

TPV will be used to 'watch your six' for infantry trying to flank to your rear for a more effective killzone.

[Sledgecrushr]

I have an idea that might solve this problem entirely. Allow the driver to abandon control of his main gun, pop the hatch and drive the tank from the commande perspective with a pov directly above the tank instead of ten feet above the tank. This would allow greater mobility of the tank around obstacles, but would also weaken the tank and create risk for the driver getting sniped right out of the drivers seat.

[Kipper]

I say 'yes' to 3PV in general, because it looks cool, helps with driving, and is fun.

But I say 'no' to 3PV when it can be used to see around corners, over terrain or behind at all times, or generally places you shouldn't be allowed to see from where you are.

If a way can be found to remove the problems it causes, then great - go for it.... but I can't think of one other than having the view so locked down that it probably wouldn't be any different from a locked cockpit view.

[Rozonus]

For those of you who want 3PV, how do you manage to drive your own cars around in real life without crashing every day?

You'll quickly get used to the size of the vehicles you drive in PS2 so you'll be able to judge gaps etc. As for getting stuck on terrain, surely you'll be watching where you're driving so that you don't hit anything? As with any vehicle you drive (in real life or in-game) it takes time and practice to be good at it.

As for running over friendlies, unless you reverse everywhere then it should be easy to see them in front of your vehicle. Getting them to stop running in front of you is a completely different matter though! No matter how good you are at driving, you can never prepare for players who suffer from DERP, regardless of your perspective.

Although I know that 3PV could be handy in some situations, to me it looks like you're all worried about being blown up by explosives and are hiding behind the argument of 'better perspective for driving'. The simple fact of the matter is that if you don't have team mates or a gunner to guard your blind spots, there's always going to be a chance you'll get blown up by explosives.

[Figment]

@Kipper: look at the video posted in the first post: what you nor your allies can't see, you can't see.

@people making non solutions for non Problems: maybe you should try to define the problem you are trying to solve first... As someone else said, if you don't even know what the problem is, how can you complain about it and how can you come up with a "solution"? Sofar I don't understand what the problem is that a tankdriver (who is also gunner, unfortunately) knows where his enemies are by looking around before having to turn his turret. He has two roles to fulfill and he needs lots of different information to execute either properly!

The insanity of the nerf cryers that don't even know why or how hard they are nerfing and definitely don't think from the used perspective is tremendous. Please, if you are so keen on removing 3rd person, state why. State what your goal is. Look at it from use scenarios (in tank, opponent). Don't just randomly nerf situational awareness if you have no idea what it's for and how you would use either mode.


About the spotting suggestion... You are not seriously proposing to make 666 players on your team set markers on your screen for every individual enemy, are you? Sheesh. Please think practical in the context.

[Figment]

This is one damn good reason to split up the roles btw: tank commander with 3rd person and driver. Gunners with first person and having to coordinate with the driver. Teamwork, balanced, skill and communication required.

Even then though, the gunner can get carsick from terrain bumps while driving sideways, view bouncing and rotating.


Honestly though, the ones who want nerfs should first say why. So far, they seem to just want tunnelvision for all, which IMO is going to turn people off.

[IMMentat]

#60 Kipper
I say 'yes' to 3PV in general, because it looks cool, helps with driving, and is fun.

But I say 'no' to 3PV when it can be used to see around corners, over terrain or behind at all times, or generally places you shouldn't be allowed to see from where you are.

If a way can be found to remove the problems it causes, then great - go for it.... but I can't think of one other than having the view so locked down that it probably wouldn't be any different from a locked cockpit view.
This.

#47
Here's why:

It's needed to maneuver around obstacles, especially at high speeds.
The Mag needs 3rdPV if it's going to have any success at strafing or driving in reverse.
Driving purely in 1stPV over uneven terrain, while moving fast or for long periods can cause eye strain and headaches/nausea for some players. 3rdPV can alleviate that.
It's potential for wallhumping abuse is next to nothing since vehicles are huge, loud, and always show on the minimap so you should always know where they are.
It's incredibly FUN to use. And having FUN is why we're all here, right?
It can be used as a balancing factor for the smaller, faster vehicles (i.e. ATV, Lightning) by giving their 3rdPV camera a view that's slightly farther out
It'll probably be needed for ATV's to simply keep control of the vehicle while move at top speed.

And yes, I believe it should point along the turret, not the front of the vehicle, due to the above-mentioned disorientation that switching to a topdown view could cause.

This and my previous comments (#54 mainly) pretty much cover my feelings, i think i'll chime out of this topic until someone says something dumb.

speaking of.
For those of you who want 3PV, how do you manage to drive your own cars around in real life without crashing every day?

Easy, cars are built for roads and pedestrians are commanded not to run randomly across or along said roads and neither driver nor pedestrian are currently distracted by gunfire, aircraft and the need to shoot people in the midst of a hectic warzone.
In RL you get punished in an impactful way for injuring/damaging anothers property/person (plus the laws that protect both drivers and passengers), in-game you get rewarded or glared at while squishy entities run around thinking they own (or are magically protected by) every patch of land underfoot.

Vehicles have weight and momentum, troops don't have much/any, but when mashed together in the same area, troopers go where they please and drivers can't/don't often make it obvious where they intend to drive.

Figment
This is one damn good reason to split up the roles btw: tank commander with 3rd person and driver. Gunners with first person and having to coordinate with the driver. Teamwork, balanced, skill and communication required.
As a mag driver I always had a gun, I often had to not shoot to allow my various gunners and the tanks survivability to get the prioroty in a fight.
I would welcome an option later to allow the gunner to have the big-gun, but agree with the devs that 1 person should be able to make any vehicle more than a roadblock. (Their sentiments my words, i hope)

[Figment]

I'll start defining the use requirements here. You can define the problem as you see it yourself in a similar or your own matter.

DRIVER
The things a DRIVER needs to do (main jobs and sub jobs):


Keep vehicle safe

Plan route

Route to battlefield (approach and entry)
Route on battlefield (combat)
Route from battlefield (escape and exit)

Evade enemy fire, friendlies and obstacles

Control speed
Control direction
Create appropriate firing angles for gunners


The information a DRIVER needs to do this:


Terrain layout

Obstacles (trees, units, rocks, ravines, walls, etc)
Relevant distances
Terrain gradient
Potential cover

Enemy locations

Angle
Height
Distance

Angles of own guns


The TANK COMMANDER must determine what the tankcrew should prioritise and do:

Which enemy is attacking (Can it be ignored? Must its fire be evaded?)
Which enemy is being attacked (what are the gunners doing)
Which enemy should be attacked (priority)


The TANK COMMANDER needs:

Enemy health status
Enemy locations

Angle
Height
Distance

Potential cover


The two roles pretty much overlap.

The GUNNER must:

Prioritise enemy

Determine unit strength and TTK

Aim for enemy('s weakspots)

Control the turret (yaw angle)
Control the barrel (pitch angle)

Determine distance to enemy (targeting/leading)
Determine height with respect to enemy (targeting/leading)
Determine speed of enemy (leading/leading)
Compensate for terrain (current and future angles, bumps in the road, etc)

Control cone of fire

Concentrate on keeping aim steady


Determine appropriate ammo
Reload


The view direction of the gunner can and will be up to 180 degrees to the driving direction, which means the two are mutualy exclusive. Because of the gunner role, you very often will see the vehicle come to a dead stop right before firing. This makes gameplay less dynamic and the tanks (in an incredibly volatile environment) very easy targets as they would need to accelerate to top speed time and again. This would significantly hinder the experience of tank driving. The Lightning in PS1 was a good example of this. It could be fun yes, but hilariously bad as well and especially if a unit dies fast (which so far we've seen in PS2 is the case due to wanting to up the speed of gameplay), standing still is not exactly something you wish to enforce. In fact, players will be forced to make the logistical path to the vehicle term more often as their tanks would blow up continuously.

That won't make them enjoy the game itself more, that just frustrates and slows down gameplay and would miss the point entirely.

The GUNNER role is IMO far too preoccupied with his own roles which barely overlap with the DRIVER's role. A first person view does not allow the gunner to orientate himself well as the turret's rotation speed would severely restrict their situational awareness capacity.

Which is actually why a tank has the Commander's Cupola on top of the turret, which provides a 360 view. And why even more often a commander (unless in danger), sticks out of the tank. You need to know what's going on before you can make a decision!




The tunnel (gunbarrel) vision proposed by those that want to remove third person would throw tank combat in PS2 back to the Super NES Battle Tank period. In fact, views would not have been so restricted since WWI!

Would you for instance want to attract players who have played World of Tanks, then you would immediately alienate them as they'd perceive the tank combat as a significantly sub-par and underdeveloped element of the game. THAT is a major problem. Perhaps not for infantry, but ffs, infantry gets a jetpack and C4 to instantly blow up medium battle tanks. How gimped do you want tanks to be? And how is gimped fun?



If you want to make gameplay more even for infantry, how about instead of nerfing ground vehicles (who are handicapped already in comparison to aircraft) and keep them from being played properly, you create appropriate terrain with plentiful actual cover for infantry? How about you create areas in which driving and flying is very hard due to the obstacles present?

The terrain we've seen in Alpha is very open. Even the base "interior" is open because almost every room we've seen is in direct connection to the outside. I don't think that aside from the walls, it's a very infantry friendly layout. Perhaps infantry should focus on cover and ambush friendly environments, rather than reducing the fun you can have with other units to compensate for whatever.

[Figment]

As a mag driver I always had a gun, I often had to not shoot to allow my various gunners and the tanks survivability to get the prioroty in a fight.
I would welcome an option later to allow the gunner to have the big-gun, but agree with the devs that 1 person should be able to make any vehicle more than a roadblock. (Their sentiments my words, i hope)

I don't quite get why you first say you could not perform your role and then demand to have the main gun.

The two roles simply don't match well. :/


Especially now that the Magrider's MAIN GUN (your previous Magrider's gun was a secondary gun!) cannot be used as often since you will STILL have to consider your survivability.

As a tank destroyer, which is what the Magrider has become, you have a completely different way of playing that is more focused on defense. ambush, sniping and brawling avoidance. It does not make the Magrider more effective to give the gunnerposition to the driver. Quite the contrary. It makes you perform worse and tbh you'll find that as you perform worse, you'll dislike the role more.

I bet people will blame the Magrider itself and want buffs, rather than realising the design is flawed for a main battle tank having to compete with other main battle tanks. That's my expectation anyway.

[Figment]

For those of you who want 3PV, how do you manage to drive your own cars around in real life without crashing every day?

In addition to what the others said, I'm not to be distracted too much by the other occupants of the car, like having to look sideways or backwards constantly without being allowed to look forward at the same time (what mirrors are for and why you quickly glance sideways and turn your neck rather than the superstructure of your car) BECAUSE I WOULD IMMEDIATELY RISK CRASHING THE CAR IF I WOULD NOT PAY ATTENTION TO THE ROAD AND OTHER PEOPLE ON THE ROAD (travelling in all sorts of directions).



So, my counter-question: how are you going to gun and drive and NOT hit objects?


EDIT: as a thought experiment, imagine you are driving on the highway and you have to keep a stick in your right hand pointed at a far away object on the horizon to your right for at least 20-30 seconds and have to keep it exactly on it constantly. Just think what could happen in that time span with and on the road ahead of you, what could happen with respect to keeping your lane (how accurate would you be, would you drift out of it, etc?) and then consider you're not driving a 0.5 ton Smart, but a 35 ton tank.

[Sledgecrushr]

My vote is in favor of the secondary gunner also being the driver and being considered the tank commander.
Had to throw an edit in here, the secondary gunner imho should not have a 3rd person pov but instead should have a wide angle (180 degrees maybe) view that tracks quickly with the secondary gun.

[Sledgecrushr]

If they allowed you to quickly look all around from the tanks perspective, kind of like using a hatswitch to see around you with a joystick, that might be acceptable to navigate with.

[Figment]

If they allowed you to quickly look all around from the tanks perspective, kind of like using a hatswitch to see around you with a joystick, that might be acceptable to navigate with.

Navigate: yes
Gunning: no.


(Also, does everyone have a joystick?)

[Sledgecrushr]

This game might be a boon to joystick manufacturers. Even though the last one I had was a ms sidewinder used for playing mechwarrior I am going to buy a new one to fly with for PS2.

[Rozonus]

So, my counter-question: how are you going to gun and drive and NOT hit objects?

On the occasions that I use tanks in BF3 I often point the turret in the general direction I'm travelling so that I can do a quick scan of potential obstacles. BUT I do realise that tank gameplay in BF3 is different to how it works in PS1. In BF3 the plan for using an MBT is basically to drive to point A, stop then fire at point B but because PS1 splits the duties and gives them to different players it means that it's much easier to keep a tank moving while also firing upon the enemy.

I personally don't mind the forced 1PV because I am already used to it from the more recent FPSs I play and I don't really have any issues getting snagged on the scenery any more. I also always play with a group of friends and we all cover each other, so even if an enemy tries to sneak up on my tank they are normally spotted by them and killed. On that basis I think it's fair to force 1PV, because my situational awareness will be provided by my squad mates in PS2.

The reason why I'm not defending the vehicle changes with you is because it looks like SOE aren't going to change their minds about it. Previously if the community hasn't likde something that SE announces about PS2, and SOE are willing to change it, it gets changed pretty quickly. We have known about the 1PV and driver/gunner combo for a while now and a lot of the community have been voicing their opinion about how much they don't like these ideas, but SOE haven't budged about them.

[kaffis]

I don't want 3rd person.

Cockpit view should have pretty good forward visibility. If the devs can and want to implement a rear view mirror/reverse parking monitor or whatever, that's cool -- it can either function all the time, or only when you shift into reverse, as it were.

I don't want third person, or particularly good side visibility (except when the turret is aimed to the side). Tanks don't strafe, so avoiding friendly fire there isn't an issue. Except for the Magrider, and I'm perfectly fine saying that getting increased ability to actively Magmow via strafing counterbalances the increased risk of friendly fire because it's a blind spot.

[Figment]

Alright Kaffis, please show us how to drive a Lightning in PS1 without third person. Make a nifty little video showing what it's like and then get back to us.

Avoiding friendly fire has what to do with strafing? >___>

If you mean ramming... uhm. You don't need to strafe to ram someone...

[Figment]

My sarcasm-o-meter is tingling! D:

[IMMentat]

I have this vision of a typical PS2 base fight with vehicles bumping into everything, when they get hung up they get C4'd in 2 seconds, cloakers all over the place sniping while the tower trampoline act goes on in the background. Die, spawn, die, spawn, pull ammo out your ass, pocket healing spawn on squad everywhere (people appearing out of thin air). Air trying to make a difference but getting repelled by the AA equiped maxes, troops, lightnings, MBT's and wall turrets. Capture point hacking back and forth. Rinse lather repeat the above. Epic!
Sorry yeah you are right. I left out the quick-knifing.
:lol:L O L.:lol:

And yet a niggling fear.

I still like the idea of a deep cert option to let the gunner aim and use the big gun.
best of both worlds, lots of vehicles (randoms can drive without ending up with an inept gunner they have no control over) and a few specialists playing in the oldschool style of driver drives, gunner guns (regular partnerships rewarded).

[Figment]

Just be sure to bind the third person key to something you're not used to or after one minute you'd auto-change to third person.

[captainkapautz]

Alright Kaffis, please show us how to drive a Lightning in PS1 without third person. Make a nifty little video showing what it's like and then get back to us.

Will you shut up about "OMG groundvehicles are ruined without 3PV", if I go through all that hassle?

I have the sneaking suspicion you still won't.

[Mechzz]

I have this vision of a typical PS2 base fight with vehicles bumping into everything, when they get hung up they get C4'd in 2 seconds, cloakers all over the place sniping while the tower trampoline act goes on in the background. Die, spawn, die, spawn, pull ammo out your ass, pocket healing spawn on squad everywhere (people appearing out of thin air). Air trying to make a difference but getting repelled by the AA equiped maxes, troops, lightnings, MBT's and wall turrets. Capture point hacking back and forth. Rinse lather repeat the above. Epic!

Sorry yeah you are right. I left out the quick-knifing. :lol:

If there was a prize for post of the day, this would get my vote.Hilarious!

Amidst all the bad-tempered whining going on in various threads this little gem stands out amongst the shit. Well said, sir!

[Figment]

Will you shut up about "OMG groundvehicles are ruined without 3PV", if I go through all that hassle?

I have the sneaking suspicion you still won't.

Will you shut up about how it won't without showing it's not incredibly hampered without on a turreted single crew vehicle for which the evidence is easy to get?


No, no I didn't think you would try to collect evidence... :rolleyes:

[captainkapautz]

Will you shut up about how it won't without showing it's not incredibly hampered without on a turreted single crew vehicle for which the evidence is easy to get?


No, no I didn't think you would try to collect evidence... :rolleyes:

Ya know, it was an honest question, but the fact that you have reacted with nothing but hostility towards anyone suggesting that the absence of 3PV might not be the end of the world makes any kind of discussion with you pointless.

[Figment]

Ya know, it was an honest question, but the fact that you have reacted with nothing but hostility towards anyone suggesting that the absence of 3PV might not be the end of the world makes any kind of discussion with you pointless.

An honest question? Try hostile question.

"Will you shut up" isn't exactly a very inviting way to start a question, is it?

As to the answer, why? I already know what it's like driving like that. I hate it for all the reasons mentioned before, including car sickness.

[captainkapautz]

An honest question? Try hostile question.

"Will you shut up" isn't exactly a very inviting way to start a question, is it?

Never said it was a polite question now, did I?

As to the answer, why? I already know what it's like driving like that. I hate it for all the reasons mentioned before, including car sickness.

No, you don't know what it's like, unless you just broke your NDA and you're actually in the alpha, because unless you are you DON'T know what it's like.

This isn't PS1, BF or World of Tanks, so stop making assumption just because you think "Well it might be crap in this game, so it has to be crap in every game."

[Kurtz]

3pv for vehicles and aircraft.

[Sledgecrushr]

3pv for vehicles and aircraft.

Nix nein fraulein

[Figment]

Never said it was a polite question now, did I?

No yet you assumed I would not reply in kind, interesting that, assumptions.

No, you don't know what it's like, unless you just broke your NDA and you're actually in the alpha, because unless you are you DON'T know what it's like.

No, I would NEVER know what it's like to drive in 1st person because there's no other game out there that does that. How could you possibly compare anything with anything ever! How could I possibly figure out what driving ahead and firing backwards is like!? It's not like WE NEVER HAD TO DO THAT IN A LIGHTNING IN PS1!

Then how can you possibly be against third person? YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT.

This isn't PS1, BF or World of Tanks, so stop making assumption just because you think "Well it might be crap in this game, so it has to be crap in every game."

YOU are the one assuming it's different, too. Is terrain 100% flat? Do you get dampening of the terrain? No? NO, you don't. You've not been paying attention to the videos, have you? IT'S BEEN SHOWN WHAT IT IS LIKE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.


Either you're ignorant, or you are a troll. Either way, you're not argueing very well. Do I get irritated by such show of deliberate, chosen ignorance? Damn right I do.

[captainkapautz]

No yet you assumed I would not reply in kind, interesting that, assumptions.



No, I would NEVER know what it's like to drive in 1st person because there's no other game out there that does that. How could you possibly compare anything with anything ever! How could I possibly figure out what driving ahead and firing backwards is like!? It's not like WE NEVER HAD TO DO THAT IN A LIGHTNING IN PS1!

Then how can you possibly be against third person? YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT.



YOU are the one assuming it's different, too. Is terrain 100% flat? Do you get dampening of the terrain? No? NO, you don't. You've not been paying attention to the videos, have you? IT'S BEEN SHOWN WHAT IT IS LIKE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.


Either you're ignorant, or you are a troll. Either way, you're not argueing very well. Do I get irritated by such show of deliberate, chosen ignorance? Damn right I do.

Well thanks for proving my point about you anyway.

[Figment]

Well thanks for proving my point about you anyway.

Yeah, that I'm highly irritable is quite obvious, but doesn't make me wrong.

PS: How about proving you're a lot more arrogant than I am since you have no way to back up any claims of the contrary, while I've got a ton of similar tank combat games AND alpha footage we all have access to? Funny how it works where you get to say "you can't know that", yet somehow you would be able to take a contrary position to mine. If I can't know anything, neither can you.


EDIT: Hell, I can even provide you plenty of articles on motion sickness due to camera movement. Here's a few.

http://xbox.about.com/od/buyersguide/a/vgmosick.htm

http://kotaku.com/5869607/how-motion-sickness-can-ruin-games-and-the-meds-used-to-fight-it

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/how-to/4219424

http://gamegenus.blogspot.com/2011/12/inducing-motion-sickness-in-your.html

Particularly FIRST PERSON VIEW is noted as the culprit for motion sickness, particularly when there's "head bobbing" type movements (like if in a tank, you go through a gutter and the camera shakes as your vehicle goes over small features in the landscape like ridges and rocks and then that is damped out through a vibration). That sort of thing.

Third person prevents this and aleviates the effects.

Just do a cursory search in Google and you'll find just how many people are affected by this, even in RPGs, but primarily while playing FPS games.

[captainkapautz]

Gotta be honest, I don't know a single person who ever complained about motion sickness in a game.

Have had it happen with movies, just never games.

But see, this right there THAT is a proper arguement, not that crap about "I can't drive worth shit w/o 3PV!".

And:

PS: How about proving you're a lot more arrogant than I am since you have no way to back up any claims of the contrary, while I've got a ton of similar tank combat games AND alpha footage we all have access to?

Thing is, I don't need to, because what you got is A.) other games, which I already said don't matter shit, because this isn't about other games and B.) the GDC and TBs footage which all looks shockingly enough like they had no problem whatsoever with driving in 1PV.
Funny thing how one of your arguements works out in my favor.

[Mastachief]

I felt ill on the bridge bit of HL2..........


Personally i'm against all third person. If it's gone to prevent corner campers then it should go from vehicles too. It would in my opinion make driving and flying a more skilled pursuit.

I drive 1st person in racing sims and dont get motion sickness, but i also enjoy race circuits in real cars with no ill effect, but put me on a coach and i'll hurl.

[Blackwolf]

Sorry, just me being lazy and not bothering to quote the time in the first post. Watched the vid like 5 times already and couldn't be arsed looking for it :)

It's only a few secs and easy to miss, since it's so natural.

I'm for 3rd person on vehcs until someone points out how it can be abused.

See the part where TB runs up behind that Magrider and plants C4?

Yeah kiss that trick good bye if you get 3PV in ground vehicles.

The situational awareness that you want shouldn't exist. Most RL tanks don't have that level of awareness, especially the drivers. They have this thing called a crew who watches their blind spots and calls out dangers. You know, teamwork?

[captainkapautz]

I will admit that if the 1PV while driving really turns out to be more of a crutch then worth it, then I'll be the 1st to admit that I was wrong.

I will however only do that after we get a hands on, I don't care if there are hundreds of alpha videos around, a direct hands on is always better.


P.S.: I will also say here for the record that I personally never had prolems with 1PV in the BF-games (each one I played atleast) nor did I have problems in PS1 driving a Lightning.
I can, and will if asked, post a video of me driving a Lightning only using 1PV, but I still don't see a point in it.
What's it gonna prove if I can?
What about when I inevitably get owned, because I never was dedicated driver?

[Raka Maru]

Figment, I have to agree with you on this one. We need 3rd person view for vehicles.

I'm one of those that get extremely sick when gunning for a BFR. I have to drive my vehicles in 3pv. I thought it was just me, so didn't complain much.

Do not know how this will handle in PS2. Hope that every little rock or explosion doesn't shake my screen.

[captainkapautz]

Well yeah and most RL people wouldn't walk up to a 60 ton tank and expect to blow it up in 2 or 3 seconds either.

Of course most wouldn't, because unlike in PS not 100% of the people are soldiers.

And 2-3 rightly placed charges will disable a tank, shit all you need to do in RL would be to blow the tracks for a mobilitykill, maybe 1-2 charges at the turretring and you got 60 tons of useless.
Maybe you won't even kill the tank, but the people inside sure won't feel all to peachy.

[Mastachief]

Plenty of single rpg's have stopped modern battle tanks in iraq/afghan, pretty sure a correctly shaped charge will fuck shit up and lets not even consider IED's

[Toppopia]

Plenty of single rpg's have stopped modern battle tanks in iraq/afghan, pretty sure a correctly shaped charge will fuck shit up and lets not even consider IED's

This is true, because have any of you seen how an actual RPG works? Damn they are crazy, basically launch molten lava at the object when it detonates, don't see anything surviving that very well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&src_vid=Y49itbxTE6E&annotation_id=annotation_412431&v=D74PSHgwme8

I do say that a tank won't survive having that shoot through it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?src_vid=Z5elJNyLVEQ&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_909472&v=W7kB-rwexUo
Also at 3:30 you can see the fiery stream after it explodes, nothing would survive that.

[Toppopia]

Why can't we have RPG's like real life? I mean come on!! I want realism, so if in the future we can't even get instant hit like in our times, then how is it the future...

[Mastachief]

So we are wanting the level or RL realism involving modern day vehicle demolition tactics in the same game where the technology of having pads to propel troops 100 meters through the sky exists? Along with other examples of future design elements I could point out. It's a shame ground based mobile heavy weapon delivery platforms haven't evolved at the same pace :rolleyes:

No, no personally i'd prefer tanks with the planetside 1 level of survivability.

[captainkapautz]

No, no personally i'd prefer tanks with the planetside 1 level of survivability.

I, personally, don't, but opinions differ.

What I want is a TTK that works, no matter how long or short it's gonna be.

And I want to fuck up a tank on my own with boomers if the tankcrew plays like derps.

[Sledgecrushr]

If a lightning stops to shoot down range at a target, thats a dead tank. Mobility is going to be king in PS2.

[Timealude]

I guess I find it interesting they give the main gun to the driver, which seems to promote solo usage? And then blind spot him into a guerilla tactic vulnerability. Just odd to me that situation but something to adapt to. Definitely gonna depend on outfit level organization because everyone wants the big gun right? The secondary gun sounds increasingly important and finding a PUG to man it might be tough and lacking coordination will get you killed. Poor guys in lightnings :lol:

prolly a way of balancing it out im sure.

[Raka Maru]

I guess I find it interesting they give the main gun to the driver, which seems to promote solo usage? And then blind spot him into a guerilla tactic vulnerability. Just odd to me that situation but something to adapt to. Definitely gonna depend on outfit level organization because everyone wants the big gun right? The secondary gun sounds increasingly important and finding a PUG to man it might be tough and lacking coordination will get you killed. Poor guys in lightnings :lol:

How about if driver turns all his guns over to dedicated gunners via cert, then give him 3rd person?

[Sledgecrushr]

How about if driver turns all his guns over to dedicated gunners via cert, then give him 3rd person?

I dont think third person is going to happen in vehicles only because it allows you to look around walls and find sneaky infantry without any real teamwork involved.

[Mechzz]

I dont think third person is going to happen in vehicles only because it allows you to look around walls and find sneaky infantry without any real teamwork involved.

That may be true, but honestly, how many times per game session does that actually happen?

The opposite (tank gets C4'd to bits) will happen many more times per game session. Even if the entire crew has 3rd person it's gonna happen because the crew also is trying to kill things.

I've argued for stronger AA and AV on other threads, but on this topic it's unfair on the tank crew to remove 3pv for no strong reason. I've read every post in this thread, and haven't seen a compelling reason for removing 3pv, at least one where the tank gains an "unfair" advantage over someone not in a tank.

We also know 3pv is in the game (we saw it in TB's video) so those who feel srtrongly on this probably need to continue to make their case while challenging those who want to remove 3pv to put up a stronger reason than "looking round corners"

[Figment]

I dont think third person is going to happen in vehicles only because it allows you to look around walls and find sneaky infantry without any real teamwork involved.

Why do you assume you can see unspotted infantry in third person?

Because you relate that to PlanetSide 1, instead of a variant on World of Tanks. (In WoT, unfortunately you could see through walls as any tank within 50 m would be shown - I'd not want that, just those shown that actually are in direct line of sight of some unit of your empire).

In that case, the whole issue of third person is removed and it would be the exact same for infantry where pure wall humping would be a non-issue, since someone somewhere should be watching you in order for someone else to wall hump.

[Baneblade]

Why bother having TPV when you still have to use FPV to aim? It really doesn't help that much in actuality.

[kaffis]

Alright Kaffis, please show us how to drive a Lightning in PS1 without third person. Make a nifty little video showing what it's like and then get back to us.

Avoiding friendly fire has what to do with strafing? >___>

If you mean ramming... uhm. You don't need to strafe to ram someone...
Well, you know -- I'm also firmly entrenched on the "I don't like driver-gunned vehicles, and think multi-crew should be much more powerful/useful if we have to leave driver-gunned in.

No 3rd person cam nicely dovetails with that perspective, doesn't it? You want to drive effectively? Dedicate yourself to it, let your gunner(s) gun. Yes, that goes for a Lightning, too. In fact, the Lightning can be less of a "gimped version of a MBT" from an armor/gun strenght perspective if we don't have 3rd person, since the visibility will help balance that out.

Finally, if you'll note, I said tanks ought to have good visibility to the front, and probably should have good reverse visibility options. In other words, you can see where you're pointed. This means that whenever you hit the gas, you can see where you're going (assuming a dedicated driver, rather than a driver with a turret-cam). Thus, it's quite easy to not run over friendlies without 3rd person.

Magriders would be the exception, of course, since they can strafe -- and thus go in a direction they can't see directly. I'm okay with this, as it's counterbalanced by the greater ease of Magmowing enemies -- it's hard to dodge a tank that can strafe if it misses you. The Magrider can maneuver without strafing when friendlies are nearby, and in the thick of things, the Vanu infantry can be just as wary as their enemies' infantry.

[ringring]

I agree lots of these polls are completely useless. Many times I look at one and think that none of the options really align with my opinion.

I wonder if anyone plans on doing a proper poll, once beta has been active for a little that is.

By that I mean not a forum poll, they don't have enough functionality I mean something loike surveymonkey with question like:

On a scale of 1-5 where 1 is low and 5 is high, what is your opinion on driver/gunners where the driver operates the major weapon.
On a scale of 1-5 where 1 is low and 5 is high, what is your opinion on driver/gunners where the gunner operates the major weapon.

and so on across areas of contention......

[Figment]

Well, you know -- I'm also firmly entrenched on the "I don't like driver-gunned vehicles, and think multi-crew should be much more powerful/useful if we have to leave driver-gunned in.

That's a separate discussion and should be treated as such. Making driving worse on multiple fronts doesn't improve driving. Two wrongs don't make a right.

It's crooked logic.

No 3rd person cam nicely dovetails with that perspective, doesn't it? You want to drive effectively? Dedicate yourself to it, let your gunner(s) gun. Yes, that goes for a Lightning, too. In fact, the Lightning can be less of a "gimped version of a MBT" from an armor/gun strenght perspective if we don't have 3rd person, since the visibility will help balance that out.

Forcing people to hand over the gun to a secondary party so they don't get motion sick is nothing less than extortion and not fun gameplay design.

Last I checked games were designed to have fun. This type of thinking goes way out of line with a lot of people who want to "compensate" one gameplay by hurting another and is especially strong with those compromising between the two.

This does nothing but deliberately sacrifice gameplay in one field to compensate for the loss in another. That means there's fundamental flaws being built in, on purpose. I can't think of a worse rationale to design a game, tbh. :/

Plus you're basically excluding people who are prone to motion sickness from specific units and gameplay, which is incredibly selfish. In fact, the entire debate about removing it is born out of selfish thinking by non-drivers, who should simply ask for two things instead:

Cover and a decent to use AV weapon.

Finally, if you'll note, I said tanks ought to have good visibility to the front, and probably should have good reverse visibility options. In other words, you can see where you're pointed. This means that whenever you hit the gas, you can see where you're going (assuming a dedicated driver, rather than a driver with a turret-cam). Thus, it's quite easy to not run over friendlies without 3rd person.

Magriders would be the exception, of course, since they can strafe -- and thus go in a direction they can't see directly. I'm okay with this, as it's counterbalanced by the greater ease of Magmowing enemies -- it's hard to dodge a tank that can strafe if it misses you. The Magrider can maneuver without strafing when friendlies are nearby, and in the thick of things, the Vanu infantry can be just as wary as their enemies' infantry.

You don't seem to have defined very well where one has to look in order to drive, you're far too focused on two things and don't consider the other things a driver has to do. It's very important to be able to look around. EVERY SINGLE TANK SINCE WORLD WAR I has 360 degrees vision for the commander built into the top of their turrets. Since the driver is the commander, you have to consider what the commander has to do.

And yes, we both agree the driver should not be the gunner, but punishing the driver for a big mistake on the dev's side is not the answer. That's just an extra mistake.


@Sobekeus: you are kidding, right? :doh:

[Marinealver]

I always had an idea of calling 3rd person view "Holo(graphic) View" With basicly a 3rd person Transparent view over the FPS view for people to use. Sort of saying it is a HUD ability that has been developed by some future technology to help with navigation and situational awarness. Can be disabled by jammers or Flashbangs though. HEy we can explain anything in science fiction right?

[Baneblade]

@Sobekeus: you are kidding, right? :doh:

Are you saying you want to gun and drive in TPV?

[Figment]

Are you saying you want to gun and drive in TPV?

AFAIC, everyone should have a form of third person, because this is not a FPS game. Tbh, "MMOFPS" has always been a bad label since it implies first person oriented playing. PS1 was played predominantly in third person until you needed to fire. MMO Combined Arms Shooter (MMOCAS) would have covered the content more accurately. I don't particularly feel it HAS to be a pure FPS, because to me that is too restrictive for the type of game.

That said, firing or gunning will always be done predominantly from first person. I don't particularly care about someone trying to fire a gun in third person as it has few advantages (if any, likely it has more disadvantages to fire in third person). Though when firing from third person while driving it's more that you'd do so to optimise your driving at the cost of the accuracy of your gunning. Hence why I thought the comment by someone else to widen your cone of fire was an absolutely ridiculous and unnecessary nerf suggestion: driving already expands the cof already and intuitive "hip shoot"-aim is not incredibly accurate either, especially not without a reticule.

It's much harder to determine the appropriate angle from third person as the mouse cursor and therefore the reticule (if one is even visible) behaves different with respect to the terrain. So if people want to and have the skill to do so, who cares if they handicap themselves by firing using a harder firing mode?

And why should people not be allowed to use third person to determine at which enemy they'll be shooting and if it's still safe to stay in a certain area? Why should people have tunnelvision? How does that improve the game? There's too much tunnelvision in the world as is!

Third person is therefore for situational awareness and more of a tactical level view (as well as being easier on the inner-ear), first person is fastly superior for firing. I don't mind the way they did it in PS2 so far, with no gun angle indicators in third person (it'd be fully intuition based on tracers, that's fine with me tbh).


If we're talking the Lightning for instance, I'd say the driver would definitely need both, yes. Next to the driving vehicle gameplay nerfs, you'd after all be excluding people from an entire unit type who get motion sick from first person and that is just wrong.


For a MBT I'd definitely split the roles and have no driver who's also a gunner but that has nothing to do with third person for gunners, everything to do with power distribution per player. For all I care the gunner gets third person on a MBT as well, if not just to determine which target it has to fire at.




Still, I don't get why someone should not have third person (infantry/GV or aircav). I've yet to hear what's so bad about it, that can't be prevented with a new spotting system ("looking around corners"/"seeing enemies a few (deca?)meters behind you" is the only argument against till now). And come on, what's wrong with having some sort of timing your action ability? IMO, if they're visible on the map, you should be able to see them in third person.

It seems to me that fear is the motivational drive for those voting against third person. Thing is I simply can't detect a rationale beyond the idea that someone might time an action against them using third person (wall humping) and out of their direct field of vision. Which IMO is basically only relevant to players who can't work out where an ambush might take place, meaning either lazy or mediocre and worse players. Why should people have extremely little information to work with? How is that fun gameplay? In a game where there's around 1300 enemies on the same continent and an incredibly low TTK, why should you NOT be able to see in third person where those enemies are (after being spotted at least) so you can generate a plan? Should you really just blindly "Leeroy Jenkins" into every situation just because that's easier for your opponent? Really? :/

The immersion aspect of it hasn't even been brought up yet. Simply being able to look at your own character / unit is a nice thing. That's relatively irrelevant for gameplay, but for experiencing the game it means quite a bit. Being able to switch between first and third person is to me important in many ways.




Point in case, there are tons of ways to implement and fine tune third person:

(Fixed/possible) angle(s)
Distance domain (amount of zoom)
Spotting system (what is visible under which conditions)

[Baneblade]

Well... the issue for me isn't even the practicality issues. I don't like arbitrary situational awareness advantages. Everything is supposed to have a weak point, for vehicles that should always be visible field.

If you remove the blind spots, what is the point in jockeying for position?

[Sledgecrushr]

Im trusting the devs on this and that first person will create a better experience for everyone that is playing PS2.

[Figment]

Well... the issue for me isn't even the practicality issues. I don't like arbitrary situational awareness advantages.

It's not arbitrary at all, there are very good reasons (which you can find all over this thread) for specific implementations. A choice is certainly not arbitrary.

Everything is supposed to have a weak point, for vehicles that should always be visible field.

Says who? How about weapon type, amount of hitpoints, armour values in different spots or sections of the vehicle (damage absorbtion), turret rotation speed, speed, accuracy, cone of fire, size, gun depression (ie at what angles can you fire), etc.

Sorry, but visibility is not THE weakness of a vehicle. Maybe in your mind it is, but visibility is NOT a defining weakness.

If you remove the blind spots, what is the point in jockeying for position?

...KNOWING something is there doesn't mean you can actually do something about it!

Ask any tank destroyer that is outmaneuvred by a light tank, or a MBT in PS outmaneuvred by a buggy.

It does however, give someone a fighting chance and a way to compete with a unit that has superior maneuvrability or superior firepower (know when and how to dodge by seeing where their gun barrel is pointing and those of other tanks). And that I personally find important in a game, that you're able to compete. It's very easy to kill vehicles in PlanetSide as infantry, of course 90% of the players don't know what an EMP grenade is and 99% of the players don't carry one in slot 1 (virtually all kits I plundered had plasma nades or rek/healing/repairs instead...).

I'm sure you did such things aswell, but I've singlehandedly destroyed Lightnings, BFRs and Switchblades with a Phoenix and EMP nades and a small hill (bump in the road really) in a dogfight where they DO have third person. And that's not exactly a forgiving AV weapon compared to the Lancer and Striker, which, used in groups, are really deadly. Do they need a vehicles visual blindspot to get a kill? No, definitely not: just appropriate cover to dodge shells and create interference for them or get to their bad gun angles. Does that mean I should be able to kill all vehicles alone as infantry? Good question. Yes, but not always super-efficiently. A MBT? Should require teamwork to take down IMO. Jacking them was quite easy since Expert Hacking though.

A gun angle blindspot is much more important than a visual blindspot.

Speaking of crutches, please recall that infantry can carry C4 that can apparently instantly kill vehicles have jetpacks this time around. Do you really want the same type of trolls like in BF3 that bail from aircraft to paste C4 on everything they come across? TB already discovered this tactic could be applied especially well in the dark. Why should people be completely oblivious to threats? Particularly those that others have spotted for them?

And on top of that:

http://www.worldwar2aces.com/henschel-turret.gif

Tanks HAVE 360 degrees vision. Depicted above is a Tiger II (King Tiger) turret. If World War II units had full vision, where the hell do you get the idea from that people in vehicles are supposed to work in tunnelvision?

[Baneblade]

If World War II units had full vision, where the hell do you get the idea from that people in vehicles are supposed to work in tunnelvision?

Who said that?

TPV and directed FPV are two very different things. Don't pretend they are the same. Having 360 degrees of visibility is not the same as being able to see all 360 degrees at once.

[captainkapautz]

Tanks HAVE 360 degrees vision. Depicted above is a Tiger II (King Tiger) turret. If World War II units had full vision, where the hell do you get the idea from that people in vehicles are supposed to work in tunnelvision?

You do realize that those periscopes were purely used for spotting infantry sneaking up on the tank right?

They had nothing to do with letting you parallelpark better.

[Figment]

You do realize that those periscopes were purely used for spotting infantry sneaking up on the tank right?

They had nothing to do with letting you parallelpark better.

Thank you for pointing out infantry cannot demand blind angles on vehicles so they can at all times sneak up.

They were also used for spotting enemy units and determining distance, btw. The commander used it as a safer alternative to the preferential method of sticking his head out, as that provides a much easier to use perspective. And you honestly think tank commanders when parking did not want to look outside while doing so?

In neither persicope or sticking head out does the turret have to rotate for 360 degrees view. That is the point and a pure fps view is therefore a HUGE step back.

[Figment]

Or in case of the Magrider, having to turn your entire hull just to look around as the tankcommander.

[Sledgecrushr]

Or in case of the Magrider, having to turn your entire hull just to look around as the tankcommander.

I think the tank commander is going to be manning the secondary gun. Of course this is going to take some team work.

[Figment]

I think the tank commander is going to be manning the secondary gun. Of course this is going to take some team work.

Considering a lot of people will play them solo and the main gun is used by the driver, doubtful.

[Sledgecrushr]

Considering a lot of people will play them solo and the main gun is used by the driver, doubtful.

A tank with only one crew member just wouldnt have a tank commander, would not have great situational awareness and would most likely be left in a fiery ruin by any infantry/flanking vehicle that stumbles on it.

[Figment]

A tank with only one crew member just wouldnt have a tank commander, would not have great situational awareness and would most likely be left in a fiery ruin by any infantry/flanking vehicle that stumbles on it.

So it should have third person to have some sort of situational awareness. Thank you.

(PS: if there's only one crew member, the driver is the tank commander, which it always has been in PS).

[Rozonus]

So it should have third person to have some sort of situational awareness. Thank you.

No, you should trust your gunner and team mates to provide the situational awareness. Why would you think that most tank drivers are going to be solo?! It's an MMO for Christ's sake! If you want to drive your tank solo in PS2 then you're doing it wrong. If none of your Outfit members are free to help you, don't use an MBT. Planetside is all about teamwork, you know that.

I was flamed earlier in this thread for saying something which sounded like I wanted to have a level of realism in PS2, then you keep using examples about needing whole tank crews like real life. Well something we need to realise here is that it just isn't going to be like that in PS2. If you want command structure in your tank in PS2, let the guy in the gunner seat be your commander! He'll be the one with an easy 360 degree view of the surroundings. I know that won't work with random people who aren't on your TS server etc, but I don't ever intend to rely on random players in the gunner seats of any of my vehicles, so it won't bother me. If you don't have anyone to rely on, bad luck. Join an Outfit and use them to cover your blind spots!

Regardless of this debate, I think SOE need to keep the teamwork element as a primary objective when creating PS2, but as long as there are multiple ways to provide support for your team I don't mind if they take some out. Using tanks for example, seeing as squad mates can cover friendly tanks and protect them against enemies sneaking up on them, I don't mind losing 3PV.

[captainkapautz]

Thank you for pointing out infantry cannot demand blind angles on vehicles so they can at all times sneak up.

Sure as fuck we can, cause this isn't real life.

[Sledgecrushr]

Just for my own education and since I don't play BF3, why is it OK to have 3rd person in that game and not here?

Doubt there is a good reason. I wish I could get Matt's reasoning on why this is an acceptable model for BF3 but not PS2. I can recall Smed pointing out he loved the vehicle based design of BF but yet this one point was not carried over?

Bf3, being a casual game, they set up the vehicles so they would be operated easily by a single person. It would appear that PS2 is taking a different approach to vehicle combat. And I might add I really love what PS2 is doing with vehicle combat.

[captainkapautz]

Just for my own education and since I don't play BF3, why is it OK to have 3rd person in that game and not here?

Doubt there is a good reason. I wish I could get Matt's reasoning on why this is an acceptable model for BF3 but not PS2. I can recall Smed pointing out he loved the vehicle based design of BF but yet this one point was not carried over?

Seriously?

You guys play the "It's in BF so it's shit!"-card all the time, yet suddenly a feature in BF suits your needs and it's okay?

Yeah, not hypocritical at all.

[Mechzz]

@WildVS
Could be a matter of timing. BF3 came out what, November 2011, when design decision for PS2 may have already been made. Higby may have made the call off of an older version of BF that he liked. BF:BC2 does not have 3pv on tanks iirc.

[CuddlyChud]

In BF3, third person turns with your turret, so you can use it to look around corners/over obstacles.

In regards to PS2, since the driver also controls the main gun, can't you just turn the turret to look around?

[captainkapautz]

I am asking a simple question. I don't play BF, I am asking why you think in BF3 it's there but not in PS2. The above reply seems a legit one. You getting confrontational again? :D

EDIT: and btw have you seen the video of the developer panel from FF last year? Smed referred to BF numerous times and in particular his fancy for the vehicle play model in it. So I asked, given that, why was one "feature" left out.

Sorry, played pretty much hardcore-only in BF3.

Disables most annoying features like 3D-spot, regening vehicles, no FF.
Also disables 3PV for vehicles.

I gotta be honest, if there is one feature from BF3 that I despise, that I have seen in PS2 then it's hands down 3D-spot.

I just hope it doesn't work like BF3s spotting, and if it does, it isn't as easily abused.

P.S.: I'm always confrontational if people act like hypocrits.

[IMMentat]

Simple Punisher jammer nades and VS Lancer. (props to BobbyShaftoe).
Punisher Lancer - YouTube

Thank you for reminding me how fab those weapons were in the hands of an experienced player.
The Punisher had slower reload than the Thumper nade launchers 6 shot drum-magazine rate of fire but it was a consistent threat due to the lack of a long pause every 6 shots, plus the rightclick for bullets was handy for backup purposes.
I have a feeling BobbyShaftoe was a Werner player, I even squee'd for a sec when I thought my charname popped up in a squad, but I think it was someone with a similar structure to the name, not even 720p was enough for me to read it clearly.

If nothing else this forum been a fab nostalgia trip recently.


Back on subject, they seem to have made driver-gunner tanks because of PS1 proving that pure driving was unapreciated by many new/casual players and other games have shown driver-gunner combo's function well enough.

3rd person ground vehicles, so far, are still in-game. So until we can confirm its been removed, most of the discussion is theoretical, 3PV has pro's and cons.

In RL the driver is reliant on a commander for a lot of the situational awareness, as is the gunner and loader (and co-driver?).
Thats 4-5 people per fighting vehicle.
All modern games cut these roles down to 1-2 players. The driver provides the main Boom and drives around in search of targets, the 2nd person protects the tank and spots/nullifies less obvious threats.

I will state again that I think a late-cert option to let the 2nd person use a bigger gun would be a nice addition to the tank driving certifications but ultimatley I have no problem with the current state of design.

[Figment]

Bf3, being a casual game, they set up the vehicles so they would be operated easily by a single person. It would appear that PS2 is taking a different approach to vehicle combat. And I might add I really love what PS2 is doing with vehicle combat.

Yes, we're taking the realistic approach: we have jetpacks and lazorz! In fact, we have more one player focus units than PS1 as drivers have become gunners. And the action moves faster, shorter TTKs, less waiting around, less long term dedication to completing a fight even if you're just on guard duty.


:rolleyes:

FFS man, PS2 is going to be an extremely casual game especially in comparison to PS1!

Sure as fuck we can, cause this isn't real life.

Luckily, 3rd person is also not real life, but a substitute for real life perifeal vision and to compensate for the missing link between physical movement and the motion as experienced by your inner-ear (meaning you can actually see what accelerations are happening to your aircraft or ground vehicle as you do not experience it physically and don't get motion sick from the camera shake in the process).

Indeed, good thing it's not reality. Just hope that when you're hypocritical, you don't start talking to yourself. You might get confrontational.

[Sledgecrushr]

Yes, we're taking the realistic approach: we have jetpacks and lazorz!


:rolleyes:

FFS man, PS2 is going to be an extremely casual game especially in comparison to PS1!

Where did I say "realistic"? What I was saying that it looks like PS2 is going for a more team oriented approach than what some other fps games are doing.

[Figment]

Okay here we go again.

No, you should trust your gunner and team mates to provide the situational awareness.

Just a shame they don't get to have situational awareness either. :rolleyes:

Why would you think that most tank drivers are going to be solo?! It's an MMO for Christ's sake! If you want to drive your tank solo in PS2 then you're doing it wrong. If none of your Outfit members are free to help you, don't use an MBT. Planetside is all about teamwork, you know that.

Because two MBTs beat one MBT. That's a different topic though and you can find over 50 pages of it in the Gunner-Driver debates.

I was flamed earlier in this thread for saying something which sounded like I wanted to have a level of realism in PS2, then you keep using examples about needing whole tank crews like real life.

Actually, I simply stated on several occassions and in several ways that these roles are still there and for good reason to (you can't properly function otherwise), just combined among less crew members than in real life.

Which means they have to be able to live up to these roles and not hindered due to some arbitrary limitation that has nothing to do with vehicle gameplay and everything to do with a bunch of people who can't or don't want to handle a foe that might learn where they are and don't want to give them a fighting chance to deal with flanking or backstab attacks in a game where there will be backstabs and flanking maneuvres constantly and TTKs are short.

Why you want to hurt vehicle gameplay, I don't know though. I still haven't heard any answer to that.

Well something we need to realise here is that it just isn't going to be like that in PS2. If you want command structure in your tank in PS2, let the guy in the gunner seat be your commander! He'll be the one with an easy 360 degree view of the surroundings.

For one, he won't have an easy 360 view if he has to rotate his turret for viewing behind him. That just makes him completely inept at dealing with either threat, because as long as he is turning his turret around, scouting for other targets or that other thing that might be shooting to see if it's the more important target, he can't fire and all that time they're taking damage. That's highly inefficient and with the short TTKs on vehicles that we've seen, is going to make them something else:


Dead.


Second, in PS2... the actual main gunner (the one who controls the turret if it's not the Magrider)... is the driver...

Oh... Hmm. Maybe you should have checked that.


I know that won't work with random people who aren't on your TS server etc, but I don't ever intend to rely on random players in the gunner seats of any of my vehicles, so it won't bother me. If you don't have anyone to rely on, bad luck. Join an Outfit and use them to cover your blind spots!

You just make sure all your outfit buddies are always online and in your area watching your back!

Who's watching the watchmen though? You're in front of them in tunnelvision mode, puking over your keyboard from motion sickness.

Regardless of this debate, I think SOE need to keep the teamwork element as a primary objective when creating PS2, but as long as there are multiple ways to provide support for your team I don't mind if they take some out. Using tanks for example, seeing as squad mates can cover friendly tanks and protect them against enemies sneaking up on them, I don't mind losing 3PV.

Seeing as squadmates can fire for you, why bother bringing a gun?

Bad logic is bad.

[Figment]

Where did I say "realistic"? What I was saying that it looks like PS2 is going for a more team oriented approach than what some other fps games are doing.

Already edited the other post.


But PS2 does not look very team oriented to me, certainly not more team oriented than PS1. If you can drive and gun a MBT with one player in PS2, then by definition MBTs became more attuned with individual play.

(And considering the driver can switch seats inside the vehicle if we're to believe the night ops video, I'd say this is more than an impression.)

[captainkapautz]

You know, your arguement seems less and less about why 3PV would be needed for reasons like a few people might get motionsick and more and more about why 3PV wold be needed so you can fuck shit up alone in your tank.

Which I sure as fuck hope isn't the direction PS2 is going.

[MrBloodworth]

Here is why its Driver = Gunner.

Battlefield does it, and it also removes the need to rely on others.

As to Third person view, I support the addition.

[Figment]

You know, your arguement seems less and less about why 3PV would be needed for reasons like a few people might get motionsick and more and more about why 3PV wold be needed so you can fuck shit up alone in your tank.

Which I sure as fuck hope isn't the direction PS2 is going.

I love how you can easily forget every single post I wrote in this thread by making an even dumber statement than before.

1. I want to have third person for ALL players. Meaning nobody will have an advantage over anyone that the other person doesn't have either.

You know how I beat ground vehicles as infantry? THIRD PERSON TO TIME MY ACTIONS. Look at the damn vid WildVS posted and check just HOW OFTEN Bobbyshaftoe switches to third person to check his surroundings for threats!

And why shouldn't he, or anyone else!?

2. You also seem to forget AGAIN that I'm NOT in favour of solo play, BECAUSE I WANT A DIVISION IN ROLES BETWEEN DRIVER AND GUNNER. My setup would not AT ALL allow for solo play. Compared to PS2, which will be extremely solo play even with just first person view, BECAUSE YOU ALLOW THE DRIVER TO GUN.

Third person has nothing to do with solo play, just with BEING ABLE TO PLAY PROPERLY AT ALL!

[MrBloodworth]

Get a room.

[captainkapautz]

Here is why its Driver = Gunner.

Battlefield does it, and it also removes the need to rely on others.

As to Third person view, I support the addition.

It is in BF, that's a good reason to add it, true.

How does creating blind spots for tank crews that allow one soldier to c4 it down a matter of seconds promote teamplay? We appear to be seeing this from only one side. The lone c4 runner is acting as a team?

Because then your secondary gunner has to take care of infantrydefense while you drive and gun, instead of you just see anyone trying to sneak up on you from your back.
Yeah 2 people in 1 vehicle actually working together, crazy concept I know.

1. I want to have third person for ALL players. Meaning nobody will have an advantage over anyone that the other person doesn't have either.

You know how I beat ground vehicles as infantry? THIRD PERSON TO TIME MY ACTIONS. Look at the damn vid WildVS posted and check just HOW OFTEN Bobbyshaftoe switches to third person to check his surroundings for threats!

And why shouldn't he, or anyone else!?

We already know infantry will not have 3PV, so your statement of absolutes that everyone should get it, noone should have it now, because then it would unfair against infantry.

Yeah, and the reason they don't have it is exactly what you posted, the good ol' "Lemme just scope out around this obstacle without putting myself in harms way.".

2. You also seem to forget AGAIN that I'm NOT in favour of solo play, BECAUSE I WANT A DIVISION IN ROLES BETWEEN DRIVER AND GUNNER. My setup would not AT ALL allow for solo play. Compared to PS2, which will be extremely solo play even with just first person view, BECAUSE YOU ALLOW THE DRIVER TO GUN.

Third person has nothing to do with solo play, just with BEING ABLE TO PLAY PROPERLY AT ALL!

Yet you crusade like crazy for 3PV, but the Driver-Gunner thing is negligable because it's already in?


P.S.: Meh, this whole branch of "discussion" is getting pointless, cause we all just start to resort to namecalling, without actually listening.

[captainkapautz]

Along with air, other vehicles, obstructions as well? Guess those should be viewed as his team mates. Got it.

What?

[MrBloodworth]

It is in BF, that's a good reason to add it, true.

No, its not.

[Figment]

We already know infantry will not have 3PV, so your statement of absolutes that everyone should get it, noone should have it now, because then it would unfair against infantry.

I do find that unfair.

Yeah, and the reason they don't have it is exactly what you posted, the good ol' "Lemme just scope out around this obstacle without putting myself in harms way.".

...

You do realise I've suggested a lean feature for infantry for looking around corners and have been talking about various ways of doing 3D spotting systems, right?

Right?

Yet you crusade like crazy for 3PV, but the Driver-Gunner thing is negligable because it's already in?

Guess who was annoyingly long crusading in the driver-gunner debate (really, just check the thread(s) on it...) and in beta will continue to do so? I'm extremely strongly opposed to it and have stated so... oh 12 times or more in this very thread and you go and pretend I'm saying it can be neglected?

What? O.o'




Please stop assuming things about what I'm crusading for. You obviously don't remember what I've said in and on any of those topics. :/

[Figment]

Along with air, other vehicles, obstructions as well? Guess those should be viewed as his team mates. Got it.

What?

He is saying that someone in another tank would have to warn you about that huge rock that you're about to hit (while you're watching sideways or backwards in first person).


Which ironically, you clearly didn't see coming yourself... :lol:

[captainkapautz]

I am saying that a lone wolf hiding in the bushes, while the 2 tank occupants are focused on other vehicles, air units and avoiding obstructions are team mates of the c4 runner handicapped by 1pv are sitting ducks.

Sorry, but I don't get it.
I seriously have no idea what you are trying to say.

BTW the results of the poll are slightly less than favorable for your position.

Doesn't make my opinion any less valid.

No, its not.

So was it supposed to tell us?

[captainkapautz]

You do realise I've suggested a lean feature for infantry for looking around corners and have been talking about various ways of doing 3D spotting systems, right?

Right?

No, I don't.
Why would I, when you whole attitude in this thread screams "fuck infantry, I only care about groundvehicles".
Not to mention that leaning is a piss poor substitute for 3PV, because you still expose yourself and 3D-spotting isn't and better, seeing how that turned out in BF3.

Guess who was annoyingly long crusading in the driver-gunner debate (really, just check the thread(s) on it...) and in beta will continue to do so? I'm extremely strongly opposed to it and have stated so... oh 12 times or more in this very thread and you go and pretend I'm saying it can be neglected?


What? O.o'

Please stop assuming things about what I'm crusading for. You obviously don't remember what I've said in and on any of those topics. :/

Guess who isn't checking every thread you post in to see if you're schizophrenic and crusade for one thing in a thread and the opposite in another.

Because your last posts in this thread here sounded like you want 3PV so the driver doesn't need a second gunner to be effective.

He is saying that someone in another tank would have to warn you about that huge rock that you're about to hit (while you're watching sideways or backwards in first person).


Which ironically, you clearly didn't see coming yourself... :lol:

Yeah, the whole "The driver is legally blind in 1PV"-arguement which you like to exaggerate to the limit every single time you mention it.

[Rozonus]

Second, in PS2... the actual main gunner (the one who controls the turret if it's not the Magrider)... is the driver...

Oh... Hmm. Maybe you should have checked that.

By 'gunner' I was referring to the 2nd seat in PS2 MBTs, seeing as the primary gunner is actually the driver. Reading it now should make more sense.


You just make sure all your outfit buddies are always online and in your area watching your back!

Who's watching the watchmen though? You're in front of them in tunnelvision mode, puking over your keyboard from motion sickness.



Seeing as squadmates can fire for you, why bother bringing a gun?

Bad logic is bad.

Of course I will make sure they're there! If they aren't online I'll go play another game. I get too bored plaything any multiplayer games if it's not with a group of friends. I won't be puking because, like the majority of other players, I'm used to controlling vehicles in 1PV and I don't get any kind of sickness from it. You keep mentioning that as though it's common but I don't think I know anyone I've played with who does suffer from it. I don't play multiplayer games to get a good score, I play them because I love the feeling of teamwork so I don't care if my mates kill enemies for me! As long as I can transport them around and provide support then I'll be happy. Just because I don't care about my k/d doesn't mean my logic is bad.

[Figment]

Let's just say you got the wrong impression and leave it at that, okay?

Not to mention that leaning is a piss poor substitute for 3PV, because you still expose yourself and 3D-spotting isn't and better, seeing how that turned out in BF3.

*sigh*

Stop thinking of BF3 spotting, that's a crap system. If you - please - read back on what I've been suggesting since the first post, is a variant on World of Tank spotting. But please start with a blank idea of it, as if you know of no spotting systems in existence.

Here's spotting rules for what I'm suggesting:


Third person is available for everyone: infantry / vehicles / aircraft
Units that are in direct line of sight with you can be seen (without marker)
Units that are in direct line of sight and have been in the close proximity to your cursor count as a "spotted" target and gain a marker (just like markers in PS1)
Marked units are considered "known to you".
Marked units lose the marker fairly fast when not in the vicinity of someone's aim
Information on units that are currently marked is shared with friendlies within a certain radius from you (this could be tweaked and even change per class or unit type). This is called Radio Range in World of Tanks, there sharing radio ranges from 300 to 800 meters, this range may be reduced or different for various classes or vehicle units in PS2 (example: engineer and infil could have a larger sharing radius).
Information is passed on between players, even if they did not spot the marked unit themselves to pass this information down the line (all the way to snipers for instance).
Units that are unmarked are considered unknown to you and if they are not in direct line of sight are thus NOT rendered for you, even if they are rendered for other friendlies.
Leaning would therefore be complementory to third person: it allows you to see if there are targets that have yet to be marked or have lost their mark, at relative low exposure risk to yourself: this does mean you might get spotted yourself however.


This however means that the person spotting and marking you is always in direct line of sight of the person spotted. Could be an infil, of course and that makes infils more important recon units.

ie. a form of teamwork. Someone actively spots and "marks" targets by tracking them, others get to use the information passively.

I don't believe with this amount of enemies it is advisable to have 10-30 people on TeamSpeak having to tell eachother where every single enemy is positioned. That is simply unworkable. Of course, that means that there would be situations where someone knows someone is coming for a corner or knows from behind a ridge there's a tank somewhere (as it's been spotted), but it solves the wallhumping in stairwells and provides enough, but not complete information to base decisions on.



How does that sound?



Yeah, the whole "The driver is legally blind in 1PV"-arguement which you like to exaggerate to the limit every single time you mention it.

Because they are. They will be blind to approximately 260 degrees in a pure FPS view and they can't turn around as fasts as infantry due to turret and hull rotation speed limitations and because those rotations actually impact how effective you are in fighting other units. Being allowed to keep track of an enemy is good for gameplay.

Meanwhile, I have to repeat this because you like to dismiss it off-hand as irrelevant. Even though it has been, is and always will be a significant issue on many different accounts in terms of vehicle gameplay and what this entire thread is about first and foremost.

Motion sickness is to me a secondary concern, but right now mostly because I can always avoid it by going back to third person. I'm not sure if I could stomach it if it was permanent.

I mean, I can't take more than 10 seconds watching through binoculars in an actual car at 90 degrees, every bump in the road is exagerated in the bopping of the view and every turn is desorienting, particularly if you're zoomed in a little bit.

[captainkapautz]

Let's just say you got the wrong impression and leave it at that, okay?



*sigh*

Stop thinking of BF3 spotting, that's a crap system. If you - please - read back on what I've been suggesting since the first post, is a variant on World of Tank spotting. But please start with a blank idea of it, as if you know of no spotting systems in existence.

Here's spotting rules for what I'm suggesting:


Third person is available for everyone: infantry / vehicles / aircraft
Units that are in direct line of sight with you can be seen (without marker)
Units that are in direct line of sight and have been in the close proximity to your cursor count as a "spotted" target and gain a marker (just like markers in PS1)
Marked units are considered "known to you".
Marked units lose the marker fairly fast when not in the vicinity of someone's aim
Information on units that are currently marked is shared with friendlies within a certain radius from you (this could be tweaked and even change per class or unit type). This is called Radio Range in World of Tanks, there sharing radio ranges from 300 to 800 meters, this range may be reduced or different for various classes or vehicle units in PS2 (example: engineer and infil could have a larger sharing radius).
Information is passed on between players, even if they did not spot the marked unit themselves to pass this information down the line (all the way to snipers for instance).
Units that are unmarked are considered unknown to you and if they are not in direct line of sight are thus NOT rendered for you, even if they are rendered for other friendlies.
Leaning would therefore be complementory to third person: it allows you to see if there are targets that have yet to be marked or have lost their mark, at relative low exposure risk to yourself: this does mean you might get spotted yourself however.


This however means that the person spotting and marking you is always in direct line of sight of the person spotted. Could be an infil, of course and that makes infils more important recon units.

ie. a form of teamwork. Someone actively spots and "marks" targets by tracking them, others get to use the information passively.

I don't believe with this amount of enemies it is advisable to have 10-30 people on TeamSpeak having to tell eachother where every single enemy is positioned. That is simply unworkable. Of course, that means that there would be situations where someone knows someone is coming for a corner or knows from behind a ridge there's a tank somewhere (as it's been spotted), but it solves the wallhumping in stairwells and provides enough, but not complete information to base decisions on.



How does that sound?

Do units behind you count as not see or do you propose a minimum range where they'll be automatically detected, think 50(?)m and closer in WoT?

Because they are. They will be blind to approximately 260 degrees in a pure FPS view and they can't turn around as fasts as infantry due to turret and hull rotation speed limitations and because those rotations actually impact how effective you are in fighting other units. Being allowed to keep track of an enemy is good for gameplay.

Meanwhile, I have to repeat this because you like to dismiss it off-hand as irrelevant. Even though it has been, is and always will be a significant issue on many different accounts in terms of vehicle gameplay and what this entire thread is about first and foremost.

Motion sickness is to me a secondary concern, but right now mostly because I can always avoid it by going back to third person. I'm not sure if I could stomach it if it was permanent.

I mean, I can't take more than 10 seconds watching through binoculars in an actual car at 90 degrees, every bump in the road is exagerated in the bopping of the view and every turn is desorienting, particularly if you're zoomed in a little bit.

Turretrotationalspeed wouldn't be much of an issue, if you had a "1"PV camera independant of the actual turret like in WoT.
I did rather prefer the "zoomed in far enough to almost not seeing/not seeing the tank" camera angle in WoT.

P.S.: Thanks for actually keeping the discussion rather civil, I know I come across as thickheaded and confrontational, I am capable to listen to and agree with a very well thought arguement.
I just dislike "No, it's gotta be like this, otherwise it's bullshit." arguements, though that not directed at you specifically.

[Toppopia]

Let's just say you got the wrong impression and leave it at that, okay?




Here's spotting rules for what I'm suggesting:


Third person is available for everyone: infantry / vehicles / aircraft
Units that are in direct line of sight with you can be seen (without marker)
Units that are in direct line of sight and have been in the close proximity to your cursor count as a "spotted" target and gain a marker (just like markers in PS1)
Marked units are considered "known to you".
Marked units lose the marker fairly fast when not in the vicinity of someone's aim
Information on units that are currently marked is shared with friendlies within a certain radius from you (this could be tweaked and even change per class or unit type). This is called Radio Range in World of Tanks, there sharing radio ranges from 300 to 800 meters, this range may be reduced or different for various classes or vehicle units in PS2 (example: engineer and infil could have a larger sharing radius).
Information is passed on between players, even if they did not spot the marked unit themselves to pass this information down the line (all the way to snipers for instance).
Units that are unmarked are considered unknown to you and if they are not in direct line of sight are thus NOT rendered for you, even if they are rendered for other friendlies.
Leaning would therefore be complementory to third person: it allows you to see if there are targets that have yet to be marked or have lost their mark, at relative low exposure risk to yourself: this does mean you might get spotted yourself however.


This however means that the person spotting and marking you is always in direct line of sight of the person spotted. Could be an infil, of course and that makes infils more important recon units.

This makes me think of a turn based top down game where you take turns moving units and attack, but that all sounds good, might be a little tricky to implement, but would be good for teamwork, and i guess 20 people yelling where enemies are is annoying, but as long as you yell out a sniper or tank instead of hoping your teammates saw it :p

[Figment]

By 'gunner' I was referring to the 2nd seat in PS2 MBTs, seeing as the primary gunner is actually the driver. Reading it now should make more sense.

I know: you assume there are two players inside. I don't. That's the difference. The one driving and in control of the main gun needs situational awareness the most. He should not wait for his gunner to tell him "hey, we're driving against a wall and apparently have been for half a minute now".

Of course I will make sure they're there! If they aren't online I'll go play another game. I get too bored plaything any multiplayer games if it's not with a group of friends. I won't be puking because, like the majority of other players, I'm used to controlling vehicles in 1PV and I don't get any kind of sickness from it. You keep mentioning that as though it's common but I don't think I know anyone I've played with who does suffer from it.

What you just said is called "self-centered design", what you need to realise is that "user-centered design" is a completely different way of thinking (multi-perspective, trying to imagine what it's like for someone you can hardly conceive exists to use your product).

Imagine for instance if all chairs in the world were built under your idea of "I don't have a problem with it, my sparse collection of sample players does not have a problem with it, so it doesn't matter!". Or if all pants and T-shirts were a narrow size "S" because the designer happened to be a thin female and figured that if it fit her, it should fit everyone else and they should deal with it?

You think that a game or cartoon should have flashy graphics that cause epileptic strokes just because the designer and the people he personally knows have no problem with it?

Again, you're using rather bad logic. The first thing you learn about ergonomics for mass consumption/production products in Industrial Design Engineering is that you want as many people as possible to be able to use your product and thus adapt your product to them, not them to your product.



I would also like to know which games you've played that are pure first person vehicle shooters. The last one I played was "Super Battletank 2" on SNES. Every tank game since has been a mixture of FPS and 3rd person.

I do hope you're not suggesting this (of course in a refined form):

Super Battle Tank 2 SNES - YouTube

To be the level of tank gameplay in PS2. (It sadly demonstrates the lack of situational awareness quite well, even then, people switched to map view to get an idea of where enemies were and to not have to see the first person view too long).

I don't play multiplayer games to get a good score, I play them because I love the feeling of teamwork so I don't care if my mates kill enemies for me! As long as I can transport them around and provide support then I'll be happy. Just because I don't care about my k/d doesn't mean my logic is bad.

If a multiplayer game is not enjoyable to play because the gameplay mechanics are poor, certainly in comparison to other games that have a better system for the type of gameplay, then players will leave for those games and take their buddies with them.

If you have tank combat in PS2, it should be refined and well-developed and balanced by default, not deliberately gimped in controls and made semi-unplayable just to compensate another playstyle or unit.

[Baneblade]

FPV with rear view and peripheral video feeds.

[IMMentat]

I am no longer enjoying figment jumping at peoples throat every 3rd post.

I feel that it is clear he just wants a graphical and (maybe) netcode update to PS1, not a modern game based off the same setting.
If it comes complete with 3rd person cornercamping troopers, heavily armoured air that can rain fury from above and vehicles that can hide behind an impervious rock in order to 3PV artillery snipe other ground targets. His vision will be complete.

If multiboxing can remain easily exploitable due to the vehicle physics behaving in a way similar to a floating camera in the average spectator mode. Then bonus points will be awarded.

May as well close this thread, Figment can't be persuaded from anything but his own position and we can't prove the viability of the 1 man 1 gun mechanics of planetside2 until TB gives us more of his newbishly controlled (see the lib vid, I loled) footage, or more teaser video's and alpha/beta data becomes available.

[Figment]

Do units behind you count as not see or do you propose a minimum range where they'll be automatically detected, think 50(?)m and closer in WoT?

Well in PS1 you had a difference in a person getting on radar due to walking or running and sensor shield. That could influence it too.


It's possible to make vision behind you be more about hearing range and peripheral vision range so there could be a bit of a blindspot where a careful assassin can try to sneak up by walking slowly, unless of course friendly or spotted/marked by friendlies.

That I wouldn't quite mind as it would take a bit of low grade skill to not get spotted till it's too late either.

Turretrotationalspeed wouldn't be much of an issue, if you had a "1"PV camera independant of the actual turret like in WoT.
I did rather prefer the "zoomed in far enough to almost not seeing/not seeing the tank" camera angle in WoT.

If so, yes, it could make the turret rotation speed independent from it. But, it would still potentially cause the motion sickness due to being bound to the frame of reference of the vehicle (the frame of reference bounces and rotates), rather than the 'world'. Especially since you'll not usualy have to aim where you drive. :/

The independent camera in WoT is 3rd person though. In cockpit mode I would definitely not mind an independent third person (hell, that could even be restricted to realistic angles). In that case, third person could also be "fixed" forward with just pitch angle control and the rotational freedom until a view would be effectively blocked. The problem as I see it though still lies in gunning and driving. :/

I'm not sure if Sobekeus suggestion is very user friendly or too convoluted for a game.

Either way, you could give different kinds of third person to different users of the same unit.

P.S.: Thanks for actually keeping the discussion rather civil, I know I come across as thickheaded and confrontational, I am capable to listen to and agree with a very well thought arguement.
I just dislike "No, it's gotta be like this, otherwise it's bullshit." arguements, though that not directed at you specifically.

No problem, I've got similar personality quirks. Very fast to agitate when someone "just doesn't see the obvious". I tend to have a very broad analysis and it's hard to communicate the entire vision I got on the game as a whole at times. When I suggest something, it's usualy in relation to a string of other ideas as well.

[Figment]

I am no longer enjoying figment jumping at peoples throat every 3rd post.

I feel that it is clear he just wants a graphical and (maybe) netcode update to PS1, not a modern game based off the same setting.
If it comes complete with 3rd person cornercamping troopers, heavily armoured air that can rain fury from above and vehicles that can hide behind an impervious rock in order to 3PV artillery snipe other ground targets. His vision will be complete.

Wow, way to miss the point. :rofl: You do realise that the spotting system proposed is very different from PS1 as under PS1 spotting rules, everyone was rendered for everyone at all times? Meaning you could third person camp, on your own? That's impossible in what I suggest!

I've just posted a way how corner camping is avoided unless you've been spotted anyway (meaning you can prevent getting corner camped and ambushed by paying attention to your environment).

Also... artillery, didn't I say in the artillery thread it didn't quite fit the game? Hmmm... Curious that.

You know me so well IMMentat. Not. Maybe if you actually cared to read a post now and then instead of making a stereotype out of everyone that doesn't agree with you as a PS1 fanboy?

If multiboxing can remain easily exploitable due to the vehicle physics behaving in a way similar to a floating camera in the average spectator mode. Then bonus points will be awarded.

Yeah... Cause I'm not actually the first on the entire forums to warn about the creation of units that dual boxing players can exploit excessively (in particular in relation to a Galaxy Gunship). :rolleyes:

May as well close this thread, Figment can't be persuaded from anything but his own position

Maybe if someone used a good argument earlier instead of just repeating their position without really backing it up or explaining why? The latest posts are beginning to look like something you can get somewhere with in a debate.

[captainkapautz]

Well in PS1 you had a difference in a person getting on radar due to walking or running and sensor shield. That could influence it too.


It's possible to make vision behind you be more about hearing range and peripheral vision range so there could be a bit of a blindspot where a careful assassin can try to sneak up by walking slowly, unless of course friendly or spotted/marked by friendlies.

That I wouldn't quite mind as it would take a bit of low grade skill to not get spotted till it's too late either.

I'd be more then okay with that, though I do think that units I aim at shouldn't automatically be broadcasted to my friendlies, but still require a buttonpress "to relay enemy positions", that way you could have sidegrades that automatically transmit, i.e. spotting scopes for snipers.

It would also remove the reason why 3PV is gone from infantry atm, so pretty much anyone could have it again.
Hell, you could even make 3PV "completely" playable and turn PS2 from FPS into TPS, if you want to.
It would be completely up to personal preference.

[IMMentat]

All the MBT in PS1 could classify as artillery at mid-range (the magrider was much less powerful but the tight CoF and rapid bullet velocity&refire helped).

With the Lib vid from TB, 3PV may not even be needed, a ground pulse radar option for tankers will probably be available ( I assume similar to the audio sensor in PS1). Between that and a well made minimap (for seeing sructures/obstacles) navigation and 2D awareness/spotting should be acceptable as long as the turret HUD shows the direction the hull is facing.
Thats 2 "if" statements but better than things stood a day ago.

[Rozonus]

Again, you're using rather bad logic. The first thing you learn about ergonomics for mass consumption/production products in Industrial Design Engineering is that you want as many people as possible to be able to use your product and thus adapt your product to them, not them to your product.

You assume that the people voting in this thread represent the entire amount PS1 gamers? Out of 2 large gaming communities that I'm part of, I only know of one player who wants 3PV in PS2. So to me, your ergonomics lesson shows that the majority of people are happy with 1PV.

Oh and the games I've played that use vehicles frequently in multiplayer are the range of Battlefield games. Just because those games had 3PV doesn't mean I used it! If I remember correctly the 3PV was much harder to use for aiming so I always stuck to 1PV, as did my friends.

Regarding your statement about assuming a PS2 tank is not going to have the 2nd seat filled, perhaps the whole point is that if that seat is empty, the tank is supposed to be at a disadvantage? In Battlefield games if a friend of mine wants to use a tank I'll happily jump into the 2nd seat to use the mounted machine gun and provide overwatch for him, checking the opposite direction that the turret is facing to make sure no one is flanking us etc. We just wouldn't use tanks if there wasn't someone to use the 2nd seat because of the limitations, but thats the price to pay for using a killy death machine.

You need to give gamers some credit for once! You seem to think that everyone in 1PV FPSs drives around crashing into everything while puking up, but in my experience that doesn't happen. Squashing friendlies happens, but that's a bad case of DERP on the foot soldier's side rather that a viewing issue.

[SKYeXile]

just sticking to first person and let the driver aim like in world of tanks FFS. they can have a full 360 view around their tank and move that around asmuch as they like and the turret moves at a base speed. I think there should be 3rd person, but the tears in this thread are overwhelming.

[Figment]

You assume that the people voting in this thread represent the entire amount PS1 gamers? Out of 2 large gaming communities that I'm part of, I only know of one player who wants 3PV in PS2. So to me, your ergonomics lesson shows that the majority of people are happy with 1PV.

Only one? You're not part of the actual PlanetSide Universe community then? You assume you actually KNOW people's opinions because you got some people here or there you might know and may not even have discussed it with?

Look at the poll, read the thread, look at the amount of people in favour that you are ignoring purposefully. Why do you want to argue with numbers that are not in your favour by making them up.

On top of that, you don't grasp what designing for masses means because it does not fit your goal, nice.

Oh and the games I've played that use vehicles frequently in multiplayer are the range of Battlefield games. Just because those games had 3PV doesn't mean I used it! If I remember correctly the 3PV was much harder to use for aiming so I always stuck to 1PV, as did my friends.

So the "exclusive FPS tank games" you've played are games with third person in it.

Nice...

And as you may have noticed, nobody in this thread is argueing for 3rd person for the use of aiming... In fact, it has been pointed out many times before that aiming is best done in 1st person.

What is the point you're trying to make? Mine? Thanks, but I can do that better than you.

Regarding your statement about assuming a PS2 tank is not going to have the 2nd seat filled, perhaps the whole point is that if that seat is empty, the tank is supposed to be at a disadvantage? In Battlefield games if a friend of mine wants to use a tank I'll happily jump into the 2nd seat to use the mounted machine gun and provide overwatch for him, checking the opposite direction that the turret is facing to make sure no one is flanking us etc. We just wouldn't use tanks if there wasn't someone to use the 2nd seat because of the limitations, but thats the price to pay for using a killy death machine.

Yeah and again there you go with the self-centered design mentality... You also nicely omit that in Battlefield, you don't have more tanks to use at the same time since if you had two tanks, you'd have both overwatch and two huge guns...

Which in PS2 means: Lightning and MBT solo or two solo MBTs. Gunner position is pretty useless, ironically especially if tanks die this quick to solo infantry... Best have another tank there or you lose both people in one blow...

You need to give gamers some credit for once! You seem to think that everyone in 1PV FPSs drives around crashing into everything while puking up, but in my experience that doesn't happen. Squashing friendlies happens, but that's a bad case of DERP on the foot soldier's side rather that a viewing issue.

Do they crash into everything? Yes, unless 3rd person is available, even the best players will regularly crash into objects. And even then they will now and then run into something, but not as often. All those games you mentioned have people DRIVE in third person and SHOOT in first person.

Always nice though that you blame others if YOU drive over them and refering to how YOU never experienced this. Again, two self-centered design arguments... You just don't get it, do you?

You're not the universe of gaming experience.

You're a sample. What works for you may not work for other people. Deal with it.

[Sledgecrushr]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1-tank-running-left.jpg

This is probably the only way to get great visibility while using a tank. Hopefully this can be incorporated into PS2 after launch.

[Rozonus]

OK I'm done with this. There's not even any point in correcting the mistakes you've made while assuming what I meant.

You can go cry some more while I enjoy PS2 with whatever SOE decide to do with it. You'll probably try to make a witty remark about this post but I won't read it, so have fun with that.

[Serpent]

Perhaps having a 3rd seat could be optional to have someone spot people? The problem would be snipers and protection.

[Figment]

OK I'm done with this. There's not even any point in correcting the mistakes you've made while assuming what I meant.

Aw. it's always someone else making the mistake, isn't it? Like driving over someone else, clearly the person getting in your way is ALWAYS at fault. ALWAYS, because you ALWAYS pay such great attention to the road while in first person view...

Funny, I never had issues with driving over someone... Oh hey, I used third person for driving. Hey that's nice, why didn't anyone suggest you could use third person to avoid that before?

You can go cry some more while I enjoy PS2 with whatever SOE decide to do with it. You'll probably try to make a witty remark about this post but I won't read it, so have fun with that.

Ah, the classic ad-hominem-and-run-away-crying-don't-dare-reply-to-me-cause-I-told-you-you-would-try-to-do-so-cop-out-catch-22-in-a-last-ditch-attempt-to-come-over-as-more-mature-and-morally-"win"-without-actually-having-an-argument-exit-post.


So much easier than actually debating and having to make a point, bit cliché though.


Stand up for your opinion, for crying out loud. If you fail to communicate your point, then maybe it's your fault (too). You blame me for not understanding you (or deriving something else than you). Meanwhile you blame others for when you drive over them in first person, while refusing to use third person.

I'm not sure why you want to sound like those irresponsible people that spam grenades down a stairwell and blame their 500 grief points on other people "running into their spam" even though they're the one taking the risks to fire near friendlies that those friendlies can't see coming... being in first person view with their backs to them... Hmm... Weird that.



But hey "nanananana I can't hear you", running away and not reading this works as well I guess. :rolleyes:

[Figment]

All the MBT in PS1 could classify as artillery at mid-range (the magrider was much less powerful but the tight CoF and rapid bullet velocity&refire helped).

I'd say the Marauder mortar and Galaxy Gunship could count as artillery due to the steep arc, but MBTs? Not at all.

With the Lib vid from TB, 3PV may not even be needed, ...

Yeeeeaaahh... I don't see how he could have avoided flying into those buildings and bridge either using third person rather than first person view.

Funny, I concluded the exact opposite from you from the same vid. :/

...a ground pulse radar option for tankers will probably be available ( I assume similar to the audio sensor in PS1). Between that and a well made minimap (for seeing sructures/obstacles) navigation and 2D awareness/spotting should be acceptable as long as the turret HUD shows the direction the hull is facing.
Thats 2 "if" statements but better than things stood a day ago.

Must say it's interesting that the radar will be split between ground and vehicle targets. Though that also means that for detecting one type of unit, you will always be dependent on "manual", visual spotting.

The mini map suggestion, though always advisable to check it, may be a little bit presumptious though.

The problem with a minimap and obstacles is that a 2D map doesn't indicate height well and outlines don't carry as much depth perception and distance/size information for driving/flying. Map zoom may interfere with that too (I'd imagine a lot of people will want to zoom out as far as possible to see as many red dots as possible, making it impossible to use accurately for driving). Nor is it really practical to watch both the minimap and aim for small targets at distance at once. Minimaps are more of a quick first-glance-check for marked targets if at high speed and only at very low speed and with little to no other preoccupations a tool for maneuvring. A 2D mini map is not quite a TomTom. (Like I would not advise anyone to drive a passenger car on just the onboard navigation either).

On top of that, especially if the mini map does not turn with the orientation of the vehicle, it's very difficult for some people to quickly determine how the vehicle is oriented on the map. And if it does, where for instance "north" is. i know, not a big problem for me and a lot of others, but we're not the only ones here. :/ Mapreading is unfortunately not the most developed skill amongst people (in WoT, you see tons of dots of friendlies and enemies on it and the majority of people still seem to ignore it to the point of frustration for those with higher winrates).

So I'm not saying it's impossible to maneuvre based on the minimap, I simply don't think it's a practical solution for the majority of people. :/

[Baneblade]

TPV was rarely useful in PS1 when flying. I used it mainly to watch my Reaver to make sure I looked cool.

On the ground I found that most of the time, TPV didn't help, unless you needed to see over obstacles. I drove in FPV often, because it added more challenge.

[captainkapautz]

I used it mainly to watch my Reaver to make sure I looked cool.

Best arguement for 3PV in the whole thread.

[ArmedZealot]

Best arguement for 3PV in the whole thread.


So much truth. Every vehicle should have a 3PV vanity cam with the HUD disabled.

[captainkapautz]

So much truth. Every vehicle should have a 3PV vanity cam with the HUD disabled.

Infantry as well, man!

[Baneblade]

I think I'm sold on TPV. As long as the infantry TPV is a close up of the ass.

Female Baneblade... have to ponder that.

[Sledgecrushr]

Either a vanity cam or a mirror on every other wall. 3pv ftw.

[Xyntech]

I'll accept 3rd person on infantry if it is exclusively a vanity view, as in: No seeing enemies, even if they would ordinarily be visible in first person. That includes enemy vehicles and deployables. If deployables aren't specifically identified as friendly, they are invisible.

I am strongly against 3rd person view on infantry that can provide anything but a nice view of your character.

I don't really feel strongly either way about vehicle 3rd person. I think it will be possible to drive/pilot without it, but I also don't think it will be hugely exploitable thing if 3rd person is included.

[Figment]

TPV was rarely useful in PS1 when flying. I used it mainly to watch my Reaver to make sure I looked cool.

As mentioned well before in this thread, in the air (and with a hovering vehicle) you have a much smoother ride though and you will encounter next to no obstructions.

Both meaning first person view is far less of a problem for aircraft. Till you come across a bridge, fly close to a building or try to do a canyon / trench or forest run and have no good perception of distance and dimensions of your aircraft. Similarly for landing.

Ask TotalBiscuit.


Watching yourself is nice as well, not just for the cosmetics though. Especially as a cloaker there's a bonus to survivability, as it provides you a check to see if you can be easily spotted against the background (particularly when moving). This helps you in decision making a lot.

[Figment]

Heh while some of us infils complained we turned out to be too visible for others with some of those badges being bright lines and contrasting with the background when moving.

[Kato]

Cash shop cosmetic customizations for cloakers might be a hard sell. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Never ..... Cant you see my purple invisibility?

[HeatLegend]

I liked the second option a lot, hadnt thought of that before. Then again... the technology of this time SHOULD allow for seeing around ones tank... censors or whatever.

[SztEltviz]

My opinion: 1st person view with a periscope like frame that can move around with decent speed (1 sec for 180 degree), and the turret follows it slowly. Can press an extra key to lock the turret in place. Like WoT's FPS view. About bumping issues, we can get a stabilizer on our tanks. So thats smooth out spikes.
So you can easily check the surrounding, but wont see 360 all time.

About WoT's visibility checks and propagation... idea is ok, but it's current form so broken, that's a joke.Wargaming said they got problems with the number of scanline checks needed in a 15 vs 15 battle, so i don't think it's ok for 2000 players.

[Raka Maru]

I saw 3pv in the videos for both planes and tanks. Is that confirmed as beta only? Will it be removed for ground driving?

[Kayos]

I only ever used 3rd person for landing in PS1. Would be nice to have it especially with all the customization we can do.

[Raka Maru]

I'm wanting them to keep the 3PV for vehicles also. Seeing your tank on fire while driving seems to be terrifying awesome!

[Saintlycow]

less suicide please

[Xyntech]

Wow I didn't know this thread was still kicking. Yeah I noticed that in E3 demos as well. I hope they keep it and it looks like from the survey most would agree.

In the stream, I remember a moment where the player they were watching was trying to drive a Vanguard around and kept crashing into everything. I believe it was Clegg who commented something along the lines of "He needs to switch to 3rd person view."

I lol'd.

I was previously okay with the idea of 3rd person only for aircraft (although I still had prefered it be the same for land and air vehicles, both having 3pv or neither having it), but that shit was hilariously bad.

Please, give 3rd person to all vehicles to prevent this shit. As Higby said, chaos is fun, but that shit is probably taking it too far.

Still no to infantry 3rd person of course. Fuck the few people who think that's a good idea. It's bad and you should feel bad.

Speaking of 3rd person, I'd love to have a little spycam that is easily destroyed, but can allow players to scout around without directly exposing themselves. Maybe as a high tier Infiltrator sidegrade with some heavy tradeoffs.

I'd like to see two variants of it. One that hovered around more at infantry speeds, and another one that flew at faster speeds that could keep up with aircraft.

Of course the true purpose of the device would be as an additional tool that people could use to make PS2 videos.