Fast Travel Poll (Thrustpad Poll v.2.0) [Archive]

Immigrant

2012-05-20, 09:39 AM

Hi guys I've been following the Trustpad Poll thread for awhile and I see results are pretty close - 60:40 in favor of TPs. But I feel that the question posed is too unclear since it involves multiple elements, and two most important are concept of fast travel around base itself and mechanism (execution) of fast travel, what is reflected in the comments. By separating the two I believe we could get a clearer and more unanimous verdict by the community.

My personal opinion is that FT will be necessary due to vast size of the bases in PS2 however I dislike the execution itself. I feel that TPs are too arcadish (like being fired from a giant slingshot). It might be fun for some for awhile however I think that effect will wear off pretty soon and all we will have out of it is nuisance of having to worry no to miss the tower and slam into the wall or aircraft flying over the base while trying to assault or defend the base. I think that there are plenty of more appropriate alternative for fast travel most conventional being bidirectional Teleporter Pads/Gates that connect distant indoor locations within a base or maybe underground FT tubes etc.

Also there are two further aspect of FT which are important imo. First one is the tactical ability (option) to prevent FT by destroying the adjacent power generator (I hope this is the case already however it wasn't clearly confirmed in Night Ops video). Second one is the ability of FT to transport you to parts of the base held by the enemy (TPs clearly can do that from what we've seen). Since base designs are very open and enemy could come from any side I really feel that enemy being flung at you from air (or even transported to you by any other method of fast travel) will make battles too hectic and holding the lines for infantry completely impossible. There are infiltrator and LA classes who'll have abilities to travel unnoticed/fast and over the various obstacle. Beside that other troops could be dropped behind enemy lines by Galaxies and other transport vehicles and that's why I think that FT method should be open only between parts of the base held by friendly troops (your Empire).

p.s. Poll will allow multiple answers for convenience but 3 main questions are 1. Do you want FT and what kind? 2. Should FT be disabled by destroying adjacent generator? 3. Should FT be available between enemy-held points of the base? Please vote and comment your choices if you wish.

Edit: Since I've noticed that almost 20% of people who voted didn't actually do it properly I'm posting a graphic helper that will help you vote on this poll:

http://www.zaslike.com/files/x25xlv6nifa8nf3udrdn.png (http://www.zaslike.com/)

If you by any chance you find two of the first 3 poll options (points 1a and 1b) equally valid check them both and proceed as shown on diagram above.

Stardouser

2012-05-20, 09:59 AM

No fast travel at all outside of warpgates.

After seeing jump pads now I'm afraid they will have acceleration pads on the ground on roads/travel lanes out in the field between bases...let's hope not!

Ohaunlaim

2012-05-20, 10:42 AM

Moving sidewalks on the walls between towers, where FT may occur in the midst of a battle instead of over it, would be my suggestion. Closer to a zipline than thrust pads.

Pyreal

2012-05-20, 10:48 AM

Using a thrustpad to enter an area of the base held be the enemy should not be allowed. There should be a receiving pad that is shut down when the enemy captures it.

Also, did the designer play Portal 2 before s/he put this thought forward? There have been player throwing gizmos long ago (Donkey Kong Country had barrels that shot you across the map), but I can't help thinking of Aerial Faith Plates from P2.

Experiments (9) Testing Aerial Faith Plates - YouTube

KrackerJacked

2012-05-20, 11:16 AM

No FT! It takes a whole element out of the game.....ambushes. How can you ambush reinforcements if the enemy are FT to the fights. And how can you have a game that represents a huge war without the ability to ambush. sounds dumb and arcadish. If I wanted a game like that I'd be playing Tribes.

Immigrant

2012-05-20, 11:37 AM

The results so far confirm my suspicions. People have actually been supporting FT around base and less the actual TP execution.

No fast travel at all outside of warpgates.

After seeing jump pads now I'm afraid they will have acceleration pads on the ground on roads/travel lanes out in the field between bases...let's hope not!

Ok, I personally would also find no FT acceptable. However I think that some of you hardliners would consider the idea of FT acceptable if wasn't unrestricted and if it could be tactically disabled what would actually add some positive new elements to the game imo (imagine the increased value effect of INFs getting in before attack to blow up gens and disrupt FT lines for defenders).

I doubt that SOE would ever consider the second part acceleration pad idea. :eek: I really hope they will know better than to do that.

No FT! It takes a whole element out of the game.....ambushes. How can you ambush reinforcements if the enemy are FT to the fights.

Another one fails to read, we're discussing FT around the bases not FT between bases or across the map. Ambushing the reinforcements would still be possible even with FT around bases.

Mechzz

2012-05-20, 11:46 AM

After seeing jump pads now I'm afraid they will have acceleration pads on the ground on roads/travel lanes out in the field between bases...let's hope not!

That would be quite a sight to see! Hundreds of heavily armed soldiers taking part in the world's biggest game of Sonic the Hedgehog meets Mario Kart. They'd need to leave booster mushrooms lying around for full effect.

Seriously though, with all the vehicles in the game this will not happen.

Personally, if there were one or two bases on a continent with teleporters or jump pads it wouldn't be the end of my gaming world. I don't want all bases to have it though, I prefer traditional walls and shielded gateways. And I would take teleports over jump pads, I've finally decided.

AgtPanda

2012-05-20, 11:50 AM

Here's my take on the situation!

Yes, I think fast travel should be implemented. Especially the positions seen in TB's video (along the very outermost walls). If you notice, there are no fast travel points actually inside the base, and that's a good thing. Since the fast travel is only needed on the outer defenses, then that does almost nothing for the offending side. While it may seem that it gives them a mobility advantage, it only lets them jump around on the outskirts of the base, where all the capture points are a little further inside the base. If anything, the only advantage to be seen from invaders using jump pads is to decide where to enter the fight.

Hopefully, I'm right in assuming that jump pads are only on the outer walls. I believe that would be balanced, and I definitely agree that if the generator is destroyed then that mobility advantage should be lost. Also, I don't like the idea of the jumps pads as they are. There's too much of a risk of accidentally hitting an aircraft, stray projectile, teammate, or enemy in mid air, making you fall to your death (whether from fall damage or from enemy fire). My solution is to make it so that pads launch you in a straight line, similar to the wind dash shout in Skyrim, but before the launch the player gets turned into (mollecules/a holographic image thing that can phase through anything/a ghost) so that they avoid the risk of hitting anything in flight.

This may be completely unbalanced, it may work, it may be the stupidest idea ever. I'll have to wait until the beta, if I get in of course, to see the jump pads for myself and see if the system they have in place now actually works. But for now my stance is Yes to differently implemented FT, Yes to generator status affecting FT pads, and NO to FT restricted between friendly points (since they are not near a capturable point, how will you tell which ones get shut down?).

From the viewpoint of a new PS player (less that 1 week total on PS1).

Stardouser

2012-05-20, 11:50 AM

That would be quite a sight to see! Hundreds of heavily armed soldiers taking part in the world's biggest game of Sonic the Hedgehog meets Mario Kart. They'd need to leave booster mushrooms lying around for full effect.

Seriously though, with all the vehicles in the game this will not happen.

Personally, if there were one or two bases on a continent with teleporters or jump pads it wouldn't be the end of my gaming world. I don't want all bases to have it though, I prefer traditional walls and shielded gateways. And I would take teleports over jump pads, I've finally decided.

That's what I consider wargates, actually, is the teleporters you mention.

I would not be opposed to having a teleporter other than warpgate that goes from say, one end of a continent to another. Personally I think that kind of fast travel is more needed than jump pads, I mean, think about it, really, how far is a jump pad taking you? 50 meters?

Bravix

2012-05-20, 11:52 AM

Another one fails to read, we're discussing FT around the bases not FT between bases or across the map. Ambushing the reinforcements would still be possible even with FT around bases.

His comment is still valid. If your team is attacking a base, trying to take a tower, it's going to be rather hard when I can constantly send a stream of reinforcements to the top of the tower by catapulting them there. You'd have no chance of stopping my reinforcements unless you camp the tower they're coming from as well.

Vancha

2012-05-20, 12:00 PM

Stardouser

2012-05-20, 12:04 PM

Even though the jump pad only works once every 10 seconds?

I know we were suggesting it, but are you saying it does work that way?

Mechzz

2012-05-20, 12:06 PM

That's what I consider wargates, actually, is the teleporters you mention.

I would not be opposed to having a teleporter other than warpgate that goes from say, one end of a continent to another. Personally I think that kind of fast travel is more needed than jump pads, I mean, think about it, really, how far is a jump pad taking you? 50 meters?

ok, it's more terminology then. Remember that to PS1 players
"warpgate" refers exclusively to the big shiny purple dome TB showed us at the end of his vid. They are used exclusively for travelling from one continent to another in PS2.

"Teleporter" would be more of a "router" in PS1 terms, a short-range local teleport mechanism with a transmission pad and a receiving pad.

Why would you want teleported from one side of a continent to another - that's what Sunderers and Galaxies are for.

Stardouser

2012-05-20, 12:09 PM

ok, it's more terminology then. Remember that to PS1 players
"warpgate" refers exclusively to the big shiny purple dome TB showed us at the end of his vid. They are used exclusively for travelling from one continent to another in PS2.

"Teleporter" would be more of a "router" in PS1 terms, a short-range local teleport mechanism with a transmission pad and a receiving pad.

Why would you want teleported from one side of a continent to another - that's what Sunderers and Galaxies are for.

Technically, that's my opinion as well. But why would you want to be teleported or flung across the base? That's what sprinting is for, and light assault jet packs. I just think that long range fast travel(one side of a continent to another) will hurt the game much less than short range fast travel. I mean, at this point I'm basically having to just tell my "it's only for bases, it's only for bases".

Immigrant

2012-05-20, 12:10 PM

His comment is still valid. If your team is attacking a base, trying to take a tower, it's going to be rather hard when I can constantly send a stream of reinforcements to the top of the tower by catapulting them there. You'd have no chance of stopping my reinforcements unless you camp the tower they're coming from as well.

And unfortunately I must repeat myself:

Another one fails to read.

For exactly that point I support ideas of FT lines not working between points controlled by opposite factions and being able to disrupt them even between friendly points by blowing up generators at one of the points in question. FT per se does not cause issues like that rather the way it is implemented.

So to keep a steady stream of reinforcements from one part of the base to another attackers and defenders would have to keep both points under control and generators in both areas operational. I personally think that the side that manages to meet these conditions should be rewarded by being able to FT from these points back and forth.

Defenders would start with having all FT lines functional and would have to fight to keep them that way while attackers would have to capture at least 2 points with gens intact to be able to take over single FT line. I find that reasonable. Anyway I don't advocate too many of these lines 4 to max 8 around the perimeter of the base would be more than enough imo.

Mechzz

2012-05-20, 12:17 PM

Technically, that's my opinion as well. But why would you want to be teleported or flung across the base? That's what sprinting is for, and light assault jet packs. I just think that long range fast travel(one side of a continent to another) will hurt the game much less than short range fast travel. I mean, at this point I'm basically having to just tell my "it's only for bases, it's only for bases".

got you - you're saying no short range or long range teleporting. And I respect that view, totally.

What I'm saying is that I think that if one or two bases had short-range teleporters that the defenders only could use, and then only if they hold both ends of the route then I would see that as an acceptable addition to gameplay when attacking/defending a base. Opening it more than that would be boring (if all bases were the same) and a bit silly (hundreds of players flying around)

I hope to play PS2 for months if not years, and the more variety the better, I think?

Vancha

2012-05-20, 12:21 PM

I know we were suggesting it, but are you saying it does work that way?
I was kind of hoping he'd reply before anyone else, but my point was that it could work that way for all we know.

People have moved beyond speculation and are now deciding whether or not these should be in the game or how they should work, while in a position of ignorance.

Stardouser

2012-05-20, 12:24 PM

got you - you're saying no short range or long range teleporting. And I respect that view, totally.

What I'm saying is that I think that if one or two bases had short-range teleporters that the defenders only could use, and then only if they hold both ends of the route then I would see that as an acceptable addition to gameplay when attacking/defending a base. Opening it more than that would be boring (if all bases were the same) and a bit silly (hundreds of players flying around)

I hope to play PS2 for months if not years, and the more variety the better, I think?
Sure, that would be better. Having a teleport at say,each end of the base but it shuts down if the destination point becomes held by the enemy.

I think the beta will prove teleport pads that are inside buildings at different ends of the base to be a better decision than jump pads on the roof, when jump pads/rooftops start getting farmed by air or tanks sitting on higher ground. And there's another thing. Engineers need to go up on those towers to repair the turrets, if people are constantly blasting at the rooftops(even after turrets are down) because they hope to get some kills on people coming for the jump pads, it will cause the engineers to have trouble doing their job in the midst of all that extra attention.

Mechzz

2012-05-20, 12:32 PM

Engineers need to go up on those towers to repair the turrets, if people are constantly blasting at the rooftops(even after turrets are down) because they hope to get some kills on people coming for the jump pads, it will cause the engineers to have trouble doing their job in the midst of all that extra attention.

Being an Engy and trying to repair a turret in a PS1 base while it was being assaulted was about as easy as trying to repair a tank in the middle of a small BF map. i.e. impossible :) . And the new base design turrets are even more exposed on their wee platforms. I'm afraid they will be little more than pretty ornaments, or infantry-cookers during a base defence.

Stardouser

2012-05-20, 12:34 PM

Being an Engy and trying to repair a turret in a PS1 base while it was being assaulted was about as easy as trying to repair a tank in the middle of a small BF map. i.e. impossible :) . And the new base design turrets are even more exposed on their wee platforms. I'm afraid they will be little more than pretty ornaments, or infantry-cookers during a base defence.

ooooh, I just had an idea. What if the turrets that go up on top of a roof retracted into the battlement towers when either no one is using them, or when destroyed? Then engineers could repair them from inside the tower.

The turrets that are on the bottom floors could also retract, but horizontally instead of vertically.

Actually I love this idea, and it goes double for those standalone towers away from bases.

Tikuto

2012-05-20, 12:54 PM

Yes, but more conventional FT method.
- Replace 'jump pads' with a 'hallway' or 'stairway' portal.

Visual Concept:
Base design would have a hidden enclosed dual carriageway leading directly, safely and speedily to the destination.
Animation: Your character enters this 'portal' pathway to the next area of facility's battlements.
You press [F] on this doorway into the limited-view stairway or hallway.

Gameplay Concept:
This is the fast travel that is more conventional.
You simply press the [F] key to use it, wait a few seconds and you appear at the other side.
Your camera viewing relocates to the other side waiting for your character to exit. This allows you to see what's going on as you exit, allowing to you make a tactical decision before your character becomes vulnerable.
You'd be invulnerable when you enter this 'portal' hallway as your character is hidden in it.
These portals can be locked or unlocked by any enemy;
and unlocked safely by friendly Engineers or violently by anyone.

Mechzz

2012-05-20, 12:57 PM

ooooh, I just had an idea. What if the turrets that go up on top of a roof retracted into the battlement towers when either no one is using them, or when destroyed? Then engineers could repair them from inside the tower.

The turrets that are on the bottom floors could also retract, but horizontally instead of vertically.

Actually I love this idea, and it goes double for those standalone towers away from bases.

yeah, nice idea! Something like this came up in the AA thread the other day, and I think it's a neat solution.

Mechzz

2012-05-20, 01:02 PM

Jump pads should stay because there's a lot of potential for fun.

Teleports are worse because they have no drawbacks, unless you count not being able to see if you're going to be camped on the other side.

Whichever we get, pads or ports, I hope there is variety in base designs. i.e. not all bases will have pads/ports, some will have traditional walls and shielded areas.

Snipefrag

2012-05-20, 01:07 PM

Was it just me, or didnt Higby say that there are going to be no generators in PS2? I asked about cloakers and black ops behind enemy lines in one of the QA reddit sessions and from what I remember that was his response.

Mechzz

2012-05-20, 01:09 PM

Also, repairing turrets should expose the engineer to risk (snipers, air, tanks, cloakers, everything). If you can just sit there repairing it safe inside a tower, there's no point in even bringing them down.

V-D-T

The downside of that approach is that turrets are useless after the first MBT turns up outside your base. With a repair facility the defenders would get more use out of the turrets.

IMMentat

2012-05-20, 01:18 PM

;)For exactly that point I support ideas of FT lines not working between points controlled by opposite factions and being able to disrupt them even between friendly points by blowing up generators at one of the points in question. FT per se does not cause issues like that rather the way it is implemented.

So to keep a steady stream of reinforcements from one part of the base to another attackers and defenders would have to keep both points under control and generators in both areas operational. I personally think that the side that manages to meet these conditions should be rewarded by being able to FT from these points back and forth.

Defenders would start with having all FT lines functional and would have to fight to keep them that way while attackers would have to capture at least 2 points with gens intact to be able to take over single FT line. I find that reasonable. Anyway I don't advocate too many of these lines 4 to max 8 around the perimeter of the base would be more than enough imo.

This.
Thanks for saving me some typing. :p

The downside of that approach is that turrets are useless after the first MBT turns up outside your base. With a repair facility the defenders would get more use out of the turrets.

Nice to see someone other than the devs know the turret versus MBT engagements before its been shown in a video, spoken about in an interview or seen in beta. For the uninitiated, this was sarcasm.

LancerNC

2012-05-20, 01:21 PM

the only form of Fast Travel (FT) I like is thrustpads.

This poll is a little unfair, there are more FT options than thrustpad options. I am for fast travel being disabled if the generator is down, but not against thrustpads at the same time. There are several conditional FT options that do not include thrustpads. I like the elements of gameplay that thrustpads bring, there is a risk in using the pad because you make yourself available to be shot. Furthermore, Considering the travel is not instantaneous it allows people by the landing spot to react. Those are my thoughts on this matter.

I really hope they keep them in game.

Immigrant

2012-05-20, 01:22 PM

Jump pads should stay because there's a lot of potential for fun.

Teleports are worse because they have no drawbacks, unless you count not being able to see if you're going to be camped on the other side.

I hope that this game will provide other methods of having fun. TP potentials of being a nuisance for some players are much greater than being fun for some imo. Also those who won't like them couldn't just not use them since that would result in being less mobile and thus having a serious disadvantage when battling.

No need for drawbacks when it comes to FT since is meant to compensate the vastness of the bases not to provide new gameplay element. Small bases don't need FT at all.

Was it just me, or didnt Higby say that there are going to be no generators in PS2? I asked about cloakers and black ops behind enemy lines in one of the QA reddit sessions and from what I remember that was his response.

Info thread is your friend. ;)

Question: Bases still have generators?
Higby: Yes, but not the same as in PS1

the only form of Fast Travel (FT) I like is thrustpads.

This poll is a little unfair, there are more FT options than thrustpad options.

Faceplam. Read again what you wrote. TP are a form of FT. Also read my opening post (especially p.s. part).

IMMentat

2012-05-20, 01:31 PM

Fixed position FT options.

Tunnels - safe, slow, take loads of people out of the fight, ground only (skytunnels? interesting but ugly).

Teleport pads - safe movement, easily abused by both sides.

Bridges - unsafe, slow-ish, counters plans for more open base design, opens too many firing positions up in a carefully designed base.

Ziplines - unsafe (obvious route), medium speed, otherwise sensible.

Lifts - safe?, slow?, ugly, limited capacity/bottleneck.

Jump-pads - safety relative to base ownership, medium speed, forces people to use certain firing positions.
The main argument for is that they are inconspicuous and a good middle ground.
The main argument against seems to be that they could be over-used (valid) and don't fit in the setting??? (batchit crazy response IMO)

Stardouser

2012-05-20, 01:39 PM

I submit that jump pads are far more abusable than teleport pads. At least with teleport pads if someone uses them to get away, you can give chase in relatively safety, jump pads will be quite risky to chase an abuser who's playing peek-a-boo with them, because of this:

If the guy you're shooting at is about to die, then he has nothing to lose if he jump pads away from you and then gets shot down. You, on other hand, if you chase after him, could find yourself shot down. Therefore, if someone's about to die, there's absolutely no reason for them to abuse the pad in an effort to get away, they've nothing to lose and it might result in their killer getting blasted off his tail.

IMMentat

2012-05-20, 01:42 PM

huh?
The grammar or perspective of what you just said is confusing to me.
How/why would you chase someone on top of a defence if they use a jump-pad? (unless in an aircraft)

TP allows vunerability during movement (this multiplayer not solo, if they jump what stops a friend from finishing the kill?) and visual scouting of the destination.
TP allows instant safe travel with no data if the other side is empty or covered in landmines and giggling defenders (c4 or whatever).
Assuming you are at an even height with a jump-pad then the retreater is a free kill, skeet shoot. (them moving in an arc and aiming backwards, you in a stable position and tighter aiming).

Bags

2012-05-20, 01:46 PM

Can we wait till beta?

Hermes

2012-05-20, 01:46 PM

I like the idea of whatever fast travel is there being disable-able. You could use this to disrupt the defense organisation, and would be a good strategic goal to claim back.

Not sure about jump pads though. It's a bit too Unreal Tournament for me - it doesn't seem realistic to me in the sense that base travel technology would naturally progress to it. Seems like the easy way out of a design problem rather than the best way out.

- Subway cars with turrets to prevent camping on arrival?
- Leaving a drivable corridor around and letting people spawn sundys to ferry troops around the base?
- Monorails with multiple carriages to reduce exit chokes?

There are plenty of design choices that could be made which would add to game play, rather than hurling people through the air for no reason.

Stardouser

2012-05-20, 01:51 PM

huh?
The grammar or perspective of what you just said is confusing to me.

TP allows vunerability during movement (this multiplayer not solo, if they jump what stops a friend from finishing the kill?) and visual scouting of the destination, TP allows instant safe travel with no data if the other side is empty or covered in landmines and giggling defenders (c4 or whatever).

I operate under the assumption that teleport pads will only work if your empire holds the territory in which it is located. If you don't, you won't be able to teleport there anyway. And if enemies sneak in and camp the other side of the teleport pad without capturing the flag on that side of the base, well, that's completely valid. However, there's no reason why they couldn't use a teleport system that lets you see the other side(ie, Portal guns).

And as I say, if a jump pad abuser is about to die, so what if a friend finishes the kill? He had nothing to lose by giving the jump pad a try, worst case scenario, he dies anyway, but he gains a chance to survive. And if you jump after him, he will have landed first and be prepared to shoot you. I assume that jump pads will function even if your empire does not own the area of the base into which you are jumping.

Don't misunderstand - I don't want teleport pads OR jump pads. But teleport pads are less destructive to the game flow than jump pads.

LancerNC

2012-05-20, 05:48 PM

Faceplam. Read again what you wrote. TP are a form of FT. Also read my opening post (especially p.s. part).

Let me try and explain myself a little better, I was responding to your claim below

The results so far confirm my suspicions. People have actually been supporting FT around base and less the actual TP execution.

the only form of Fast Travel (FT) I like is thrustpads.

Does that make more sense now? I support Fast Travel (FT), but I DO NOT like the idea of teleporters or some of the other proposed substitutes to thrustpads.

Sledgecrushr

2012-05-20, 06:45 PM

A lot of the arguments I see against TP are based solely on wanting to travel around these big bases in a safe manner. To me it seems that the devs do not want you to have unlimited safe travel within the confines of these mega bases.

Erendil

2012-05-20, 06:48 PM

Moving sidewalks on the walls between towers, where FT may occur in the midst of a battle instead of over it, would be my suggestion. Closer to a zipline than thrust pads.

Yes, this is what I'd prefer as well. We already have moving walkways in airports. Ziplines are one of the few things I actually liked about the Caves in PS1.

IMO Jump pads seem to arcadey to me, and from a lore/role-playing standpoint I find it hard to believe jump pads would be the technology they'd use to move from point to point. The brief usage we saw in TB's vid showed us they were dangerous and imprecise. In fact in one of the jumps TB made he actually had to use his jump pack to even make it to the other side.

Ziplines just seem more sensible, reliable, and tactically smart.

That said, I do like the idea of being able to knock one out by taking out a generator.

Immigrant

2012-05-20, 07:42 PM

Let me try and explain myself a little better, I was responding to your claim below

Does that make more sense now? I support Fast Travel (FT), but I DO NOT like the idea of teleporters or some of the other proposed substitutes to thrustpads.

No you're not any clearer, you can like TPs that's fine however you can still still vote if you want TPs disabled when gens are offline and if you want TPs to be able to take you to enemy-held parts of the base (just read the opening post carefully). The term FT is broader - it includes TP and alternatives, comprende? I faced-palmed your claim that poll is biased towards FT what makes no sense at all. I can see however that too many people don't read or even bother to know what they're voting about exactly before doing it since 10 of them didn't select any of the first 3 options. :huh: That's nothing new however it's still disappointing.

Also that claim I made before still stands just look at the poll (first 3 options) and compare them to previous TP poll results. If we further analyze result we can see that most people support fast travel (12+20)/42 what makes 76% of the total votes however at the same time most people actually don't support TP as a way of making FT happen 20/32 what makes 60%. I could go even further and presume that most who voted against FT would be more prone to more conventional FT methods (I think I wouldn't make a big mistake there, since some of them explicitly said so) what would lead us to the conclusion that actually (20+10)/42 what makes 71% of people who voted dislikes idea of thrustpads.

Maybe the result will change when more people vote but so far they are as they are and I believe they shine some new light to the matter and prevent from getting the false impression that previous poll could give you.

Kipper

2012-05-20, 08:18 PM

I'm not really a fan of the jump pads we saw in the TB video. They look like something that would seriously happen in a facility to enable people to get around. In a world where people despawn and respawn, why would they just not do that? And what next? Vehicle jump pads to cross canyons? (please, no)

I'd prefer to see the vertical ones replaced by lifts; if the lift has a default position that it always goes back to, then it's hard to abuse it being "one way".

As for the point to point pads - I would rather see base design that incorporates bridges or tunnels with moving walkways (airport style) to facilitate quick movement, if it's to be there at all.

Aside from not being believable, it makes light assault jump ability less valuable IMO.

Vancha

2012-05-20, 08:23 PM

Red Beard

2012-05-20, 08:39 PM

From other thread:

I have been lurking on these boards for quite some time now. These jump pads however are absolutely horrible though and have finally made me wanna register to voice my opinion.

The vertical "gravity well" elevators are bad enough but whatever I guess these would be less strain since they are not actual moving elevators.

The jump pads though are just awful and I seriously hope they remove them. Base defenders already have the re-spawn advantage when trying to hold off an attacking force. Giving them almost instant travel to most any part of the base is to much. If this was a 12v12 or 32v32 game then sure I could maybe see the need for this kind of a feature with the bases the size they are. But we're talking about 100, 200, 300+ people all being able to move to the far side of a base in seconds.

This is imo the definition of "dumbing down" a game. It removes part of the tactical aspects and promotes zerging. A force attacks from the north side of a base and the defenders all go there to engage them. But wait what it was only a small feint by the enemy commander to pull the defenders away from the south perimeter of the base where the main bulk of the attack force has been sneaking around to attack from? No problem the full defending force is able to quick jump to the south perimeter in just seconds after overwhelming the north side rouse force. Attackers have most always needed a larger force due to defenders being within a fortified area and that is how it should be. Now however the attacking force is gonna have to be exponentially larger than the defenders cause the defenders are able to respond to any threat from any direction with their full force within moments.

Couldn't agree more. Planetside's gameplay set it apart because it fostered cooperation, communication, planning and tactical deployment. Having jump pads is just going to increase the scope of the zerg cloud, within which the elements listed above would largely become irrelevant (at least to what it would be otherwise).

I want to say that I am really looking forward to playing a game which is plainly shaping up to be a well put together game (even with a lot of work to go), and I appreciate the dedication of the devs...I can see why the devs have the jump pads in the game at the moment...With low player density, you're just wasting your time in a playtest running from place to place, but does anyone honestly think jump pads would be nessisary when you have say, 300 people defending a base? Having stategically placed spawn points will already be more than enough to deal with any issue about defensive adjustments I think.

When you have hundreds of guys defending a base, it seems to me you'll have dozens of guys in the air at any given moment, which is well beyond 'silly'...people defend this idea saying that it's 'science fiction' so you shouldn't have a hard time accepting something that's not 'realistic'...Sorry; but science fiction isn't about suspending judgement, it's about being imaginative, and I hate to tell you jump pads ain't it. As I mentioned above, PS was set apart for integrating smart gameplay (on top of the scale), which is why it's probably my favourite game of all time. Jump pads definitely send the gameplay in the direction quake three arena, which is pretty much a lobotomised shooter IMO :bang: Sorry kids!

Anyways in conclusion I doubt they'l be needed at all, and if for some reason faster transport is needed, lets think of something more cool/creative/thought out than 'man cannons'. Peace.

Dir

2012-05-20, 09:36 PM

As for the point to point pads - I would rather see base design that incorporates bridges or tunnels with moving walkways (airport style) to facilitate quick movement, if it's to be there at all.

Kinda like those shots they repeated over and over and over again on the Galactica of a squad full of viper pilots being shuttled down a fast tunnel to their launch tubes? Now that I could watch over and over again...but this? Glowing pads with arrows? I would even prefer an elevator with a dirty carpet full of chewing gum while the girl from ipanema plays...anything but this....people seriously need to up their dosage of Ritalin.

These pads look utterly ridiculous...I can't even imagine seeing anything like this in a movie that would work in this game's context outside of a child's cartoon. The closest I've come to even liking circus cannons was the APC that launched people up to the Titans in 2142. Now that was really well done and looked completely natural and even made it into the game's opening trailer....this is just really really weak...complete lack of imagination taken directly from other games...but at least they are consistent. I also doubt these jump pads will be featured in Planetside 2's trailer. It almost seems they were so busy building these enormous bases they left the transportation part to the last and the quick fix is in!

This mechanism once it's in...it's in...and from the looks of it I believe it's in. I just wish they had asked us....I have a feeling the conversations going on right now would be completely different. Now a router...that took time and effort and we didn't need help putting those bad boys to work in all sorts of twisted ways. It was a support role a person could really occupy themselves with. Jumping around like circus clowns with machine guns boomeranging our bodies all over the place just doesn't seem like Planetside to me anymore.

Dir

Red Beard

2012-05-20, 09:39 PM

^What he said!

Now that I could watch over and over again...but this? Glowing pads with arrows? I would even prefer an elevator with a dirty carpet full of chewing gum while the girl from ipanema plays...anything but this....people seriously need to up their dosage of Ritalin.

:lol: Touche!

Furber

2012-05-20, 11:27 PM

Well thought out poll options, that seems sorta rare these days

I'm fine with the idea of the thrust pads, the PS2 devs have said for a while that they want to make the game more fast paced than planetside1, this is a way to do that.

cellinaire

2012-05-21, 03:08 AM

LancerNC

2012-05-21, 11:10 AM

Maybe the result will change when more people vote but so far they are as they are and I believe they shine some new light to the matter and prevent from getting the false impression that previous poll could give you.

I have read your post. the first time I read it there was not a graphic explaining how to vote on it. I admit that I should have paid closer attention but I didn't notice that it was multiple choice (I probably wasn't the only one). I voted on one of the four bottom options, but had I known that I could have selected multiple options I would have voted on 'Yes! Trustpads ftw' also.

So far 66 people have voted, but only 53 of them have selected one of the first three options referring to which type of FT you support:
-Yes Trustpads ftw!
-Yes, but more conventional FT Method.
-No FT at all.

Anyway my fault for not noticing it was a multiple choice question, clearly wasn't the only one though. You know at least one of those 13 lost votes is in 'Trustpads ftw!' making it (15/23/16).