Vehicles will/should be rare.

[Klockan]

From the other threads I have read it seems like people believe that everyone will be able to get a tank or plane at will and that the resources will only limit abuses.

Have anyone of you guys played battlefield 2, 2142 or 3? Then you would know that on each battlefield map there are 1-6 combat vehicles on each side while there are 32 players on each side. That means at most there is 1 vehicle per 5 players at any one time and then vehicles respawns slower than infantry. Now as you all probably know PS2 have drawn a lot of inspiration from the battlefield series which would mean that we would have roughly as rare vehicles.

No, this isn't a problem. The battlefield series thrived on having a low vehicle count. There are tanks and planes, but ~80-90% of the manpower is on foot. The only ones who will whine about that are stuck up PS1 vets who wants to drive around in a tank or a plane 24/7.

[Canaris]

you know some people are so far behind in a race they actually think they're winning

[Klockan]

you know some people are so far behind in a race they actually think they're winning
Which discussion are you talking about? This thread wasn't made in answer to one post or one other thread, I have seen this mindset all over the forum. Now, do you have anything to say that pertains to the discussion about the rarity of vehicles?

[Atmosfear]

Even without resources to limit, most if not all capture points require infantry to take. The few who do want to fly or drive 24/7 will be able to. How effective they will be when their infantry dead is another story. I feel this is much ado about nothing.

[Klockan]

Even without resources to limit, most if not all capture points require infantry to take. The few who do want to fly or drive 24/7 will be able to. How effective they will be when their infantry dead is another story. I feel this is much ado about nothing.
But then people will just drive to the doors, then jump out as full fledged infantry and take the point. This isn't PS1 where you had dedicated drivers who are able to conjure vehicles at will but sucks at infantry combat, here everyone is viable on foot while still able to pilot everything. The only thing that stops us from seeing everyone in a vehicle is the resource system.

[bradleydavis]

I like the idea that vehicles will be a precious resource. If everyone has their own vehicle all the time there is no motivation to work together. In PS1 there were times it was really difficult to find a gunner (or multiple gunners) for your vehicle. Everyone wanted their own.

[EZShot]

The difference between PS and BF is that BF has a small map thus the vehicles are all forced to take part within the confines of the map.

I'm pretty sure you'd join in the whining when you're told you have to walk 1.5 in game Km's to reach your next target because some ass just jumped in the only tank available on the 8km square map :rolleyes:

I agree with the first person who commented, this isn't battlefield, this is "battleside x 1000" stop making the comparison.

[SUBARU]

But then people will just drive to the doors, then jump out as full fledged infantry and take the point. This isn't PS1 where you had dedicated drivers who are able to conjure vehicles at will but sucks at infantry combat, here everyone is viable on foot while still able to pilot everything. The only thing that stops us from seeing everyone in a vehicle is the resource system.

No this isnt PS1 This is PS2 ,You really think people wont be dedicated drivers,and Pilots? Of course they will leave vehicle ,and shoot their rifles.

[Steambot]

The difference between PS and BF is that BF has a small map thus the vehicles are all forced to take part within the confines of the map.

I'm pretty sure you'd join in the whining when you're told you have to walk 1.5 in game Km's to reach your next target because some ass just jumped in the only tank available on the 8km square map :rolleyes:

I agree with the first person who commented, this isn't battlefield, this is "battleside x 1000" stop making the comparison.

^This.

[Littleman]

But then people will just drive to the doors, then jump out as full fledged infantry and take the point. This isn't PS1 where you had dedicated drivers who are able to conjure vehicles at will but sucks at infantry combat, here everyone is viable on foot while still able to pilot everything. The only thing that stops us from seeing everyone in a vehicle is the resource system.

The guys that killed the last squad will kill him/them too.

[Klockan]

I'm pretty sure you'd join in the whining when you're told you have to walk 1.5 in game Km's to reach your next target because some ass just jumped in the only tank available on the 8km square map :rolleyes:
What do you think the flash, the sunderer and the galaxy is for? The flash is dirt cheap, with the numbers we have today you could get 10 flashes for each tank so you should have one every time you have a long walk ahead of you.

The guys that killed the last squad will kill him/them too.
What do this have to do with the topic?

No this isnt PS1 This is PS2 ,You really think people wont be dedicated drivers,and Pilots? Of course they will leave vehicle ,and shoot their rifles.
If they aren't noobs, yes they will.

[fod]

I like the idea that vehicles will be a precious resource. If everyone has their own vehicle all the time there is no motivation to work together. In PS1 there were times it was really difficult to find a gunner (or multiple gunners) for your vehicle. Everyone wanted their own.

never had any troubles finding a gunner in PS1 - i would think having to wait 10mins for your driver to be able to get a tank would be very boring for someone that likes to gun and would probably make less people want to gun

edit: and no vehicles should not be rare - infantry have their place in and around bases and vehicles have their place inbetween

[EZShot]

What do you think the flash, the sunderer and the galaxy is for? The flash is dirt cheap, with the numbers we have today you could get 10 flashes for each tank so you should have one every time you have a long walk ahead of you.


What do this have to do with the topic?

Because vehicles in planetside are situational, if there was a huge battle going on between two bases in an open field with no cover you'd feel pretty bummed that you couldn't take part because all the vehicles are already taken.

Once you're inside a base vehicles are almost useless apart from suppression.

EDIT: You're essentially talking about limiting the size of battles that we could have. Why? If your enemy can pull 400 tanks to take to a fight then why can't your team organize the same level of tankage?

[Klockan]

Because vehicles in planetside are situational, if there was a huge battle going on between two bases in an open field with no cover you'd feel pretty bummed that you couldn't take part because all the vehicles are already taken.

Once you're inside a base vehicles are almost useless apart from suppression.
You are thinking too much in PS1 terms here. Have you see the PS2 bases? People have complained that vehicles are too viable in them, the only thing you would get if people can have as many vehicles they want is that everyone uses vehicles outside bases and to get to bases while they jump out to get to infantry only areas. Also if 80% of the manpower is on foot you will not feel left out in battles between bases since most others are also on foot, being on foot is only a problem when everyone else have tanks and planes.

Edit: I am not saying that vehicles should be like they are in Bf games with just a set number being spawned, I am saying that the resource system should be roughly as limiting in terms of quantity as the BF series. Ie there should be 1 vehicle per 5-8 people.

[Stardouser]

What do you think the flash, the sunderer and the galaxy is for? The flash is dirt cheap, with the numbers we have today you could get 10 flashes for each tank so you should have one every time you have a long walk ahead of you.

Where exactly will we be able to spawn these Flashes? Or any other vehicle? Nearby? Walk us through what you're talking about here.

[Klockan]

Where exactly will we be able to spawn these Flashes? Or any other vehicle? Nearby? Walk us through what you're talking about here.
If you can't even spawn a flash at the location then how would being able to spawn infinite tanks help you in any way?

[andehh]

you know some people are so far behind in a race they actually think they're winning

Epic post!



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[sylphaen]

Just a personal opinion but the original post was quite terrible. If we could vote on post, I'd +1 Canaris' post.

IMO, wait for PS2 to be out and judge PS2 for what it is.

Battlefield was an infantry centric game. Planetside is a combined arms game, that's why there will be customization and certifications for vehicles and not just for infantry classes. They are different games with different goals.

[Sledgecrushr]

So you want to increase the resource cost on MBTs so not as many people will have them. This would kind of force people to team up in vehicles and would lend credence towards the dedicated driver spot so many bittervets would like. Personally I think everyone should be able to get a mbt if they want to and then the teamwork would be between vehicles, not just operating a vehicle.

[fod]

You are thinking too much in PS1 terms here. Have you see the PS2 bases? People have complained that vehicles are too viable in them, the only thing you would get if people can have as many vehicles they want is that everyone uses vehicles outside bases and to get to bases while they jump out to get to infantry only areas. Also if 80% of the manpower is on foot you will not feel left out in battles between bases since most others are also on foot, being on foot is only a problem when everyone else have tanks and planes.

there are a few different types of bases remember - i saw a really walled in one a last week in a post here

also no matter how much you limit them there will always be people in tanks and jets - so running inbetween bases without armor is a nogo, if you are running from one base to another then what use are the flash and sunderer for?

[Klockan]

If I ask you this instead:
Should the average person be able to drive a vehicle 100% of the time? If yes, that means that we have more or less infinite resources. If no, then how limited do you think it should be?


also no matter how much you limit them there will always be people in tanks and jets - so running inbetween bases without armor is a nogo
Just because you are on foot doesn't mean that you are dead if a vehicle sees you. There are stuff to hide behind everywhere.
if you are running from one base to another then what use are the flash and sunderer for?
The flash is fast, so it cuts down on the traveling time.

[Stardouser]

If you can't even spawn a flash at the location then how would being able to spawn infinite tanks help you in any way?

At what location? The question was, where will vehicles be spawned? That needs to be answered first.

[Accuser]

never had any troubles finding a gunner in PS1 - i would think having to wait 10mins for your driver to be able to get a tank would be very boring for someone that likes to gun and would probably make less people want to gun

edit: and no vehicles should not be rare - infantry have their place in and around bases and vehicles have their place inbetween

Higby said there'd be a resource cost and a timer for vehicles, because your friends can drive vehicles that you pull... This means that a dedicated driver/gunner team will be able to pull tons of tanks, just like in PS1. The OP is smoking the reefer if he believes what he wrote here.

[Klockan]

At what location? The question was, where will vehicles be spawned? That needs to be answered first.
At the bases, if you aren't spawning in a base why would you have a long traveltime and why do you even care about vehicles then? Without rare resources people would spawn heavy vehicles every time they can, there would be no reason to have vehicles like the sunderer or the galaxy etc.

Higby said there'd be a resource cost and a timer for vehicles, because your friends can drive vehicles that you pull... This means that a dedicated driver/gunner team will be able to pull tons of tanks, just like in PS1. The OP is smoking the reefer if he believes what he wrote here.
Since you can save up resources for 50 tanks it could be a problem, but that doesn't say anything about how fast you can get said resources.

[fod]

Higby said there'd be a resource cost and a timer for vehicles, because your friends can drive vehicles that you pull... This means that a dedicated driver/gunner team will be able to pull tons of tanks, just like in PS1. The OP is smoking the reefer if he believes what he wrote here.

really? i missed that one thats pretty awesome
problem is my dedicated gunners all plan to cert infantry certs :(

[Night]

There will be as many vehicles as you want as long as you are not dying every minute. If you never want to put your feet on the ground you dont have to.

Running between bases or out in the open is not a good idea.

Sure there will also be people who are infantry/gunner only, with upgraded weapons and other eq.

Massive battles will be difficult with 80% people on foot so forget about the footzerg.

[Figment]

From the other threads I have read it seems like people believe that everyone will be able to get a tank or plane at will and that the resources will only limit abuses.

Correct.

Have anyone of you guys played battlefield 2, 2142 or 3? Then you would know that on each battlefield map there are 1-6 combat vehicles on each side while there are 32 players on each side. That means at most there is 1 vehicle per 5 players at any one time and then vehicles respawns slower than infantry. Now as you all probably know PS2 have drawn a lot of inspiration from the battlefield series which would mean that we would have roughly as rare vehicles.

Have you noticed that vehicles simply aren't available in these games because they're not sandbox game like PlanetSide 1 and 2 are? Meaning that, like in say C&C, you get to have as many units as you want as long as you can afford them (which is easier if you have more territory in PS2) and keep them alive (which is easier to do once you've got a certain amount of them: strength in numbers).

No, this isn't a problem. The battlefield series thrived on having a low vehicle count. There are tanks and planes, but ~80-90% of the manpower is on foot. The only ones who will whine about that are stuck up PS1 vets who wants to drive around in a tank or a plane 24/7.

Actually PS1 vets who want driver + gunner instead of driver = gunner are suggesting to reduce the potential heavy vehicle numbers by half because you can't use the larger vehicles solo.

This makes it easier for infantry to compete and more viable relative to the lighter solo units, while the heavier units are less numerous and therefore don't get as much leverage over weaker units either.

So.... uhm... Yeah. You were saying?

>_>


EDIT: Also note that in a MMO, people log in with different available quantities of resources. Probably even per character.

[Stardouser]

At the bases, if you aren't spawning in a base why would you have a long traveltime and why do you even care about vehicles then? Without rare resources people would spawn heavy vehicles every time they can, there would be no reason to have vehicles like the sunderer or the galaxy etc.


You were speaking as if Flashes were the answer to every long walk. Defenders don't have long walks usually, but attackers do. Now, if it's a long walk from a tower or Galaxy back to the fight, and you have to spawn so much further away at a base to spawn a Flash that it will take you longer to drive than it would have to walk, how does that help anything?

[Gorgos]

I'm struggling to see the problem here to be honest. Vehicles do make gameplay a whole lot more interesting in my opinion. If you look at how military works in real life you'll notice that pure infantry doesn't really exist at all anymore, most of the troops are attached to some kind of vehicle, being dropped from the air or mechanized infantry on the ground.

You don't want people to use a tank to run up to a door just to jump out as a fully fledged infantry unit? If they keep suiciding tanks to get through a door that person will find himself without any resources pretty fast and anything not a MBT wont have the armor to drive up to a door in the courtyard in a base under siege.

Every new day in PS2 at the start of a servers prime-time vehicles wont be rare, but as the day progresses you'll probably see less and less anyway.

[Marinealver]

IT depends on what logistical requirements vehicles have, So far the only rare vehicle will be the Galaxy which is also the AMS as it requires a Tech Plant,

Other vehicles depend on the resource cost but odds are they wont be as rare but just might not be as frequently spawned.

Flashs however will be everywhere as Planetside 2 will still regress to the old Zerg rush unless something is drasticly done with the economy/logistic tools. some Administrative help would be nice also.

[Azren]

From the other threads I have read it seems like people believe that everyone will be able to get a tank or plane at will and that the resources will only limit abuses.

Have anyone of you guys played battlefield 2, 2142 or 3? Then you would know that on each battlefield map there are 1-6 combat vehicles on each side while there are 32 players on each side. That means at most there is 1 vehicle per 5 players at any one time and then vehicles respawns slower than infantry. Now as you all probably know PS2 have drawn a lot of inspiration from the battlefield series which would mean that we would have roughly as rare vehicles.

No, this isn't a problem. The battlefield series thrived on having a low vehicle count. There are tanks and planes, but ~80-90% of the manpower is on foot. The only ones who will whine about that are stuck up PS1 vets who wants to drive around in a tank or a plane 24/7.

I am genuinely surprised you didn't get flooded by hate posts for this. You have the generally mature PS community to thank for that one.

So here is how it would play out:
1 - you make MBTs cost a lot
2 - not many people will be able to afford MBTs
3 - those who can affor MBTs will be blown up by AV infantry
4 - nobody will ever use MBTs again
5 - the end

There is a fine balance between the number of vehicles on the field and the number of AV grunts. Since it is free to spawn as AV grunt, but costs resources to get a tank, the few that would be spawned would end up dead in a matter of seconds.

You need to think this through a bit more.

Luckily it seams the game devs did just that and added a 15 minute cooldown on the tanks. 5 minutes if you get a cert for it (don't know how much that would cost you).

[Klockan]

Actually PS1 vets who want driver + gunner instead of driver = gunner are suggesting to reduce the potential heavy vehicle numbers by half because you can't use the larger vehicles solo.

This makes it easier for infantry to compete and more viable relative to the lighter solo units, while the heavier units are less numerous and therefore don't get as much leverage over weaker units either.

So.... uhm... Yeah. You were saying?

>_>
This doesn't have to do with the driver + gunner debate, this has to do with how much infantry we will have on the field. Driver + gunner tanks will reduce the amount of infantry since it becomes cheaper per person in the tank, but other than that this is a separate topic.
You were speaking as if Flashes were the answer to every long walk. Defenders don't have long walks usually, but attackers do. Now, if it's a long walk from a tower or Galaxy back to the fight, and you have to spawn so much further away at a base to spawn a Flash that it will take you longer to drive than it would have to walk, how does that help anything?
Please tell me then how this is relevant to the topic? With infinite/near infinite resources the fastest and safest way would be to spawn at your base, spawn an aircav and then drop in the middle of their base in 10-15 seconds depending on if your base is 2 or 3 hexes away anyway. But in general if you can't spawn a vehicle it doesn't have to do with this topic since this topic is only about how much vehicles should be able to be spawned.

I'm struggling to see the problem here to be honest. Vehicles do make gameplay a whole lot more interesting in my opinion. If you look at how military works in real life you'll notice that pure infantry doesn't really exist at all anymore, most of the troops are attached to some kind of vehicle, being dropped from the air or mechanized infantry on the ground.

You don't want people to use a tank to run up to a door just to jump out as a fully fledged infantry unit? If they keep suiciding tanks to get through a door that person will find himself without any resources pretty fast and anything not a MBT wont have the armor to drive up to a door in the courtyard in a base under siege.

Every new day in PS2 at the start of a servers prime-time vehicles wont be rare, but as the day progresses you'll probably see less and less anyway.
In the modern world we mostly use transports, IE galaxies and sunderers. But each galaxy and sunderer can hold 12 people making them really cheap per person, so there is no problem having them for each set of 12 persons.

I am genuinely surprised you didn't get flooded by hate posts for this. You have the generally mature PS community to thank for that one.

So here is how it would play out:
1 - you make MBTs cost a lot
2 - not many people will be able to afford MBTs
3 - those who can affor MBTs will be blown up by AV infantry
4 - nobody will ever use MBTs again
5 - the end
Your logic fails, since what other than tanks would they spawn with the resources? Air uses a different resource. As long as the tank does better than an infantry people will spawn tanks since that is what they can do with the resource. However they can't spawn a tank all the time.

[Gorgos]

Please tell me then how this is relevant to the topic? With infinite/near infinite resources the fastest and safest way would be to spawn at your base, spawn an aircav and then drop in the middle of their base in 10-15 seconds depending on if your base is 2 or 3 hexes away.

You're just being silly tbh. So what if it's the fastest and safest? You'll still be spending resources on doing it and unless you're a light assault with jetpack you'll have to upgrade your vehicle to be able to do that anyway. And what is the problem with this exactly?

There'll just be one guy on a roof in a fight with hundreds of people.

[Stardouser]

Please tell me then how this is relevant to the topic? With infinite/near infinite resources the fastest and safest way would be to spawn at your base, spawn an aircav and then drop in the middle of their base in 10-15 seconds depending on if your base is 2 or 3 hexes away.

So if you die during a base assault, and your Galaxy is parked 750 meters away for safety and due to sphere of influence, you're going to respawn way back at your main base 2-3 kilometers away and pull an aircav every time? AND you think it's only going to take 10-15 seconds to do that?

BTW, I am not arguing for unlimited resources. And I'm only responding to your response to the other guy. And this is about your comment about FLASH, not aircav. Flashes would be affordable even if resources were limited.

[ruskyandrei]

No thanks, I want to see large tank battles, while dozens of aircraft are dogfighting in the air above and infantry is moving around in cover.

I don't want to see 1-2 tanks that some random dude is picking off by divebombing his jet into while the rest of the people are quickscoping eachother off the map.

Planetside is a game where vehicles are not, and should not, be rare. (Unless them being rare is a result of a bad use of resources or terrain limitations)

[Klockan]

You're just being silly tbh. So what if it's the fastest and safest? You'll still be spending resources on doing it and unless you're a light assault with jetpack you'll have to upgrade your vehicle to be able to do that anyway. And what is the problem with this exactly?

There'll just be one guy on a roof in a fight with hundreds of people.
That was just an example. Also you don't need a cert to jump out on the roof, you can just fly very low and then jump out. Also of course you don't jump out at a place if you don't got backup there, the point is that it would be better to just spawn aircav and travel than to spawn at a proxy galaxy. The galaxy can't be deployed at the frontline or it would be destroyed already and you have more flexibility with where you want to go with an aircav. The main point however is that as long as you can't spawn vehicles anyway what do it have to do with this topic? Also in that situation, how do you assault that base with infantry when all enemies have infinite vehicles since they are in their own base?

So if you die during a base assault, and your Galaxy is parked 750 meters away for safety and due to sphere of influence, you're going to respawn way back at your main base 2-3 kilometers away and pull an aircav every time? AND you think it's only going to take 10-15 seconds to do that?

BTW, I am not arguing for unlimited resources. And I'm only responding to your response to the other guy.
Bases are at most 1.5 kilometers from each other and aircav travels 100 meters per second so it takes at most 15 seconds to travel there with one.

[morf]

OP is way off here. First, if someone wants to be a dedicated vehicle user, and spends their certs to specialize in it, they had better be able to pull those vehicles. I think the resource cost for pulling a stock vehicle will be very low if not free, then customization will drive up the price significantly.

Secondly, there are plenty of infantry-only areas. With bases that are roughly 4 times the size of CoD levels, and T-Ray saying early on that roughly 50% of the game is indoors, there's plenty of space.

Last but not least, anyone who played PS1 knows that while an initial push has a lot of vehicles, as those get blowed up, the vehicle crush turns into a footzerg because it's more effective to respawn at the AMS/Galaxy in 20 seconds than to take 5-10 mins to reorganize back at a friendly base, pull another vehicle, fill it, and drive back to the battle. And on defense, the first thing to drop is generally your vehicle term, so it's all foot action from there.

Vehicles will be limited by the battlefield situation. Making them artificially rare would dilute the liberty to play any role you want - one of the hallmarks of PS.

[PredatorFour]

From the other threads I have read it seems like people believe that everyone will be able to get a tank or plane at will and that the resources will only limit abuses.

Have anyone of you guys played battlefield 2, 2142 or 3? Then you would know that on each battlefield map there are 1-6 combat vehicles on each side while there are 32 players on each side. That means at most there is 1 vehicle per 5 players at any one time and then vehicles respawns slower than infantry. Now as you all probably know PS2 have drawn a lot of inspiration from the battlefield series which would mean that we would have roughly as rare vehicles.

No, this isn't a problem. The battlefield series thrived on having a low vehicle count. There are tanks and planes, but ~80-90% of the manpower is on foot. The only ones who will whine about that are stuck up PS1 vets who wants to drive around in a tank or a plane 24/7.

For a start this isnt battlefield its planetside , completely different. Vehicles wont be rare as you can buy them with real money or capture resources to get them and everyone has access to these vehicles. Its not like we are defending leza with 40 vs and we only got a choice of 6 tanks to find/gun in the area. Sure PS 2 has drawn alot of inspiration from bf series but it doesnt mean its going to be the same gameplay mechanics.

[Gorgos]

That was just an example. Also you don't need a cert to jump out on the roof, you can just fly very low and then jump out. Also of course you don't jump out at a place if you don't got backup there, the point is that it would be better to just spawn aircav and travel than to spawn at a proxy galaxy. The galaxy can't be deployed at the frontline or it would be destroyed already and you have more flexibility with where you want to go with an aircav. The main point however is that as long as you can't spawn vehicles anyway what do it have to do with this topic? Also in that situation, how do you assault that base with infantry when all enemies have infinite vehicles since they are in their own base?

I'm not really sure as to why I am still replying to this but here goes:
So if you can fly over the roof of whatever you want to land on and just simply walk out, wouldn't that mean that this place is empty of enemies? Because I am pretty sure they'd blow you up long before you set foot on said surface.

Or why not support your troops with said air cav instead of jumping out of it in the first place, cause in all of your examples AA doesn't seem to be an issue.

And how is the galaxy either not deployed or destroyed in the example? Doesn't sound very logical to me.

And there is no such thing as infinite vehicles in this game.

[Klockan]

OP is way off here. First, if someone wants to be a dedicated vehicle user, and spends their certs to specialize in it, they had better be able to pull those vehicles. I think the resource cost for pulling a stock vehicle will be very low if not free, then customization will drive up the price significantly.
Why should you be able to pull as many vehicles you want just because you can cert in it? Also from what we know modding stuff doesn't alter its price at all.

Last but not least, anyone who played PS1 knows that while an initial push has a lot of vehicles, as those get blowed up, the vehicle crush turns into a footzerg because it's more effective to respawn at the AMS/Galaxy in 20 seconds than to take 5-10 mins to reorganize back at a friendly base, pull another vehicle, fill it, and drive back to the battle. And on defense, the first thing to drop is generally your vehicle term, so it's all foot action from there.
Can you tell me how this wouldn't translate to a huge defenders advantage in PS2? I mean, in PS2 you don't sacrifice infantry combat capabilities to be able to drive, so the galaxy spawner would get easily overrun and blown to pieces by tanks and air when all you got to defend it is infantry.
Secondly, there are plenty of infantry-only areas. With bases that are roughly 4 times the size of CoD levels, and T-Ray saying early on that roughly 50% of the game is indoors, there's plenty of space.
But what do infantry only areas have to do with vehicles? If infantry is nonexistent outside of these areas you just have two different games, an infantry game and a vehicle game.


Vehicles will be limited by the battlefield situation. Making them artificially rare would dilute the liberty to play any role you want - one of the hallmarks of PS.
You can still play any role you want, just not all the time. Many soldiers dream about being fighter pilots but most soldiers aren't fighter pilots or even tank drivers, most soldiers are grunts.

And there is no such thing as infinite vehicles in this game.
Doesn't need to be infinite, just near infinite, if you can spawn enough aircav to satisfy a dedicated aircav driver this would happen.

I'm not really sure as to why I am still replying to this but here goes:
So if you can fly over the roof of whatever you want to land on and just simply walk out, wouldn't that mean that this place is empty of enemies? Because I am pretty sure they'd blow you up long before you set foot on said surface.

Just forget about it, it was just an example of how silly it becomes. The galaxy will most likely not be deployed closer than 10-15 seconds to the action since then it would easily get destroyed. Also probably the aircav would just fly there and act as an aircav till the infantry is needed and then jump out at the position where it would be best to be.

[Marinealver]

So here is how it would play out:
1 - you make MBTs cost a lot
2 - not many people will be able to afford MBTs
3 - those who can affor MBTs will be blown up by AV infantry
4 - nobody will ever use MBTs again
5 - the end.

But it will cost nothing for a LIGHT ASSAULT ZERG RUSH.

Forget the flashs everyone grab a jetpack and sky hop you way to the base.

[Azren]

Your logic fails, since what other than tanks would they spawn with the resources? Air uses a different resource. As long as the tank does better than an infantry people will spawn tanks since that is what they can do with the resource. However they can't spawn a tank all the time.

hahaha, like hell it does :rofl:

You have no idea what resource will be used for what or how hard/easy they are to get. Or if they can be converted, ect.

Talk about logic when you don't even know the basics, lol

Besides, what I wrote is not resource related. I will try to rephase it so you can understand:

few tanks die fast to many AV infantry

if you know you will die fast, because there are only a few tanks you will not pull one

end of story

[Klockan]

Luckily it seams the game devs did just that and added a 15 minute cooldown on the tanks. 5 minutes if you get a cert for it (don't know how much that would cost you).
By the way, this means that I am right and have already won according to the devs. If you can run out of resources by spawning a tank every 15 minutes it means that the resource system is really limiting (2 vehicles share each resource so with that long cooldown it would mean that you would have to wait at least 8 minutes for the resources for a vehicle). If you can't run out of resources by spawning the vehicles as often as possible then it means that the resource system is worthless and they wouldn't have included it anyway.
hahaha, like hell it does :rofl:

You have no idea what resource will be used for what or how hard/easy they are to get. Or if they can be converted, ect.

Talk about logic when you don't even know the basics, lol

Besides, what I wrote is not resource related. I will try to rephase it so you can understand:

few tanks die fast to many AV infantry

if you know you will die fast, because there are only a few tanks you will not pull one

end of story
If there are few tanks there will also be comparably fewer AV infantry since there are fewer targets to shoot. Also it doesn't make sense to convert resources, now you are assuming things. Most likely you can't convert resources since that would make them less meaningful.

[Pyreal]

Rare vehicles? No. I want to blow stuff up in my shiny-purple hovertank 24/7.

[ThermalReaper]

Rare vehicles? No. I want to blow stuff up in my shiny-purple hovertank 24/7.

Agreed, if I want to be a dedicated pilot, then that's what I'm going to do. I don't want your stupid rifles.

[Figment]

This doesn't have to do with the driver + gunner debate, this has to do with how much infantry we will have on the field. Driver + gunner tanks will reduce the amount of infantry since it becomes cheaper per person in the tank, but other than that this is a separate topic.

It's a related topic. You talk about numbers of vehicles in the field, correct?

If you want to tone those numbers down, you can do this by setting up various requirements for them that prevent spam.


For toning down the numbers in a sandbox game where you can pull whatever you want, here is what you can do


The most straight forward is reducing availability by upping relative cost by either upping the cost of a unit, or lowering the resource pool available to you: meaning you simply can't afford it.


Reducing availability can also be done by setting up technology requirements (think C&C where you need specific buildings and techs in order to even construct units - very much related to the cert debate, but also continental map/level design)


Reducing availability by creating logistical advantages to infantry: being able to spawn closer to the combat and therefore keep up a consistent frontline can be made a definite advantage and incentive to pick infantry over vehicles. (Very much related to the AMS vs Galaxy debate and continental map/level design.)


Reducing applicability of vehicles by creating infantry only or infantry advantage zones. (Very much related to level design)


Next is manpower requirements. More manpower per unit required (not optional) limits the total potential number, which makes it easier for other units to deal with them (related to driver/gunner debate) and also makes it slightly more interesting for solo players to perform other roles.


Another thing is reducing survivability of the individual units (related to unit balance by firepower and endurance (hitpoints/damage mitigation))


The survivability of one unit can also be reduced by upping the survivability of another unit. For instance if you want infantry to be more popular, you have to provide them with the option of winning an engagement. (This is related to weapon availability and niche vs generalist combat)


Another things is limiting the amount of unit types a player can pull (related to class/cert specialization debate)


There are a few more tricks and tweaks you can do as a dev, but these are the most important ones. They are all very much related to the big debates on PS2.

[fod]

if you limit MBT's then people will just use other vehicles as tank replacements instead of using them for their intended use (like when a tech plant goes down and people grab thunderers)

[Hmr85]

Go play PS1 then report back to us how having a ton of vehicles is a problem. Your lack of ever playing a MMOFPS is showing. This is me putting it the nice way.

[Azren]

If there are few tanks there will also be comparably fewer AV infantry since there are fewer targets to shoot. Also it doesn't make sense to convert resources, now you are assuming things. Most likely you can't convert resources since that would make them less meaningful.

Wrong. AV will also be used to take out base defenses and MAX units.

Anything concerning resources is an assumption. If a resource will only be used for one thing, like spawning tanks, I am guessing you will be able to convert them, otherwise you would end up with loads of resources you never use.
Well, maybe you can trade them with players too.

Go play PS1 then report back to us how having a ton of vehicles is a problem. Your lack of ever playing a MMOFPS is showing. This is me putting it the nice way.

QFT
There they are free, and yet the foot zergs are in greater number than vehicles.

[RodenyC]

Klockan,have you ever played PS1?

[Accuser]

I think we can pretty much close this thread now. The OP obviously just wishes there would be less vehicles, when the Devs explicitly talk up the "HUGE ASS VEHICLE COMBAT" at every opportunity.

There are quite a few FPS games with limited vehicles you can play if you don't like it. Hell, there will probably be bases with limited vehicle access for you to enjoy in PS2 even (assuming we can fend off the "put artillery in" crowd) :rolleyes:

[Odomas]

No thanks, I want to see large tank battles, while dozens of aircraft are dogfighting in the air above and infantry is moving around in cover.

I don't want to see 1-2 tanks that some random dude is picking off by divebombing his jet into while the rest of the people are quickscoping eachother off the map.

Planetside is a game where vehicles are not, and should not, be rare. (Unless them being rare is a result of a bad use of resources or terrain limitations)

^^^ This ^^^

Planetside is NOT Battlefield.

You are thinking too much in PS1 terms here.

And you're clearly thinking too much in terms of Battlefield...
Did you even play PS1?

The rest of us WANT to see and be involved in huge air and tank battles and we WANT to see shit like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qjzGdhUO80&feature=player_embedded

If you don't like it, go take your Battlefield mentality elsewhere.

[ArmedZealot]

No, this isn't a problem. The battlefield series thrived on having a low vehicle count. There are tanks and planes, but ~80-90% of the manpower is on foot. The only ones who will whine about that are stuck up PS1 vets who wants to drive around in a tank or a plane 24/7.

I'm usually one of the first to bash vets for being bitter about change, but on this issue I think they would be justified in feeling that way.

PS1 was at it's best in vehicle combat or bridge battles. Infantry combat was second in terms of coolness. Hopefully with PS2's improved gunplay and base designs they will both be on par with each other.

If you are going to take elements from BF3, take the gunplay, not the vehicle gameplay elements. They don't scale to PS2's size.

[Klockan]

Go play PS1 then report back to us how having a ton of vehicles is a problem. Your lack of ever playing a MMOFPS is showing. This is me putting it the nice way.
PS1 is a very different game with very different mechanics. I have already explained this. In PS1 you were a driver class that were lackluster outside of vehicle while the infantry class couldn't drive. Thus to assault the base you needed to get the foot soldiers to the door, to get them there you need vehicles but after that the foot soldiers are all that matters and your driver is suddenly less important. However in PS2 anyone can drive and then jump out to assault the corridors so vehicles don't have the trade offs they had in PS1 which is why we need to limit them in another way.

[DukeTerror]

Last but not least, anyone who played PS1 knows that while an initial push has a lot of vehicles, as those get blowed up, the vehicle crush turns into a footzerg because it's more effective to respawn at the AMS/Galaxy in 20 seconds than to take 5-10 mins to reorganize back at a friendly base, pull another vehicle, fill it, and drive back to the battle. And on defense, the first thing to drop is generally your vehicle term, so it's all foot action from there.

Vehicles will be limited by the battlefield situation. Making them artificially rare would dilute the liberty to play any role you want - one of the hallmarks of PS.

Probably the most truth spoken here.

I was just showing a friend who was a BF3 player the E3 stream, and was like "Look, no fighting over the tanks and jets, just spawn what you want". That's a game positive that players are going to love. Good skilled drivers and pilots will likely be able to keep their resources in positive balance just like good players keep their K/D ratio positive or how good careful players could stay alive longer than vehicle spawn timers. It would only be to limit spawn/crash/spawn/crash tactics and slow new players down a bit until they get the hang of things (which is good, makes them experience the game more all-around).

The only thing I could think of that'd be different from this gameplay is that maybe they make the vehicle terminals at the towers or at other hex locations cost more resources that the ones at the main bases. Would make you start to think about the cost/benefit of that tank being spawned nearby or not.

[Klockan]

^^^ This ^^^

Planetside is NOT Battlefield.



And you're clearly thinking too much in terms of Battlefield...
Did you even play PS1?

The rest of us WANT to see and be involved in huge air and tank battles and we WANT to see shit like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qjzGdhUO80&feature=player_embedded

If you don't like it, go take your Battlefield mentality elsewhere.
You will still see exactly that, it is just that to get that the players would have to save resources for 15-20 minutes or so. Is that too much organization for you?

[Azren]

PS1 is a very different game with very different mechanics. I have already explained this. In PS1 you were a driver class that were lackluster outside of vehicle while the infantry class couldn't drive. Thus to assault the base you needed to get the foot soldiers to the door, to get them there you need vehicles but after that the foot soldiers are all that matters and your driver is suddenly less important. However in PS2 anyone can drive and then jump out to assault the corridors so vehicles don't have the trade offs they had in PS1 which is why we need to limit them in another way.

Now I know you never played PS1.

In PS1 there were no classes :rolleyes:

[ArmedZealot]

You will still see exactly that, it is just that to get that the players would have to save resources for 15-20 minutes or so. Is that too much organization for you?

Yes actually. Timers were 5 minutes for the common vehicles in PS1. 15-20 minutes would mean you get 1 vehicle per base capture, and that would be way too long.

[Klockan]

Now I know you never played PS1.

In PS1 there were no classes :rolleyes:
There were indirectly classes with the suits. People who didn't drove almost all went with the heavy suit.

[Goku]

Quite simply no. Combined arms between air and ground units plus infantry is what makes PlanetSide a great game. I do not want to see tanks limited to the point this is mostly a infantry game. The developers already said that there will be areas favoring air, ground, and infantry anyway I don't see this being an issue. Infantry also have way more cover in PS2 vs PS1, so they won't be picked off as easily. This isn't infantryside 2.

[Klockan]

Yes actually. Timers were 5 minutes for the common vehicles in PS1. 15-20 minutes would mean you get 1 vehicle per base capture, and that would be way too long.
But as has already been said the standard timer in PS2 is 15 minutes so the resource limits should be somewhere around that as well. The devs agree with me. I am just making a thread notifying people that vehicles will be less common than they think.

[Accuser]

You will still see exactly that, it is just that to get that the players would have to save resources for 15-20 minutes or so. Is that too much organization for you?

If it only takes 15 min of resources to pull a tank, they will not be "rare" as you titled the thread. With a dedicated driver and gunner team alternating who pulls tanks, they only have to keep a tank alive for 7.5 minutes. And that's not including resources gained while the duo are offline.

So by your own timeframe, vehicles will not and should not be rare, which is exactly the opposite of when you started this thread...

[SUBARU]

But as has already been said the standard timer in PS2 is 15 minutes so the resource limits should be somewhere around that as well. The devs agree with me. I am just making a thread notifying people that vehicles will be less common than they think.

The timers in game are not set yet .They are only place holders

[Azren]

There were indirectly classes with the suits.

No. You could take the heaviest weapons with the lightest suits (apart from cloaker).

Tank drivers always joined the foot zerging once the base's CY was secured.

[SergeantNubins]

The vehicles all look much more fragile than they used to. The default respawn timer is 1 5minutes, that can be reduced through certifications down to 5 minutes. Add in the resource cost and that bases are innaccessible to vehicles and you are not going to see everyone always in a tank/reaver.

Also I think they said it now takes 3 shots from a vanguard to kill a max.. so I think max units with dual AV will be as big a deterrent from taking your vehicle into a base area as max units with dual AA are to air units.

[Baneblade]

Starship Troopers was a good example of why foot zerging is bad. And Aliens was a good example of why vehicles are good.

[SgtMAD]

LOL, these threads crack me up,so much confusion,so many silly ideas

[Klockan]

If it only takes 15 min of resources to pull a tank, they will not be "rare" as you titled the thread. With a dedicated driver and gunner team alternating who pulls tanks, they only have to keep a tank alive for 7.5 minutes. And that's not including resources gained while the duo are offline.

So by your own timeframe, vehicles will not and should not be rare, which is exactly the opposite of when you started this thread...
I meant if you bought the first vehicle you had money for, with 3 resources you would take on third off the timer. If you can on average spawn a large vehicle every ~10 minutes it would be fine, it is just that it would have to be a different vehicle every time. Also with the much higher lethality of the game you would have a hard time keeping that tank alive for long as soon as it gets to the frontline.
The timers in game are not set yet .They are only place holders
Yup, but that gives us an indication of what they want with the game.

No. You could take the heaviest weapons with the lightest suits (apart from cloaker).

Tank drivers always joined the foot zerging once the base's CY was secured.
Doesn't matter if he can fill all the roles or not, the point is that the drivers are way weaker than the infantrymen so as long as you get to the corridors you want as few drivers as possible.

[Flexy]

These thread are a bit silly . Unless you played the beta allready. There's not too mutch to talk about lets wait until we are in the game first before bringing the game down . I truely believe that the balance will be ok its not everyone that will want to drive tanks . And by the looks of video's eng will be able to distroy them easy enough. I think the balance is ok .

[Klockan]

The vehicles all look much more fragile than they used to. The default respawn timer is 1 5minutes, that can be reduced through certifications down to 5 minutes. Add in the resource cost and that bases are innaccessible to vehicles and you are not going to see everyone always in a tank/reaver.

Also I think they said it now takes 3 shots from a vanguard to kill a max.. so I think max units with dual AV will be as big a deterrent from taking your vehicle into a base area as max units with dual AA are to air units.
I am not complaining, this thread is more to state a fact. Vehicles will be rare compared to PS1. The only ones complaining about that are some who comes from PS1. People from other games have no problem with vehicles being rather rare.

[Canaris]

I am not complaining, this thread is more to state a fact. Vehicles will be rare compared to PS1. The only ones complaining about that are some who comes from PS1. People from other games have no problem with vehicles being rather rare.

used your all seeing magic 8 ball to conjure up these facts and opinions eh?
but then what do we know we're just stuck up PS1 vets who don't know anything:rolleyes:

[DukeTerror]

I am not complaining, this thread is more to state a fact. Vehicles will be rare compared to PS1. The only ones complaining about that are some who comes from PS1. People from other games have no problem with vehicles being rather rare.

Just think that your evidence to that fact is fairly thin and contrary to PS traditional gamestyle. So far the whole resource system has not been showed to "live" game standards. It's either been granted to players to play the E3 demo, or hinted in parts by the Dev interviews with stipulation that it all depends on Beta response.

[Baneblade]

All I can say, is you better hope vehicles aren't as rare as many of you seem to want, because if they are... War Machine will be pushing you back to your footholds. We will eat your cake and have our tanks too.

[Goku]

I am not complaining, this thread is more to state a fact. Vehicles will be rare compared to PS1. The only ones complaining about that are some who comes from PS1. People from other games have no problem with vehicles being rather rare.

This isn't fact. I've been following this game, since the early development photos back last year in January. I have never been under the impression vehicles are going to be rare. Entire outfits are going to be based around using armor columns to air squadrons. You are in for a rude awakening come release.

[Klockan]

Just think that your evidence to that fact is fairly thin and contrary to PS traditional gamestyle. So far the whole resource system has not been showed to "live" game standards. It's either been granted to players to play the E3 demo, or hinted in parts by the Dev interviews with stipulation that it all depends on Beta response.
Everything we have heard and seen points towards resources not being abundant. Your only counterargument is that vehicles were abundant in PS1 so they will be as well in PS2. They changed so many other things pertaining to basic game play such as this.

[Baneblade]

Everything we have heard and seen points towards resources not being abundant. Your only counterargument is that vehicles were abundant in PS1 so they will be as well in PS2.

I think you underestimate the impact boosters will have, not to mention resource gain entirely.

Basic vehicles won't even be all that expensive. But a fully customized Vanguard might be cost prohibitive. We just don't know yet.

[fod]

I am not complaining, this thread is more to state a fact. Vehicles will be rare compared to PS1. The only ones complaining about that are some who comes from PS1. People from other games have no problem with vehicles being rather rare.

most of my friends who are also battlefield vets disagree with you
they are looking forward to flying jets and driving tanks without the limits like in BF

[Goku]

Everything we have heard and seen points towards resources not being abundant. Your only counterargument is that vehicles were abundant in PS1 so they will be as well in PS2. They changed so many other things pertaining to basic game play such as this.

This is what we last heard on vehicles with resources:

Resources never limit what vehicles you can pull; tanks will not require grass!

Resources used to add modifications to vehicles, such as mortar/better AI/etc on tank for secondary gunner.

You won't be limited in pulling. Only potential add ons for your vehicle. Still not sure if that is only a initial cost so it never comes back or when you pull every time.

[Figment]

No. You could take the heaviest weapons with the lightest suits (apart from cloaker).

On that particular point he has a point though: suits are like classes in that they restrict what things you can carry.

A PJ could not bring a HA or fill two pistol slots.

The rexo suit was in most cases not a driver or pilot suit and again restricted roles.

The MAX and infil were pretty clear classes. Certain roles Medic and engi were in that context simply not very class restricted. The class system simply makes greater distinctions by creating heavier restrictions to suits and splitting up roles further.


All depends on your perspective on how you define a class. I personally do look at infantry classes as more restrictive suits.

I am not complaining, this thread is more to state a fact. Vehicles will be rare compared to PS1. The only ones complaining about that are some who comes from PS1. People from other games have no problem with vehicles being rather rare.

Considering there's four times the players per empire, I think we'll see more vehicles overall and bigger differences in vehicle numbers between groups of players that face each other, simply because the numerical difference between groups of players can vary far more.

[Klockan]

This is what we last heard on vehicles with resources:

Resources never limit what vehicles you can pull; tanks will not require grass!

Resources used to add modifications to vehicles, such as mortar/better AI/etc on tank for secondary gunner.

You won't be limited in pulling. Only potential add ons for your vehicle. Still not sure if that is only a initial cost so it never comes back or when you pull every time.
Source please. Last I heard you had 4 resources, 3 for pulling different kinds of vehicles and 1 for buying upgrades. Once you bought an upgrade you don't need to spend the anything to fit vehicles and suits with it, you only spend resources for the basic components. They might have changed so it costs of the 3 later resources to equip a mod but I haven't seen anywhere that vehicles are free.


Considering there's four times the players per empire, I think we'll see more vehicles overall and bigger differences in vehicle numbers between groups of players that face each other, simply because the numerical difference between groups of players can vary far more.
Yeah, I only meant as in "rare" compared to infantry.

[LightningDriver]

Klockan, when you finally play Planetside, either 1 or 2, I will save my ammo and run you down, over and over again, mister smarty pants. :D

[EisenKreutzer]

I'm sure the devs want to see huge tank battles and dogfights as much as the community. The resource cost of vehicles will be balanced during beta to a level where we will consistently see large vehicle battles, while still maintaining the value of being a foot soldier.

[Figment]

Yeah, I only meant as in "rare" compared to infantry.

Not sure if you can expect that, because there were devs that suggested they wanted the option for 600 vehicles to be pulled simultaneously.


As such, I'd really look into more natural ways of incenting infantry use or specific types of units (see the list I provided earlier).

[Darthkorr]

OP is way off here. First, if someone wants to be a dedicated vehicle user, and spends their certs to specialize in it, they had better be able to pull those vehicles. I think the resource cost for pulling a stock vehicle will be very low if not free, then customization will drive up the price significantly.

Secondly, there are plenty of infantry-only areas. With bases that are roughly 4 times the size of CoD levels, and T-Ray saying early on that roughly 50% of the game is indoors, there's plenty of space.

Last but not least, anyone who played PS1 knows that while an initial push has a lot of vehicles, as those get blowed up, the vehicle crush turns into a footzerg because it's more effective to respawn at the AMS/Galaxy in 20 seconds than to take 5-10 mins to reorganize back at a friendly base, pull another vehicle, fill it, and drive back to the battle. And on defense, the first thing to drop is generally your vehicle term, so it's all foot action from there.

Vehicles will be limited by the battlefield situation. Making them artificially rare would dilute the liberty to play any role you want - one of the hallmarks of PS.

^This. The massive Combined Arms battles is what got me interested in PS2 in the first place. If I wanted to be a foot soldier 90% of the time I'd be playing a different game and not interested in this game at all. With smart use of resources and a modicum of skill I should be able to have some kind of vehicle most of the time.

[Klockan]

Not sure if you can expect that, because there were devs that suggested they wanted the option for 600 vehicles to be pulled simultaneously.


As such, I'd really look into more natural ways of incenting infantry use or specific types of units (see the list I provided earlier).
Pulling 600 vehicles simultaneously have nothing to do with this. If you gather up 600 people that you tell to save resources for a short while so that you can all then pull a huge vehicle front all at once it is still possible. You would still have the same average infantry concentration, just that now we have more infantry at one point of time and then more vehicles at another. A tradeoff.

^This. The massive Combined Arms battles is what got me interested in PS2 in the first place. If I wanted to be a foot soldier 90% of the time I'd be playing a different game and not interested in this game at all. With smart use of resources and a modicum of skill I should be able to have some kind of vehicle most of the time.
Yup, if you are being cautious with your vehicles, got friends who you can share seats with and aren't foreign to using all kinds of vehicles I bet that is possible.

[Goku]

Source please. Last I heard you had 4 resources, 3 for pulling different kinds of vehicles and 1 for buying upgrades. Once you bought an upgrade you don't need to spend the anything to fit vehicles and suits with it, you only spend resources for the basic components. They might have changed so it costs of the 3 later resources to equip a mod but I haven't seen anywhere that vehicles are free.

Here http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=592449&postcount=2 Its from 9/15/2011. Maybe dated by now, but thats all I could find. We had a debate about this months ago and that ended it. I used to think prior to this there was cost to pull every time...

[Gimpylung]

The way people go on you'd swear PS and BF are mutually exclusive.

As a snotty condescending PS Vet, I can say I've played both games at length.

Battlefield isn't unfamiliar to us, isn't that amazing.

MMOFPS's and FPS's have different dynamics.

I know nothing much about PS2 aside from what we've all seen and read. I know one thing however, its going to be different to either PS and BF so I'm not going to make wild speculations about it based on two other games that it takes inspiration from.

Because I haven't played it yet.

[Meatballs]

It's just not viable to have everyone in vehicles, you can't capture some of the bases, anyway, I like the idea that there's a lot of different play style in the game at different points.

It's just not going to happen. This is a game where people play with friends and anyway, tanks aren't fulfilling there potential with one person in it so you'll have a good mixture.

[DukeTerror]

Everything we have heard and seen points towards resources not being abundant. Your only counterargument is that vehicles were abundant in PS1 so they will be as well in PS2. They changed so many other things pertaining to basic game play such as this.

1) I think the wiki page on vehicle sums everything up that I've seen pretty well. Time will be the limit, resources will be needed, but with kills and objectives your earn them in game. I think for good players, you'll be able to earn enough to stay positive for your chosen vehicle. This may mean that tank players at all sides will be constantly fight over at the tank resource spots - therefore fighting the greatest tank battles of their lives. Isn't that kinda the point of the game?

2) Even if your interpretation is correct, the fact that your the only one here defending that (quite admirably I might add) is going to give the Devs pause on how they want to pursue that gameplay during the beta phases.

[Darthkorr]

I am not complaining, this thread is more to state a fact. Vehicles will be rare compared to PS1. The only ones complaining about that are some who comes from PS1. People from other games have no problem with vehicles being rather rare.

I never played PS 1.
And i want behicles to be ABUNDANT.
Please do not speak for others when you do not know what everyone else wants.

[Klockan]

Here http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=592449&postcount=2 Its from 9/15/2011. Maybe dated by now, but thats all I could find. We had a debate about this months ago and that ended it. I used to think prior to this there was cost to pull every time...
That is either dated or it was a misunderstanding. Vehicles did definitely cost resources at E3 and I highly doubt they would mod in a resource cost just for E3, especially since they gave everyone virtually infinite resources.

1) I think the wiki page on vehicle sums everything up that I've seen pretty well. Time will be the limit, resources will be needed, but with kills and objectives your earn them in game. I think for good players, you'll be able to earn enough to stay positive for your chosen vehicle. This may mean that tank players at all sides will be constantly fight over at the tank resource spots - therefore fighting the greatest tank battles of their lives. Isn't that kinda the point of the game?

Yes, for the capture points to have a meaning the resources needs to be limiting. If standard play doesn't cause people to quickly run out of resources they wouldn't care about capturing the bases.

[Eyeklops]

LOL..the OP is an elaborate, and obvious troll. Good job OP on getting the bittervets all worked up, too bad the actual idea put forth is full on retard.

On-topic (as silly as it is): The damage output of infantry vs. armor is also a major factor in controlling the vehicle/softie ratio. I know I like target rich environments where I am not a high priority target. If the battlefield is overloaded with vehics, you'll find me hidden on a base wall/in-a-bush AV sniping almost dead armor.

[Goku]

That is either dated or it was a misunderstanding. Vehicles did definitely cost resources at E3 and I highly doubt they would mod in a resource cost just for E3, especially since they gave everyone virtually infinite resources.


Yes, for the capture points to have a meaning the resources needs to be limiting. If standard play doesn't cause people to quickly run out of resources they wouldn't care about capturing the bases.

Well I guess that shows it still not clear how this is going to work. Chances are it can totally be changed in beta anyway. Regardless even if vehicles end up having resources to be pulled it isn't going to be to the extent you talk of it. Vehicles are going to be a integral part of this game, its not just for infantry. I don't want people to be able to constantly pull them, but they should be careful in their decisions as far as not getting killed quickly and what to equip it with.

[Klockan]

Well I guess that shows it still not clear how this is going to work. Chances are it can totally be changed in beta anyway. Regardless even if vehicles end up having resources to be pulled it isn't going to be to the extent you talk of it. Vehicles are going to be a integral part of this game, its not just for infantry. I don't want people to be able to constantly pull them, but they should be careful in their decisions as far as not getting killed quickly and what to equip it with.

I agree that vehicles should be an integral part of this game, maybe I used a too strong word with "rare". But anyone who read my OP would see that I say that ~20% of the players should sit in a vehicle in any one time so they wont really be rare, its more like "they wont be abundant".

[Wakken]

If I ask you this instead:
Should the average person be able to drive a vehicle 100% of the time? If yes, that means that we have more or less infinite resources. If no, then how limited do you think it should be?

I dont see why a person wouldnt be able to... if someone loves to fly a galaxy and he wants to do it all the time and get really good at it, why not let him?

Its like saying you cant play as a heavy infantry all the time, or a medic all the time... why shouldnt you be able to if they want to?

[Steambot]

With regret, I've never played PS1, and unlike a lot of people here, I don't understand all the mechanics. However, I think I can recognize that both the OP and this thread are rather silly. I thought that massive vehicle and infantry combat was what Planetside was about? Limiting the vehicles like that would be, what was it now? Oh yeah, full on retard.

Just saying.

[Shade Millith]

you know some people are so far behind in a race they actually think they're winning

I don't usually do this, but the thread was finished by the first post.

Well done.

[DukeTerror]

Edit: I can't keep up with this topic anymore!

Yeah to vehicles!

[Klockan]

With regret, I've never played PS1, and unlike a lot of people here, I don't understand all the mechanics. However, I think I can recognize that both the OP and this thread are rather silly. I thought that massive vehicle and infantry combat was what Planetside was about? Limiting the vehicles like that would, what was it now? Oh yeah, full on retard.

Just saying.
How would you have massive infantry and vehicle combat when you are missing the infantry? You would still have massive infantry and vehicle combat even if you limit the resources a bit, it only tilts the percentages to have more infantry and less vehicles and also makes vehicle drivers a bit more careful with their vehicles.

I dont see why a person wouldnt be able to... if someone loves to fly a galaxy and he wants to do it all the time and get really good at it, why not let him?

Its like saying you cant play as a heavy infantry all the time, or a medic all the time... why shouldnt you be able to if they want to?
Because people want vehicles to play an important role and that they should be more powerful than infantry, if you can pull galaxies really often then I can do too, so why would I have to ride your galaxy when I can just fly my own and thus be harder to shot down with more targets? That didn't work in PS1 since you couldn't fly a galaxy without gimping your infantry stats, but PS2 don't have as limiting classes as PS1 had so here you can fly and still be a good ground soldier.

[Goku]

I agree that vehicles should be an integral part of this game, maybe I used a too strong word with "rare". But anyone who read my OP would see that I say that ~20% of the players should sit in a vehicle in any one time so they wont really be rare, its more like "they wont be abundant".

I don't ever see it being a specific number TBH. Totally depends on what the situation warrants. We may have massive tank battles one second to a massive infantry zerg next. There will always be those who attempt to stick to one role, but I see people switching around a bit if the need is there.

[Dairian]

you know some people are so far behind in a race they actually think they're winning


I couldn't say it better.

[DukeTerror]

Because people want vehicles to play an important role and that they should be more powerful than infantry, if you can pull galaxies really often then I can do too, so why would I have to ride your galaxy when I can just fly my own and thus be harder to shot down with more targets? That didn't work in PS1 since you couldn't fly a galaxy without gimping your infantry stats, but PS2 don't have as limiting classes as PS1 had so here you can fly and still be a good ground soldier.

Who would jump out of all those galaxies?

Oh, and Auto Ignore anyone who uses the phrase "just saying" :)

[Ruffdog]

I am not complaining, this thread is more to state a fact. Vehicles will be rare compared to PS1. The only ones complaining about that are some who comes from PS1. People from other games have no problem with vehicles being rather rare.

I think you're going to be rather shocked. Especially if HA class can drive.

[Figment]

All in all you can expect a relatively stable ratio of vehicles. Compared to PS1 it will already help infantry a lot that they get their own handheld AA and more balanced handheld ES AV.

Rather than ground vehicles, the main thing that kept players from playing infantry, was aircraft because they'd get farmed from random angles at all times by Mosquitos with next to no solid means of cover or fighting back.

That alone will be different in PS2 so that should aid infantry combat a lot.


Unfortunately, that might just get undone by the lack of AMSes.

[Steambot]

Who would jump out of all those galaxies?

Oh, and Auto Ignore anyone who uses the phrase "just saying" :)

Oh, stop it you. :p

EDIT: Anyway, I think the devs will do right with the game, so really I don't think we need to discuss this. They have matters well in hand.

[Klockan]

Who would jump out of all those galaxies?

The drivers, why care about what happen with the galaxy after you jump out, you can just buy another one later anyway.

[Wakken]

With regret, I've never played PS1, and unlike a lot of people here, I don't understand all the mechanics. However, I think I can recognize that both the OP and this thread are rather silly. I thought that massive vehicle and infantry combat was what Planetside was about? Limiting the vehicles like that would be, what was it now? Oh yeah, full on retard.

Just saying.

It was, you had whole outfits dedicated to different roles, as well as vehicle roles. Here you have KAAOS for example:

KAAOS Planetside 1 - YouTube

Because people want vehicles to play an important role and that they should be more powerful than infantry, if you can pull galaxies really often then I can do too, so why would I have to ride your galaxy when I can just fly my own and thus be harder to shot down with more targets? That didn't work in PS1 since you couldn't fly a galaxy without gimping your infantry stats, but PS2 don't have as limiting classes as PS1 had so here you can fly and still be a good ground soldier.

There is a difference between your mother's experience flying a galaxy and someone whos been dedicated to it for 6 years?

http://pinkie.ponychan.net/chan/files/src/133886980556.jpg

This is not battlefield, nor CoD.

[Klockan]

There is a difference between your mother's experience flying a galaxy and someone whos been dedicated to it for 6 years?
If you argue that the majority of players for PS2 will be noobs who wont even take the time to learn to drive every vehicle I get your point.

[ArmedZealot]

If you argue that the majority of players for PS2 will be noobs who wont even take the time to learn to drive every vehicle I get your point.


They were in PS1's popular days.

[Klockan]

They were in PS1's popular days.
But in those days the certs limited what you could do so much, you couldn't just try out vehicles on a whim but you had to take a lot of time to recert to them. The very limiting cert system of early PS1 created these roles.

[ArmedZealot]

But in those days the certs limited what you could do so much, you couldn't just try out vehicles on a whim but you had to take a lot of time to recert to them. The very limiting cert system of early PS1 created these roles.

Outfits required these roles. The cert system allowed for people to be a dedicated pilot and have a single specialized infantry role usually.

[Wakken]

If you argue that the majority of players for PS2 will be noobs who wont even take the time to learn to drive every vehicle I get your point.

I'm arguing that most players will most likely pick a role or two and stick to them to specialize in them. Just as they did in PS1

[Gorgos]

But in those days the certs limited what you could do so much, you couldn't just try out vehicles on a whim but you had to take a lot of time to recert to them. The very limiting cert system of early PS1 created these roles.

The ps1 cert system wasn't very limiting at all really. Maybe for the first few weeks of playing

[Klockan]

The ps1 cert system wasn't very limiting at all really. Maybe for the first few weeks of playing
They were limiting in that if I had certed to be a heavy grunt soldier for assaulting complexes I could almost only spawn as that. To change the role you had to recert, but that would make you unable to fill your grunt role for another 6 hours and also you can't recert the whole tree every 6 hours either. Thus people were discouraged from trying out everything. If he instead could just try to fly around with a galaxy at calm times and from that instantly pop back to his grunt role if he is needed I bet that people would do that.

[ArmedZealot]

They were limiting in that if I had certed to be a heavy grunt soldier for assaulting complexes I could almost only spawn as that. To change the role you had to recert, but that would make you unable to fill your grunt role for another 6 hours and also you can't recert the whole tree every 6 hours either. Thus people were discouraged from trying out everything.

And now most classes can pilot vehicles, while still specializing in their infantry roles.

So how does this help your argument that there will be less vehicles?

[Goku]

Well thats were alts came into play. Was not hard to get to a proper level to have your main be full out grunt and have another char for driving vehicles or say being a cloaker with adv hack/ce. Yeah you have to log out, but its still there.

Prior to the higher BR limit (I'm talking 23). I think I was running around with Rexo/HA for my grunt as we had AV guys and I had Vanguard/Lib.

[ArmedZealot]

Well thats were alts came into play. Was not hard to get to a proper level to have your main be full out grunt and have another char for driving vehicles or say being a cloaker with adv hack/ce. Yeah you have to log out, but its still there.

With PS2 you won't even have to log out anymore :).

[Goku]

Thats kinda what I am liking to be honest right now.

[Xyntech]

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1734/shaqpoint.gif

Wow, I had a terrible nights sleep, but thank you for this thread. Amazing read.

Certainly I have some concerns over how much or little certain vehicles will be used, but it is way too early to be making claims of vehicle to infantry population ratios. The only game we can legitimately compare PS2's prospective ratio to is PS1, which is such a different game in so many ways that it's a nearly meaningless comparison (everyone being able to pull everything in PS2, customization options, the resource system, solo driveable MBT's, etc).

I guarantee you that there will be plenty of times where vehicle populations outnumber infantry populations. This even happened in PS1 where multi-crew vehicles often limited the number of vehicles compared to the amount of people still on foot at various bases and tower fights. Considering that we will now probably see at least a few solo MBT's scattered in amongst larger tank columns, and that any schmuck can pull a tank at any time to join the fun, there will definitely be plenty of huge vehicle battles in PS2's history, made even larger by the fact that continental populations are 5x larger this time around.

But we won't know how common it will be for vehicles to outnumber infantry until beta, in fact not until a ways into beta considering that this is a balance issue.

Thats kinda what I am liking to be honest right now.

Agreed. It fits in perfectly with them streamlining the game on multiple fronts.

The only problem I have with BR40 is some of the cert combinations. At least with BR20, you had to be a highly specialized character to have all of the best certs combined into one character, so there were always some important situational things you could never cert into. We BR40, you can have all of the best certs, and still have enough room for a healthy heaping dose of extra peripheral certs on top of that.

But with PS2, you get a chance to have every cert, just like if you had multiple characters with every cert. But you have to pick and choose which ones you use at any given life.

It will certainly be a very different dynamic, where you have to be aware that every guy you kill may come back spawned as a MAX, but I think it will work out fine once we've adapted to it. I think a lot of people won't even bother switching to a MAX, especially if they feel more comfortable fighting with HA or LA in a given situation.

[Klockan]

And now most classes can pilot vehicles, while still specializing in their infantry roles.
Yup, which is why they needed to put another limit to vehicles than PS1 had.

So how does this help your argument that there will be less vehicles?
In PS1 every dedicated driver always had a vehicle. In PS2 that wont be possible since there are no dedicated driver classes which means that any "dedicated driver" will have the same vehicle restrictions with the resource cost as everyone else. Thus people who want to drive will have less vehicle than in PS1.

[Canaris]

With PS2 you won't even have to log out anymore :).

thank goodness, I can still remember all the hilarity and craziness over players and all their various pseudo names for role specific characters.

"Who the F is CaptainBuzzKill and what he's doing in our squad"
"That's me ya jackass I'm on my Gal pilot to get you all moved to the next position"
"I thought that was Tom"
"No Tom's on his cloaker called Buzzy"
"I thought Buzzy was Jack"
"Jacks not even playing"
"Yes I am I'm on Reaver pilot called KillBuzz"
"Oh I give up"

:D

[Wakken]

In PS1 every dedicated driver always had a vehicle. In PS2 that wont be possible since there are no dedicated driver classes which means that any "dedicated driver" will have the same vehicle restrictions with the resource cost as everyone else. Thus people who want to drive will have less vehicle than in PS1.

I think I see where you're getting at. And I think you have a point, if someone who wants to be a dedicated driver/pilot happens to run out of resources, he cant do that no matter how much he is dedicated to it. While a infantry player can still hop into the fight as easy as usual?

Question is, is that a design choice or a flaw? It would be sad if it is working as intended that way. It kinda makes dedication with a vehicle much more restrained than infantry classes.

[Klockan]

But we won't know how common it will be for vehicles to outnumber infantry until beta, in fact not until a ways into beta considering that this is a balance issue.
Yes, but everything points at them trying to emulate the gameplay from the BF series and the vehicle ratios is a big part of the gameplay. Everything we have heard and seen just makes it more clear that they aim at having fairly low vehicle ratios compared to PS1. However as you said vehicles will still be able to outnumber infantry at times, but that will/should be epic occasions and not something that happens all the time. If vehicles are so cheap that the average guy can drive a tank all the time then everyone who don't want to drive a tank all the time can just use them as throwaway vehicles which would make the game feel terrible. A guy who buys a tank should want to use it as a tank, not as an armored transport.

I think I see where you're getting at. And I think you have a point, if someone who wants to be a dedicated driver/pilot happens to run out of resources, he cant do that no matter how much he is dedicated to it. While a infantry player can still hop into the fight as easy as usual?

Question is, is that a design choice or a flaw? It would be sad if it is working as intended that way. It kinda makes dedication with a vehicle much more restrained than infantry classes.
What happens then is that vehicles become more like limit abilities like the airstrikes and such from CoD instead of a role you dedicate your career to. This is bound to happen unless you have dedicated driver classes or are happy with vehicles lying around everywhere since people just spawn them randomly when they need to get somewhere. Outfits can of course still have dedicated roles, just that then the infantry can spawn galaxies for the driver etc.

[Baneblade]

thank goodness, I can still remember all the hilarity and craziness over players and all their various pseudo names for role specific characters.

"Who the F is CaptainBuzzKill and what he's doing in our squad"
"That's me ya jackass I'm on my Gal pilot to get you all moved to the next position"
"I thought that was Tom"
"No Tom's on his cloaker called Buzzy"
"I thought Buzzy was Jack"
"Jacks not even playing"
"Yes I am I'm on Reaver pilot called KillBuzz"
"Oh I give up"

:D

Or my favorite, the guy who made his alt into his main... WarningDrunkenPilot

[Flaropri]

My view:

Having 1 vehicle for every 5-8 people doesn't cut it, and it's not practical considering the method of limitation (resources in this case). BF numbers don't work for PS2.

However, I agree that resources should be a limiting factor for more than just abuse. I think if you want to fly/drive a tank 24/7 you should do so by keeping your tanks alive longer than the cooldown it takes to spawn a vehicle... and still need "passive resources" from when you're logged off into the next day.


Resources limiting individual play puts more emphasis on keeping your vehicles alive, more emphasis on grand strategy (what locations are more important to take/hold at a given time), more emphasis on transports (including Flash) rather than just pulling whatever seems convenient simply as a means to get there, etc.

Without resources being significant (and the level of significance is something that Beta will help determine and likely get tweaked throughout Live as well) it creates a lot of false choices. It makes trivial many vehicle options, strategies, and location significance.

This is a combined arms game, but at least the Devs feel that, "at it's core it is an FPS." They aren't making World of [Insert Vehicle Here]. They are making Planetside. Vehicles are important, but between logistics and resource limitations, to be most efficient as a player you won't be in them all the time.


Hypothetical example limits: Say on an evenly controlled world(server), each day over the course of the day you'll get enough resources to spawn 30 tanks (and stockpile resources for another 20). That's enough tanks for 5 hours if you can live on average 10 minutes. On the other hand, if your average time is (likely) much shorter than that, say 5 minutes, it's only 2.5 hours of tank-time... but remember that both of these would be spread out throughout the 24 hour period, you'd need to rely on stockpiling resources for a solid chunk of time (which would happen partially by default since most players won't actually be playing over the full period). Say you play for 2 hours a day, that leaves 22 hours for passive resource gains stockpiling into those 2 hours being full tank-time if you can keep your tanks alive long enough.

On the other hand, if you've got 4-5 hours a day to spend on it, you might have more difficulty stock-piling resources, but (as I understood it) you'll have more missions and thus bonus resources to go for (of course, those mission bonuses might not go towards tanks or might end up just bonus XP, so that might not work out). Even so, if you're spending that much time you'll probably do some non-tank related stuff, even if it's just going through various Certs and deciding what to spend your stuff on.

Overall, the point is that skill and implementation of resources should matter. In my view, no player should have so many resources that they can pull any single vehicle for themselves constantly for 24 hours a day. The choices of how and when to spend resources should matter.


Now, I know there are some people that just want to only drive tanks throughout their game-time. I think that's great, and they should be able to do so... within reason. They should have to take care of their tanks, make sure they don't throw them into a steel-grinder carelessly (even going to a different location) and similar. And they should need to stockpile resources some days, by sharing other player's tank spawns, doing some varied play occasionally, etc.


Note: Once again the numbers are hypothetical, the ideal resource income/expense (undoubtedly different from what I said here) may be lower, it may be higher, a lot depends on average vehicle life in the hands of decent drivers/pilots, what other vehicles share a given resource, how long people actually play the game each day on average, how much disparity there is between passive and active resource gains, of course the number of crew within a given vehicle, and which vehicles share resource costs.


A valid concern:
I think I see where you're getting at. And I think you have a point, if someone who wants to be a dedicated driver/pilot happens to run out of resources, he cant do that no matter how much he is dedicated to it. While a infantry player can still hop into the fight as easy as usual?

Question is, is that a design choice or a flaw? It would be sad if it is working as intended that way. It kinda makes dedication with a vehicle much more restrained than infantry classes.

I'm not fully convinced either way on this. I just want to point out, that nothing stops a player that went into Tanks a lot from also going into infantry a lot, since there are no limits to Certifications. Unlike in PS1, nothing (except maybe consumables like Grenades costing resources) stops a dedicated tank player from being just as well certified/equipped as a dedicated infantry player (and vice versa).

[Kashis]

From the other threads I have read it seems like people believe that everyone will be able to get a tank or plane at will and that the resources will only limit abuses.

Have anyone of you guys played battlefield 2, 2142 or 3? Then you would know that on each battlefield map there are 1-6 combat vehicles on each side while there are 32 players on each side. That means at most there is 1 vehicle per 5 players at any one time and then vehicles respawns slower than infantry. Now as you all probably know PS2 have drawn a lot of inspiration from the battlefield series which would mean that we would have roughly as rare vehicles.

No, this isn't a problem. The battlefield series thrived on having a low vehicle count. There are tanks and planes, but ~80-90% of the manpower is on foot. The only ones who will whine about that are stuck up PS1 vets who wants to drive around in a tank or a plane 24/7.

Vehicles and troops is Planetside, go play with MW2. Oh yeah, eat a dick for calling me stuck up.

[Kayos]

Yes, but everything points at them trying to emulate the gameplay from the BF series and the vehicle ratios is a big part of the gameplay. Everything we have heard and seen just makes it more clear that they aim at having fairly low vehicle ratios compared to PS1. However as you said vehicles will still be able to outnumber infantry at times, but that will/should be epic occasions and not something that happens all the time. If vehicles are so cheap that the average guy can drive a tank all the time then everyone who don't want to drive a tank all the time can just use them as throwaway vehicles which would make the game feel terrible. A guy who buys a tank should want to use it as a tank, not as an armored transport.


I think you will be very surprised with how many vehicles there will be.
It won't be like BF series and it shouldn't be. You are assuming that resources are going to be so hard to get that you won't be able to afford to grab a tank when you want. I think the respawn/cooldown timer will be more of an issue to get that tank than resources.

[SgtExo]

great post Flaropri, and this is what resources should come down too.

And for comparing it to BF, I always preferred the vehicle play in BF1942 and BF2 because vehicles were allot more abundant (because infantry combat sucked compared to CoD in that time).

I would say that the vehicle ration should be more around 80% vehicle when out in the fields between base and go down to 5% when in the actual base area.

[polywomple]

holy fuck this thread is stupid and oversignificant

you should play the game how YOU want, if that involves pulling a vehicle then whatever.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

But then people will just drive to the doors, then jump out as full fledged infantry and take the point. This isn't PS1 where you had dedicated drivers who are able to conjure vehicles at will but sucks at infantry combat, here everyone is viable on foot while still able to pilot everything. The only thing that stops us from seeing everyone in a vehicle is the resource system.

This is not set in stone yet. Honestly, it's unlikely the HA drivers will last very long, I don't recall hardly anyone arguing in favor of it, because of the obvious disconnect there.

As for the prevalence of vehicles, I'm sure there'll be tons of "vehicles" per say, running around, particularly the cheaper more utilitarian ones. Unless you mean the high tier MBTs, Galaxies, Liberators etc ("expensive" stuff), which will be variable depending on the resource cost. We don't know ANYTHING about that, really, as far as I'm aware. I was under the impression what we've seen in the way of resource costs was "placeholder" for the tech demonstrations. The actual Beta or whatever would have something more substantial in place.


-edit


And yes, you should probably ditch the overly condescending attitude toward anyone who disagrees with you.

holy fuck this thread is stupid and oversignificant

Yeah, kinda...

[wraithverge]

I think it will strongly depend on the driver. I know that I as a tank driver live on average 30 minutes to an hour except in cluster f. battles. I know when to retreat, and when to repair etc. Meanwhile if I jump in anyone elses tank and gun, we usually die in 3-15 minutes, this is because tanking IS my playstyle, I've spent years practicing and getting better while for most it's what they do between base battles. As a dedicated tanker in ps2 I will very likely make more cash then it costs me.

Then again for those who use their tanks as the thing to do between battles, they wont care that they can't spawn another tank repeatedly if need be, their concern is point A to point B with carnage on the way.

The good tank drivers will find a way or quit, and I trust SOE to know their clientele well enough to balance appropriately.

Yeah there will be times when I play poorly and drain my resources, but the gun play in this game looks good as opposed to ps1's barely tolerable.

[Neurotoxin]

Pulling and driving vehicles should be rare for bad players. Good players should have enough resources and tactical sense to know when they need a vehicle, and to be able to access them as needed.

[Klockan]

This is not set in stone yet. Honestly, it's unlikely the HA drivers will last very long, I don't recall hardly anyone arguing in favor of it, because of the obvious disconnect there.
People don't want HA to be able to drive just because they wear a suit which has similar characteristics to the rexo suit of PS1 which couldn't drive. But there is a difference here, I was of the impression that PS2 wants all the base classes to be equally viable as infantry, that includes the HA, and that means that they should have the same vehicle restrictions. The HA isn't stronger than the medic or the engineer, just different.
As for the prevalence of vehicles, I'm sure there'll be tons of "vehicles" per say, running around, particularly the cheaper more utilitarian ones. Unless you mean the high tier MBTs, Galaxies, Liberators etc ("expensive" stuff), which will be variable depending on the resource cost. We don't know ANYTHING about that, really, as far as I'm aware. I was under the impression what we've seen in the way of resource costs was "placeholder" for the tech demonstrations. The actual Beta or whatever would have something more substantial in place.
Yes they are placeholders, but even placeholders are made with estimated values and functions. Thus they usually represent the intent of the developers.
And yes, you should probably ditch the overly condescending attitude toward anyone who disagrees with you.
I give back with the same tone people give me, which of course applies to me as well so I get back what I throw out. But having a harsh tone promotes more discussion, you see this thread really exploded and I learned a lot about how people think about these things, it is a success for me. I don't really expect that I can change peoples opinions this easily or such, I just wanted a discussion. Also this thread was quite easy to discuss in since people in general really have no good counterarguments, most agrees that there needs to be some limits to the amount of vehicles people can spawn we just don't agree how to do it. PS1 made it by limiting it to weaker classes and by having short cooldowns. Currently it looks like PS2 will do it mainly with resources.

[longfire]

I think having very limited vehicles would be very frustrating for a lot of people imagine how many people would get in stuff with more than 1 seat and just drive away using all the resources and leaving everyone else to walk for huge amounts of distances just to get to the nearest facility or base. Everyone getting a vehicle at the cost of the resources they earn is a great feature of this game and as newer players progress they'l probably use them more wisely

[Sephirex]

But having a harsh tone promotes more discussion
See Jimmy, when Daddy yells and throw things at you, I'm really just trying to open communication between us.


I love you son.

[Klockan]

See Jimmy, when Daddy yells and throw things at you, I'm really just trying to open communication between us.


I love you son.
I am not yelling at anyone, I am not hurting anyone, these are just text snippets that people read and interpret themselves. Right now you are just trying to taunt me without any real reason, the discussion that would come out of this is totally useless and instead you just do this since a lot of people already have taunted me in this thread so you know that you would get support doing so. That is pretty lame. :groovy:
I think having very limited vehicles would be very frustrating for a lot of people imagine how many people would get in stuff with more than 1 seat and just drive away using all the resources and leaving everyone else to walk for huge amounts of distances just to get to the nearest facility or base.
Have you read a single thing about PS2? No, it wont work like the old resource system from PS1.

[Xyntech]

The HA isn't stronger than the medic or the engineer, just different.

Yes. Very much yes. The only class that is inherently overpowered against vehicles and aircraft is an appropriately equipped MAX. Every other class will be equally combat viable in it's own way, so carrying over old ideas about driver restrictions is just silly.


Yes they are placeholders, but even placeholders are made with estimated values and functions. Thus they usually represent the intent of the developers.

Vehicle health was placeholder as well. Tanks were dying crazy fast at E3 and before. In the most recent footage we've seen from Higby's stream, tanks have a lot more health. Another indication that they aren't intentionally designing vehicles to be a 1 to 1 copy of BF vehicles actually, which further renders irrelevant any points about how prevalent they intend vehicles to be based on another franchise btw.

I give back with the same tone people give me, which of course applies to me as well so I get back what I throw out. But having a harsh tone promotes more discussion, you see this thread really exploded and I learned a lot about how people think about these things, it is a success for me.

There is a difference between more discussion and good discussion. If you come in with an attitude and a lot of assumptions, you will either get ignored (if obviously trolling) or you will get a lot of people calling you out on all sorts of stuff.

But a good discussion can last just as long, with a lot more relevant points being tossed back and forth.

I wholeheartedly agree that being a little inflammatory can be a good way to help draw attention to an important point, but it's something to be used sparingly if you don't want a discussion to just degenerate into a bunch of people shouting each other down.

Just try not to leap to so many conclusions or be so defensive/antagonistic.

[Sephirex]

I am not yelling at anyone, I am not hurting anyone, these are just text snippets that people read and interpret themselves. Right now you are just trying to taunt me without any real reason, the discussion that would come out of this is totally useless and instead you just do this since you a lot of people already have taunted me in this thread so you know that you would get support doing so. That is pretty lame. :groovy:

Have you read a single thing about PS2? No, it wont work like the old resource system from PS1.

I haven't followed this thread at all. All of these things you guys insist on arguing on will quickly be meaningless when we start finding the REAL issues in beta. But I couldn't pass up that little gem up you threw out there.

Also since you responded, under your logic I've obviously just 'stimulated' discussion. :lol:

[NumbaOneStunna]

DEATH BEFORE DISMOUNT

Im a tanker. I might dismount to repair my tank but in terms of infantry stuff, I will leave that up to the grunts.

A tank providing cover to a point being captured is many times more useful then the crew dismounting to assist the grunts in capturing the point.

[Klockan]

Vehicle health was placeholder as well. Tanks were dying crazy fast at E3 and before. In the most recent footage we've seen from Higby's stream, tanks have a lot more health. Another indication that they aren't intentionally designing vehicles to be a 1 to 1 copy of BF vehicles actually, which further renders irrelevant any points about how prevalent they intend vehicles to be based on another franchise btw.
I watched the higby stream video again, and the tanks dies from ~6 shots to the front, hardly a big change.
PlanetSide 2 - TwitchTV stream of Matt Higby - YouTube

Yeah, things change, but not that much.

There is a difference between more discussion and good discussion. If you come in with an attitude and a lot of assumptions, you will either get ignored (if obviously trolling) or you will get a lot of people calling you out on all sorts of stuff.

But a good discussion can last just as long, with a lot more relevant points being tossed back and forth.

I wholeheartedly agree that being a little inflammatory can be a good way to help draw attention to an important point, but it's something to be used sparingly if you don't want a discussion to just degenerate into a bunch of people shouting each other down.

Just try not to leap to so many conclusions or be so defensive/antagonistic.
I know, it is just that I haven't seen many good discussions on this forum so I talk the language they understand. In general people just ignore points and restate their mantras, if I want a real discussion with such people I need them to want to crush my points or they will just copy paste their last argument or they ignore points they don't want to acknowledge. In this thread people really tried to counter my arguments. Many just trolled, but that's something you have to live with.
I haven't followed this thread at all. All of these things you guys insist on arguing on will quickly be meaningless when we start finding the REAL issues in beta. But I couldn't pass up that little gem up you threw out there.
Okay, no hard feelings then. But yes I of course know that all of these arguments are null and void once beta starts since then we have hard facts. Nonetheless people still enjoy discussing and arguing about things or else they wouldn't frequent a forum.

[Sirisian]

We kind of solved this in previous discussions and threads with others regarding the resource system and playstyle balancing. The concept was rather simple. The developers would implement a meaningful upgrade model for vehicles apart from the sidegrades system that allows players to spend extra resources to specialize in a vehicle and directly make it more power or more versatile at the cost of resources. So while you might see a few stock tanks being pulled effortlessly, players that were skilled at staying alive would pull more sophisticated tanks. This relies on a concept of a universal playstyle resource sink (http://sirisian.com/planetside2/#Territory_and_Resources-Universal_Playstyle_Resource_Sink). That is grunts would spend resources being a grunt and tank drivers who spend resources being a good tank driver. The likelihood of seeing such a system isn't very high though since Higby has explained before how he wants certs to work, and he doesn't seem to want resource sinks other than grenades, medkits, and vehicles.

[TeaLeaf]

I'm going to guess PS2's infantry combat will be the least interesting part. I want to be able to just fly/drive about 24/7.

[Purple]

From the other threads I have read it seems like people believe that everyone will be able to get a tank or plane at will and that the resources will only limit abuses.

Have anyone of you guys played battlefield 2, 2142 or 3? Then you would know that on each battlefield map there are 1-6 combat vehicles on each side while there are 32 players on each side. That means at most there is 1 vehicle per 5 players at any one time and then vehicles respawns slower than infantry. Now as you all probably know PS2 have drawn a lot of inspiration from the battlefield series which would mean that we would have roughly as rare vehicles.

No, this isn't a problem. The battlefield series thrived on having a low vehicle count. There are tanks and planes, but ~80-90% of the manpower is on foot. The only ones who will whine about that are stuck up PS1 vets who wants to drive around in a tank or a plane 24/7.

a little known fact about PS2 is it achally takes alot of inspriation from planetside 1 and is not cloning battlefield. that being said there will be as many tanks and plains as people want

[Raymac]

I really find this whole discussion a bit...pointless. The devs have been touting how in Battlefield you are limited to the few vehicles that are spawned per map, while in Planetside you have no such limitation which opens up the possibility for massive vehicle battles.

When "many vehicles" is a major selling point, I don't think it is likely that they will make them "rare".

[Sephirex]

there will be as any tanks and plains as people want

I hope there's jets and mountains too.

[Hamma]

Vehicles have pretty long spawn timers at least in the build I played. They won't be throwaway like they were in PS1 for sure.

[Purple]

massive vehicle combat is a selling point of this game also. taking it away would take away people and down the profits of the game. why not just start a poll and see where everyone stands?

[Sephirex]

I think the solution is rather obvious.

We hide the tanks on a 'boss' and color the name tag purple to show it's important. We also make them unable to be traded between characters to ensure fighting whenever a tank 'drops'.

The only way to kill a boss is to organize a bunch of players into what's called a "raid". This ensures there's as much competition per tank as possible. This ensures only a few tanks per game world, allowing SOE to take their time with balancing them.

In fact we can expand this idea infinitely, and manage to build long term player engagement by forcing repetitive tasks for rewards instead of making the game play itself engaging.

I think we're on to something big/original here.

[JesNC]

massive vehicle combat is a selling point of this game also. taking it away would take away people and down the profits of the game. why not just start a poll and see where everyone stands?

This!

This isn't some BF clone, this is Planetside. If there aren't tons of vehicles around, what's the point?

[Deezy]

...But yes I of course know that all of these arguments are null and void once beta starts since then we have hard facts. Nonetheless people still enjoy discussing and arguing about things or else they wouldn't frequent a forum.

All I read was, "Yea, I know I'm trolling. People like feeding me, though. Why else would they read this stuff? (insert trollface here)"

[Lumberchuk]

So if its supposed to be 1 tank for 5-8 people that means that if grab a tank and go for a run in it and die. Then respawn, jump in someone else's tank and go for another run, and die again. Respawn get in a different person's tank die again...etc I'll have to do that 5-8 times before I get my own tank back? Considering there will be some driving time as well before you get to the fight, I highly doubt that it will be that much of a timer, unless your dying the moment you get into combat. Probably more like 1-3 runs with other people before I can spawn my own tank again.

I love driving vehicles in battlefield and on most maps I find it pretty easy to be a dedicated tank driver for a whole match, and it was no coincidence that MBTs was the first class service star I unlocked (even before infantry classes). If someone spends all their certs into a certain type of vehicle, why would there be a limit that only allows them to play it 1/5th of the time. I understand if your dying fast then there should be a limit to it, but if you get a decent amount of points per life, why shouldn't you be able to spawn another tank when you die?

I understand balance but I agree that it tank usage should be limited by terrain and situation. No matter how many certs I get I'm not gonna bring my Vanguard into a Bio Lab, or into a canyon guarded by tons of AV infantry. Battlefield did this well in that tanks are much more vulnerable in urban areas.

[Quantum Spices]

This!

This isn't some BF clone, this is Planetside. If there aren't tons of vehicles around, what's the point?

Exactly. This is Planetside 2. The possibility of hundreds of tanks or aircraft is part of what makes this game awesome. don't take that away.

[Sephirex]

Exactly. This is Planetside 2. The possibility of hundreds of tanks or aircraft is part of what makes this game awesome. don't take that away.

What do you guys think this is? Some sort of giant epic sci-fi battle?

[JesNC]

What do you guys think this is? Some sort of giant epic sci-fi battle?

I'm sorry, just trolling. You're right. My bad!

LFM Vanguard boss raid!!! Only BR20++. Bring your DKP!!!!1111

[kidwithstick]

Has OP even played planetside?

go play battlefield:rolleyes:

[ruskyandrei]

I'm sorry, just trolling. You're right. My bad!

LFM Vanguard boss raid!!! Only BR20++. Bring your DKP!!!!1111

Link achieve and cert-score !

[EVILoHOMER]

lol

No they shouldn't, it's like saying weapons should be rare in COD.

[Klockan]

We kind of solved this in previous discussions and threads with others regarding the resource system and playstyle balancing. The concept was rather simple. The developers would implement a meaningful upgrade model for vehicles apart from the sidegrades system that allows players to spend extra resources to specialize in a vehicle and directly make it more power or more versatile at the cost of resources. So while you might see a few stock tanks being pulled effortlessly, players that were skilled at staying alive would pull more sophisticated tanks. This relies on a concept of a universal playstyle resource sink (http://sirisian.com/planetside2/#Territory_and_Resources-Universal_Playstyle_Resource_Sink). That is grunts would spend resources being a grunt and tank drivers who spend resources being a good tank driver. The likelihood of seeing such a system isn't very high though since Higby has explained before how he wants certs to work, and he doesn't seem to want resource sinks other than grenades, medkits, and vehicles.
I agree, I would like there to be more resource sinks than just vehicles, grenades and medkits. The more sinks you have the more resources you can give the players without it going out of hand and resource management is fun.

I am not against dedicated drivers and such, I just don't see how the mechanics in PS2 can allow for dedicated drivers without unbalancing the whole resource system. If they had much more resource sinks as you suggest it would also work, as long as people need to think twice before spawning a tank.
Exactly. This is Planetside 2. The possibility of hundreds of tanks or aircraft is part of what makes this game awesome. don't take that away.
Now you idiot trollers have came back again. No, having a little tighter budgets than you had in PS1 wont take away the battles containing hundreds of tanks and aircraft. Why would it? It would however stop the battlefield from containing basically only tanks and aircraft all the time. With a resource system people still got the incentive to save resources for a large battalion of vehicles, while with basically free vehicles people would feel no need to go around as an infantryman among tanks and bombers. They would dismount when they got to the bases, but outside of bases everyone would be in their tanks/planes/whatever.

[JesNC]

Now you idiot trollers have came back again. No, having a little tighter budgets than you had in PS1 wont take away the battles containing hundreds of tanks and aircraft. Why would it? It would however stopping the battlefield from containing basically only tanks and aircraft.

Way to call names, man!

Have you read through the resouce gain analysis? If not, here you go. (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=40730)
Budget is tight, unless you put down real money.


If I'll have to grind resources for 2-3 hrs a week just to roll some tanks/sunderers on outfit nights I simply won't. I'm just going to steer clear from a game forcing me to do something I don't want to. Like grinding.

I'll have to say again: This is Planetside. I get that you're concerned about the viability of infantry in the open, but vehicles aren't some kind of bonus, they're one of the distinct features that differentiates this game from the likes of CoD/BF.

[Pillar of Armor]

uh... wtf? If you want to play an infantry game, go play battlefield, CoD, CS, TF or whatever. There are plenty of games that are infantry focused, we don't need another.

I play planetside because I can be a dedicated pilot and driver. It's what I enjoy and I don't want to play as infantry. In PS1 I hated when the battle went indoors. It's great to have a game that allows people like me to play how I want. If I find myself on foot more than in a vehicle, I probably won't play long.

[Raymac]

Now you idiot trollers have came back again. No, having a little tighter budgets than you had in PS1 wont take away the battles containing hundreds of tanks and aircraft. Why would it? It would however stop the battlefield from containing basically only tanks and aircraft all the time. With a resource system people still got the incentive to save resources for a large battalion of vehicles, while with basically free vehicles people would feel no need to go around as an infantryman among tanks and bombers. They would dismount when they got to the bases, but outside of bases everyone would be in their tanks/planes/whatever.

1) Even with free vehicles in PS1, you still see PLENTY of infantry in the field. 9 years of experience tells us we don't need to worry about that. Hell, with the better terrain in PS2, it looks like there will be areas even more advantageous for infantry.

2) Don't call us "idiot trollers" for saying vehicles shouldn't be rare when "rare" is the exact word in your title. If you didn't mean rare, then go to Thesaurus.com and pick the word you do mean before starting a thread.

[TheDAWinz]

Successful troll is successful

[Sephirex]

Needs more horses.

[TheDAWinz]

Needs more horses.

Or unicorns, that too.

[Klockan]

1) Even with free vehicles in PS1, you still see PLENTY of infantry in the field. 9 years of experience tells us we don't need to worry about that. Hell, with the better terrain in PS2, it looks like there will be areas even more advantageous for infantry.
As I have said countless times in this thread PS1 had dedicated driver classes who were disadvantaged outside of the vehicle, that isn't true in PS2. That changes everything.
2) Don't call us "idiot trollers" for saying vehicles shouldn't be rare when "rare" is the exact word in your title. If you didn't mean rare, then go to Thesaurus.com and pick the word you do mean before starting a thread.
If you don't read the OP and still post then you are an idiot. If you didn't understood what I wrote in my OP then you are also an idiot. Rare is not a strict term so you always have to ask for numbers to see what they mean, I gave you numbers so you got exactly all the information about what I mean.

Way to call names, man!

Have you read through the resouce gain analysis? If not, here you go. (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=40730)
Budget is tight, unless you put down real money.

If I'll have to grind resources for 2-3 hrs a week just to roll some tanks/sunderers on outfit nights I simply won't. I'm just going to steer clear from a game forcing me to do something I don't want to. Like grinding.
I don't argue that the resources should be scarce, I argue that they probably will be and then explain why that is a good thing given the current mechanics we know of. If you don't like the resources then we should remove them completely and make up some other system, not make them irrelevant like most in this thread seems to want.

[Sephirex]

Or unicorns, that too.

Unicorns will/should be rare.

[TheDAWinz]

As I have said countless times in this thread PS1 had dedicated driver classes who were disadvantaged outside of the vehicle, that isn't true in PS2. That changes everything.

If you don't read the OP and still post then you are an idiot. If you didn't understood what I wrote in my OP then you are also an idiot. Rare is not a strict term so you always have to ask for numbers to see what they mean, I gave you numbers so you got exactly all the information about what I mean.


Read the OP, Go die please. It would help the gene pool.

Unicorns will/should be rare.

Damn it! i was hoping for armies of unicorns! And one manned unicorns at it too!

[JesNC]

Or unicorns, that too.

"And that's how Equestria was built!"

[TheDAWinz]

"And that's how Equestria was built!"


Now you have to put my qoute in your sig! MUAHAHAHAHA

[Sephirex]

"And that's how Equestria was built!"


At least until the Sith showed up on their Decepticon Capital Warship.

You know what? Screw this.

I'm going to go make my own game.

[Klockan]

Read the OP, Go die please. It would help the gene pool.
I have read the OP. There I say that on average 80% of the population should be on foot. That doesn't mean that 80% of the population must be on foot at every given point of time and that there couldn't be deviations in this or that there couldn't be people who care enough about their vehicles that they can have them all the time. This 80% includes everyone in every facility and all other infantry only places. It isn't such a bad number and vehicles certainly wouldn't be rare with such a number, they would still be very prominent on every front. It is just that you would have lots of infantry mixed in as well.

[TheDAWinz]

At least until the Sith showed up on their Decepticon Capital Warship.

You know what? Screw this.

I'm going to go make my own game.

Can i join? You might need my power of 360 vision!

I have read the OP. There I say that on average 80% of the population should be on foot. That doesn't mean that 80% of the population must be on foot at every given point of time and that there couldn't be deviations in this or that there couldn't be people who care enough about their vehicles that they can have them all the time. This 80% includes everyone in every facility and all other infantry only places. It isn't such a bad number and vehicles certainly wouldn't be rare with such a number, they would still be very prominent on every front. It is just that you would have lots of infantry mixed in as well.

It means that whoever wants to be on foot will be on foot, and whoever wants to be a vehicle pilot then they will

You just got TheDAWINZED! Bow before me mortal

[JesNC]

There I say that on average 80% of the population should be on foot.

I don't even want to know where you pulled that number from. Some dark place I assume. 100% arbitrary.

But that's, like, your opinion man...

[Memeotis]

Your connection to the BF series is difficult to relate to, you should try and restructure it into something along these lines, in order to show what you mean with more concrete numbers.

Assuming your faction controls an exact third of all resource nodes across all continents and is therefore acquiring a third of all the different types of resources, how many minutes should it take to get the resources for the following vehicles?

Flash:
Sunderer:
Lightning:
Prowler/Vanguard/Magrider:
Mosquito/Reaver/Scythe:
Liberator:
Galaxy:

Here's an example and what I think it should be

Flash: 5 minutes
Sunderer: 60 minutes
Lightning: 20 minutes
Prowler/Vanguard/Magrider: 50 minutes
Mosquito/Reaver/Scythe: 30 minutes
Liberator: 60 minutes
Galaxy: 180 minutes

[SgtExo]

Your connection to the BF series is difficult to relate to, you should try and restructure it into something along these lines, in order to show what you mean with more concrete numbers.

Assuming your faction controls an exact third of all resource nodes across all continents and is therefore acquiring a third of all the different types of resources, how many minutes should it take to get the resources for the following vehicles?

Flash:
Sunderer:
Lightning:
Prowler/Vanguard/Magrider:
Mosquito/Reaver/Scythe:
Liberator:
Galaxy:

Here's an example and what I think it should be

Flash: 5 minutes
Sunderer: 60 minutes
Lightning: 20 minutes
Prowler/Vanguard/Magrider: 50 minutes
Mosquito/Reaver/Scythe: 30 minutes
Liberator: 60 minutes
Galaxy: 180 minutes

That sounds like a good amount to start with, and then balance it out in beta.

Also dont forget that you will earn extra resources by participating in game thru the mission system, fighting over bases and doing supportive actions. So that should help speed up the resource gain.

[GreatMazinkaise]

Your times to earn those resources are five times longer than they need to be, at minimum. People should be expecting to pop vehicles at nearly the same rate as in the old game, especially considering that vehicles already have a timer (vehicle specialist implant reduces it to five minutes on most of them).

Rare vehicles? Get hosed, hippies!

[Gimpylung]

I have read the OP. There I say that on average 80% of the population should be on foot. That doesn't mean that 80% of the population must be on foot at every given point of time and that there couldn't be deviations in this or that there couldn't be people who care enough about their vehicles that they can have them all the time. This 80% includes everyone in every facility and all other infantry only places. It isn't such a bad number and vehicles certainly wouldn't be rare with such a number, they would still be very prominent on every front. It is just that you would have lots of infantry mixed in as well.

Why 80%? How can you arrive at the proportion having never played the game. I have no idea what it should be btw, I've never played the game.

[SleepyZombie]

Without trying to join in the trolling going on.... has the OP played planetside 1? I mean really played not just like a hour of running around then quitting to go play something else.

Planetside was 50% about infantry
and 50% vehicle combat

Stop trying to change something that works already... planetside 1 was fun and if all goes well and half cocked ideas like making vehicles rare or putting a 3 hour re spawn timer on obtaining vehicles does not happen... then planetside 2 will be equally as fun

The old system worked... don't change it and by extension destroying my childhood obsession.

[Klockan]

Your connection to the BF series is difficult to relate to, you should try and restructure it into something along these lines, in order to show what you mean with more concrete numbers.

Assuming your faction controls an exact third of all resource nodes across all continents and is therefore acquiring a third of all the different types of resources, how many minutes should it take to get the resources for the following vehicles?

Flash:
Sunderer:
Lightning:
Prowler/Vanguard/Magrider:
Mosquito/Reaver/Scythe:
Liberator:
Galaxy:
I can't tell since I don't know the average lifetimes and which vehicles are linked through the resources. If the average tank lives for a minute it doesn't need to take that long to get another but if the average tank lives for an hour then they must be really expensive. But as I said on average I want there to be ~80% infantry if you count everyone on the map.

Your numbers feels fine as a start, a little too long on a few of those though but it depends on which are linked.

I would have it roughly like this, with the grouped things linked

Lightning: 15 min
Mosquito/Reaver/Scythe: 20 min

Flash: 3 min
Sunderer: 20 min
Galaxy: 30 min

Prowler/Vanguard/Magrider: 25 min
Liberator: 30 min

Personally I would have a different system where you could play more like you want but the current system only offers vehicles as a resource dump.

That would be active playtime, if there is a trickle during your offline time it should be roughly 1 minute per hour so you can get a vehicle instantly at the start of the day. Can at most save up ~60 minutes.
Without trying to join in the trolling going on.... has the OP played planetside 1? I mean really played not just like a hour of running around then quitting to go play something else.

Planetside was 50% about infantry
and 50% vehicle combat

Stop trying to change something that works already... planetside 1 was fun and if all goes well and half cocked ideas like making vehicles rare or putting a 3 hour re spawn timer on obtaining vehicles does not happen... then planetside 2 will be equally as fun

The old system worked... don't change it and by extension destroying my childhood obsession.
The old system is dead and buried already, without dedicated vehicle classes the PS1 variant doesn't really work. If you could chose to spend your resources on being a dedicated infantry and such then there would be a choice and it could work with giving people enough resources to spawn enough vehicles to be a dedicated driver. But as of now all you can practically spend your resources on are vehicles meaning that any infantry player would have resources through the roof.

[SleepyZombie]

Memeotis and Klockan

you understand a vehicle is not a raid boss right? It isn't some super armored power house that comes out and it takes a whole squad to take down. There are times, in fact LOTS of times were you are going to get a tank and spawn with it only to die in under 30 seconds by a lone infantry with a few rockets.

You guys seem to think your going to spend 30mins in one tank when truthfully starting out your going to be spending maybe 2 or 3 mins before you get blown up. Spawn timers like that will never work and will in fact make people very frustrated very fast and people will quit.

[Sephirex]

Memeotis and Klockan

you understand a vehicle is not a raid boss right? It isn't some super armored power house that comes out and it takes a whole squad to take down. There are times, in fact LOTS of times were you are going to get a tank and spawn with it only to die in under 30 seconds by a lone infantry with a few rockets.

You guys seem to think your going to spend 30mins in one tank when truthfully starting out your going to be spending maybe 2 or 3 mins before you get blown up. Spawn timers like that will never work and will in fact make people very frustrated very fast and people will quit.

QFT.

It's the balancing that's important. Not artificially created value.

[Sledgecrushr]

Driver/gunner rainbow ponies?

[Sephirex]

Driver/gunner rainbow ponies?

Tactical Rainbows.
Long Range 10x Scope Chainsaws.
Giant Spring Shoes.

[Bravix]

180 minutes on a galaxy? Really?

Thank God these guys don't work at SOE. I'd hate to think what would happen if they actually had influence on the game.

[Thunderhawk]

Memeotis and Klockan

you understand a vehicle is not a raid boss right? It isn't some super armored power house that comes out and it takes a whole squad to take down. There are times, in fact LOTS of times were you are going to get a tank and spawn with it only to die in under 30 seconds by a lone infantry with a few rockets.

You guys seem to think your going to spend 30mins in one tank when truthfully starting out your going to be spending maybe 2 or 3 mins before you get blown up. Spawn timers like that will never work and will in fact make people very frustrated very fast and people will quit.

This .....

Stop assuming vehicles are the be all and end all, they get blown up fairly quickly, and it would be really frustrating to try to have a mammoth air / tank battle only to find you cant field more than 10 tanks because the rest are on cooldown......

Seriously guys, you haven't even played the game yet, so just wait and see.

[KTNApollo]

Vehicles won't be rare. They will be everywhere.

/thread

[Flaropri]

QFT.

It's the balancing that's important. Not artificially created value.

Indeed. Making vehicles rare for the sake of rarity isn't a good thing, it's about finding that fine balance between expense, cost, effect, and ensuring that there are ways to deal with it via skilled gameplay even when at a relative disadvantage rather than making any one strategy overwhelming vs. any other strategy.


That said, Pegasus are overpowered, even my Unicorn can't take them down easy.

[The Kush]

From the other threads I have read it seems like people believe that everyone will be able to get a tank or plane at will and that the resources will only limit abuses.

Have anyone of you guys played battlefield 2, 2142 or 3? Then you would know that on each battlefield map there are 1-6 combat vehicles on each side while there are 32 players on each side. That means at most there is 1 vehicle per 5 players at any one time and then vehicles respawns slower than infantry. Now as you all probably know PS2 have drawn a lot of inspiration from the battlefield series which would mean that we would have roughly as rare vehicles.

No, this isn't a problem. The battlefield series thrived on having a low vehicle count. There are tanks and planes, but ~80-90% of the manpower is on foot. The only ones who will whine about that are stuck up PS1 vets who wants to drive around in a tank or a plane 24/7.

You are wrong.

The devs have specifically said they want everyone to play the game they want to. You don't get to decide what someone else does with their time, if you want to drive a tank 24/7 you can drive a tank 24/7.

This is not battfield. This is planetside.

Please take your troll threads elsewhere your intelligence is rather sad.

[Kayos]

Vehicles won't be rare. They will be everywhere.

/thread

QFT, this will be the way it is.

[Klockan]

You are wrong.

The devs have specifically said they want everyone to play the game they want to. You don't get to decide what someone else does with their time, if you want to drive a tank 24/7 you can drive a tank 24/7.

This is not battfield. This is planetside.

Please take your troll threads elsewhere your intelligence is rather sad.
If you are so smart, can you tell me the point of having resources when they don't limit anything you do?

[GreatMazinkaise]

If you are so smart, can you tell me the point of having resources when they don't limit anything you do?

To keep bad players from constantly spawning tanks... like any obstacle in a well designed game a resource cost can be overcome by skill.

[Sephirex]

If you are so smart, can you tell me the point of having resources when they don't limit anything you do?

Cooldown prevents vehicle spam in assaults/defenses and create a clear winning/losing side as one side loses more vehicles then the others, but is not meant to cause a general lack of vehicles in the field. Resources prevents a player from just rolling every vehicle he doesn't have on cooldown, and also rewards smart long term vehicle use.

[Raymac]

Klocken, if you play Planetside 1 for a little while, you'll see how well infantry work along side vehicles and realize that you are worrying about a non-issue. Huge open areas, vehicles have the advantage. Rough, cluttered terrain, infantry have the advantage. It's worked great for 9 years.

[SleepyZombie]

If you are so smart, can you tell me the point of having resources when they don't limit anything you do?

Planetside 1 had a small respawn timer that would incur if you were spamming vehicles. There were also points to fight over to have access to some specific vehicles. Resources is just another way to give back that aspect of the game, fighting over points for access to more specific vehicles.

Again please play planetside 1, it is going to be hard for you to argue the mechanics of a game you have never played.

[Klockan]

To keep bad players from constantly spawning tanks... like any obstacle in a well designed game a resource cost can be overcome by skill.
How is that different from my system? Most are noobs and will quickly lose their tanks, if you let your tank survive 5 times longer than the average noob then you can keep being in vehicles indefinitely with my model of having 80% of the players on foot.
Cooldown prevents vehicle spam in assaults/defenses and create a clear winning/losing side as one side loses more vehicles then the others, but is not meant to cause a general lack of vehicles in the field. Resources prevents a player from just rolling every vehicle he doesn't have on cooldown, and also rewards smart long term vehicle use.
You would have a point except to do that all you would need is to link the cooldowns for all vehicles and the problem is solved. Also for this to be valid they would need to have a single resources for all vehicles, instead they delinked the resource to only buy ~2 vehicles each. Everything points towards you being wrong on this.

Planetside 1 had a small respawn timer that would incur if you were spamming vehicles. There were also points to fight over to have access to some specific vehicles. Resources is just another way to give back that aspect of the game, fighting over points for access to more specific vehicles.

Again please play planetside 1, it is going to be hard for you to argue the mechanics of a game you have never played.
But since resources aren't limiting why would you fight over them? You still have a cooldown that is even longer than the cooldown in PS1, so either the resources are redundant or they are very limited compared to PS1 game play where the vehicles also lived longer so the difference is even larger. Also I am familiar with PS1, why do you think that I am not? Just because I don't share your opinion?

Klocken, if you play Planetside 1 for a little while, you'll see how well infantry work along side vehicles and realize that you are worrying about a non-issue. Huge open areas, vehicles have the advantage. Rough, cluttered terrain, infantry have the advantage. It's worked great for 9 years.
In PS2 the tank have the advantage everywhere though. Why? Because you can just jump outside and you are an infantry while they have the AT weapon up, so just shoot them down. Also unlike PS1 most classes in PS2 can't even kill armored targets making the matchup even more skewed, while in PS1 every footsoldier could do basically everything except for driving a vehicle, which was the main reason he didn't drove one. If they could drive without sacrificing their infantry power they would.

[Sephirex]

How is that different from my system? Most are noobs and will quickly lose their tanks, if you let your tank survive 5 times longer than the average noob then you can keep being in vehicles indefinitely with my model of having 80% of the players on foot.

You would have a point except to do that all you would need is to link the cooldowns for all vehicles and the problem is solved. Also for this to be valid they would need to have a single resources for all vehicles, instead they delinked the resource to only buy ~2 vehicles each. Everything points towards you being wrong on this.


But since resources aren't limiting why would you fight over them? You still have a cooldown that is even longer than the cooldown in PS1, so either the resources are redundant or they are very limited compared to PS1 game play where the vehicles also lived longer so the difference is even larger. Also I am familiar with PS1, why do you think that I am not? Just because I don't share your opinion?

It seems like everyone agrees on why the system are in place. The argument seems to be on what extent should resources/timers prevent tanks/aircraft on the field, so bickering about why resources are in the game does nothing.

[SleepyZombie]

I am not sure you are very familiar with ps1, it isn't because you don't share my opinion it is because I feel like you don't understand the mechanics that were in place and worked in ps1.

The resources are not very limited in ps2 I can guarantee that... The only reason they are there is to one... give an alternative reason to fight for a point of strategic importance. And 2 to prevent people from spawning 100 tanks for no reason to just leave them where they lay.

Not to incur a penalty on "noobs" as I think you so elegantly put it for dying to fast.
Everyone starts out as a "noob" there should be nothing wrong with that.... they should get to play the game like the rest of us. Not denied an aspect of the game until they get better.

Ah and to add to that without a double post.... How is a "noob" going to get better flying a galaxy with a three hour re spawn timer on it?

[Klockan]

It seems like everyone agrees on why the system are in place. The argument seems to be on what extent should resources/timers prevent tanks/aircraft on the field, so bickering about why resources are in the game does nothing.
My point is that they don't want the resources to limit people from playing only tanks, only aircraft etc. But if they don't limit you from spawning a tank every time you lose your last one, then it doesn't limit anything at all and you could just as well have a system with only cooldowns. Thus the resource system needs to be more limiting than the cooldown system, so you can't spawn 10 tanks in an hour even if you techncically could do it with the cooldowns the resources wouldn't last that long. But for some reason people here seems to think that you should be able to spawn 10 tanks an hour or so. But if you can do that then the resource system doesn't do anything at all. I hardly believe that the devs would put a lot of time on working on a useless system so it must be more limiting than that.

[TheDAWinz]

We should rename this to battles will/should be rare, because this is what he wants.

[Sephirex]

We should rename this to battles will/should be rare, because this is what he wants.

Time to start that Inter-Empire Bingo Club.

[Klockan]

The resources are not very limited in ps2 I can guarantee that... The only reason they are there is to one... give an alternative reason to fight for a point of strategic importance. And 2 to prevent people from spawning 100 tanks for no reason to just leave them where they lay.

Who cares about getting more resources when they got more than they can spend? Also the cooldown system prevents people from spawning 100 tanks for no reason. You should be familiar with it from PS1, yes it is still there in PS2.

Ah and to add to that without a double post.... How is a "noob" going to get better flying a galaxy with a three hour re spawn timer on it?
I didn't put it at 3 hours, know who you argue with.

[TheDAWinz]

Time to start that Inter-Empire Bingo Club.

Sounds good to me! B4! Yes territory taken! Bingo got the continent! Might as well make guns and grenades rare too.

[SleepyZombie]

Who cares about getting more resources when they got more than they can spend? Also the cooldown system prevents people from spawning 100 tanks for no reason. You should be familiar with it from PS1, yes it is still there in PS2.

So you are assuming there is no cap on the max resources you have? The resource system does two things without penalizing new players or even older veterans from dying as soon as they spawn with a vehicle.

How do you not understand this is a better system than a re spawn timer?

[Klockan]

So you are assuming there is no cap on the max resources you have? The resource system does two things without penalizing new players or even older veterans from dying as soon as they spawn with a vehicle.

How do you not understand this is a better system than a re spawn timer?
But we already got a respawn timer of 15 minutes. Don't you know anything at all about PS2? If you can't even spend all your resources by spamming vehicles every time the cooldown is up, why then even have the resources? No, the resources needs to be more limiting than once every 15 minutes since otherwise they would be redundant and we would only be left with the cooldown system.

[Sephirex]

So you are assuming there is no cap on the max resources you have? The resource system does two things without penalizing new players or even older veterans from dying as soon as they spawn with a vehicle.

How do you not understand this is a better system than a re spawn timer?

He doesn't care about the respawn timers/resources. He wants 80% infantry in the field, that's his preference, and no one is going to convince him otherwise.
Can we end this pointless thread?

[Klockan]

He doesn't care about the respawn timers/resources. He wants 80% infantry in the field, that's his preference, and no one is going to convince him otherwise.
Can we end this pointless thread?
No, I care about those things. I care about crap arguments with no substance. I think that the developwers want 80% infantry on the field, but I don't know that. I would like that too. But what I argue about is the evidence that you can't spawn a tank at a whim, but it will be rather limited. People seems to try to ignore said evidence, I don't really understand why. I really detest when people don't make rational observations and instead just see what they want to see.

[TheDAWinz]

He doesn't care about the respawn timers/resources. He wants 80% infantry in the field, that's his preference, and no one is going to convince him otherwise.
Can we end this pointless thread?

Never! Also your a vanu yet you have a space marine pic, especially a chapter who are the most xenophobic Heretic!

[Wakken]

I'm not fully convinced either way on this. I just want to point out, that nothing stops a player that went into Tanks a lot from also going into infantry a lot, since there are no limits to Certifications. Unlike in PS1, nothing (except maybe consumables like Grenades costing resources) stops a dedicated tank player from being just as well certified/equipped as a dedicated infantry player (and vice versa).

Agreed, but its annoying if a player absolutely want to specialize into a specific vehicle role, but cant simply because of how the currency and cooldowns work. making him practically forced to play something he doesnt want to play.

[SleepyZombie]

But we already got a respawn timer of 15 minutes. Don't you know anything at all about PS2? If you can't even spend all your resources by spamming vehicles every time the cooldown is up, why then even have the resources?

Would you please figure out your argument? I am explaining to you why the the resources are there. Your original argument was you want the vehicles to be rare and the way about going about it is put a ridiculous re spawn timer on the vehicle.

[SgtExo]

I do think that their will be a resource cap, and thus you will only have enough resource for x amount of a certain vehicles for what you gain in 24 hours. This should be enough to supply you with as many vehicles as you need in a average play thru, but if you needlessly waste it, you will have to tough it out. But doing mission and helping your squad with objectives will be a secondary source of resource and will raise the number of vehicles you will be able to pull by how effective you are in your squad position.

[Sephirex]

Never! Also your a vanu yet you have a space marine pic, especially a chapter who are the most xenophobic Heretic!

So? I enjoy playing sides with fanatical, religious beliefs? Zealots are so much scarier then soldiers, Vanu being no exception.

[Wakken]

What if there was a driver/pilot class that could barely have any armor/weapon, but the cooldowns are much lower on vehicles and they cost no currency?

[Klockan]

Would you please figure out your argument? I am explaining to you why the reason the resources are there. Your original argument was you want the vehicles to be rare and the way about going about it is put a ridiculous re spawn timer on the vehicle.
No, the current PS2 version have a 15 minute respawn timer on vehicles. People already played with that build. It is already in the damn game. It is not my opinion, it is a fact. The current respawn timer is 15 minutes!!!!!!!! Read it and understand.

What if there was a driver/pilot class that could barely have any armor/weapon, but the cooldowns are much lower on vehicles and they cost no currency?
That could work. Would need some fleshing out though.

[Sephirex]

No, the current PS2 version have a 15 minute respawn timer on vehicles. People already played with that build. It is already in the damn game. It is not my opinion, it is a fact. The current respawn timer is 15 minutes!!!!!!!! Read it and understand.

It's also been pointed out multiple times that those who cert and use implants towards tanks will have negligible respawn times.

[TheDAWinz]

So? I enjoy playing sides with fanatical, religious beliefs? Zealots are so much scarier then soldiers, Vanu being no exception.

The God emperor will show no mercy!

[SgtExo]

This discussion is even more hostile than the driver/gunner one.

[Zar]

He doesn't care about the respawn timers/resources. He wants 80% infantry in the field, that's his preference, and no one is going to convince him otherwise.
Can we end this pointless thread?
agreed tank's and air will not be rare >.< cause alot the game mechanic's will kinda depend on them. will you be able to roll around like you can lose it with no penalty? no if you die 5 minutes out you will either be missing a tank for 15-20 min's or spawn another one after the timer is up and be broke >.< better off going ground for a few minutes then getting back to the tank.

[Wakken]

It's also been pointed out multiple times that those who cert and use implants towards tanks will have negligible respawn times.

Any word if this applied to currency too? Will they cost less and less the more you cert into a vehicle?

[SgtExo]

Any word if this applied to currency too? Will they cost less and less the more you cert into a vehicle?

No word on that yet.

[Klockan]

It's also been pointed out multiple times that those who cert and use implants towards tanks will have negligible respawn times.
Yes, with certs it goes down to 5 minutes, but that wasn't the argument. The resources must have an impact even om the people who didn't take said certification, thus the resource gain needs to be slow enough that you can't spawn vehicles every 15 minutes. Also making certs multiply the amount of vehicles you can pull by a factor 3 would make them way too powerful to be a cert, certs should be sidegrades and very small boosts. Thus I believe that they just reduce the cooldown and don't affect the cost.

[Sledgecrushr]

Death to the false emperor and the terran republic.

[Sephirex]

The God emperor will show no mercy!

If the God Emperor follows me into Planetside 2, I think we're all dead.

[SleepyZombie]

No, the current PS2 version have a 15 minute respawn timer on vehicles. People already played with that build. It is already in the damn game. It is not my opinion, it is a fact. The current respawn timer is 15 minutes!!!!!!!! Read it and understand.


That could work. Would need some fleshing out though.

I find that the more explanation points a person uses the more and more angry he really is. there was a re spawn timer in ps1 as well i am sure there will be one in ps2 too that's fine and dandy but it still does not change the fact that resources add an extra dimension to the game.

You want the vehicles to be rare... people are telling you the system is already setup to make it hard enough to obtain a vehicle. This apparently isn't enough for you.

what do you want from us Klockan! Tell us so that we may understand...

[Zar]

Death to the false emperor and the terran republic.

This planet is ours Smurf!

[Eyeklops]

The way this works is:

1. A Large group of players get vehicles and attack another large group of players in vehicles.
2. The terribad vehicle players get blowed up by the good vehicle players and are recycled as terribad infantry.
3. The good vehicle players then farm the newly spawned terribad infantry for lulz.

Now eventually, once all the terribads are out of vehicles and have major spawn penalties, the side with the most/best good players pushes around the other sides good players.

Now why does this matter? Because recent statistics published by CWGF* says that approximately 80% of the the general FPS crowd are terribads. That means that 8 out of 10 players will lose their vehic and become infantry shortly after the fight starts. See..no problem.


*Center for Who Gives a Fuck

[Klockan]

You want the vehicles to be rare... people are telling you the system is already setup to make it hard enough to obtain a vehicle. This apparently isn't enough for you.

what do you want from us Klockan! Tell us so that we may understand...
No, you misunderstand. I don't say that I want vehicles to be rare, I am saying that vehicles will be rare. People don't believe me, then I put out a lot of evidence, then I get a lot of strange replies like yours right now. Also I am not angry, I was just slightly frustrated by your lack of reading comprehension.

[Zar]

I find that the more explanation points a person uses the more and more angry he really is. there was a re spawn timer in ps1 as well i am sure there will be one in ps2 too that's fine and dandy but it still does not change the fact that resources add an extra dimension to the game.

You want the vehicles to be rare... people are telling you the system is already setup to make it hard enough to obtain a vehicle. This apparently isn't enough for you.

what do you want from us Klockan! Tell us so that we may understand...

90% sure he wants bfside so his leet twitch skill's will mean more. since tank's don't have head's he will have to have friend's with rocket launcher's and tactics =x also Nothing is set in stone in the game it change's every day lol we just started closed beta tech test's game's change a lot in beta's tank's may be rarer or less rare then they are in this build or the next

[Wakken]

No, you misunderstand. I don't say that I want vehicles to be rare, I am saying that vehicles will be rare. People don't believe me, then I put out a lot of evidence, then I get a lot of strange replies like yours right now. Also I am not angry, I was just slightly frustrated by your lack of reading comprehension.

You should have worded the title of the thread better, I think most misunderstandings come from the "should" that you put in there.

The way this works is:

1. A Large group of players get vehicles and attack another large group of players in vehicles.
2. The terribad vehicle players get blowed up by the good vehicle players and are recycled as terribad infantry.
3. The good vehicle players then farm the newly spawned terribad infantry for lulz.

Now eventually, once all the terribads are out of vehicles and have major spawn penalties, the side with the most/best good players pushes around the other sides good players.

Now why does this matter? Because recent statistics published by CWGF* says that approximately 80% of the the general FPS crowd are terribads. That means that 8 out of 10 players will lose their vehic and become infantry shortly after the fight starts. See..no problem.


*Center for Who Gives a Fuck

But why should they be "punished" by being forced to get into the infantry role if they dont want to, why restrain someone from playing the way they wants? They wont get any better if they dont get the chance of playing the way they like

[SleepyZombie]

No, you misunderstand. I don't say that I want vehicles to be rare, I am saying that vehicles will be rare. People don't believe me, then I put out a lot of evidence, then I get a lot of strange replies like yours right now. Also I am not angry, I was just slightly frustrated by your lack of reading comprehension.

So your approach to proving a point is become insulting? You are right... you are on a much higher intellectual level than me.

I don't honestly think you even know what you want... I think you made a post because you were bored thinking people would agree with your battlefield approach to a game you have limited to no understanding of. Now you are spending hours constantly back peddling everything you have said because in truth you don't know the first thing about balance or how to keep a mild calm composure in the face of opposing opinion.

There is a reason you are not developing planetside 2 and I for one am glad that reason exists.

Now I am just going to become one of the bias masses who just doesn't care to see your side... huur durr :doh:

Sorry we couldn't have an adult conversation

[ThermalReaper]

Here's why Planetside 2(or any game that has vehicles) vehicles should NOT function like battlefield 3/bad company 2.

...Because if you hadn't noticed, Helicopters, jets and other vehicles are easily camped by lots of people, specially the birgirpall wannabes who keep going solo c4 with tanks, transport choppas and jeeps. It'll be downright impossible if someone wants to be a dedicated pilot/driver if vehicles just spawn randomly depending on whether you are the fastest one to enter, and the skill of the current jet/heli/tank driver.

If there is something that should have a big resource cost, it'll probably be the galaxy.

I wouldn't be surprised if this had already been mentioned.

[lolroflroflcake]

A tank is supposed to dominate the outdoors and this game isn't just about running around on foot with the occasional tank or airplane in support, its about their being massive numbers of everything. Its as much a tank and dog-fighting FPS as it is an infantry FPS. And for the record I would like to point out that someone flying a plane or driving a tank in the original Planetside is just as capable of jumping out and kicking ass as they seem to be in PS2.

Limiting a entire two thirds of gameplay is a stupid idea and I'm fairly certain a good 99% of the population here know it, so really your thread seems written to deliberately cause hostility.

If not there are plenty of other games for you to play, but I hope you stay with Planetside and learn to like it for what it is; because it is the very fact that there are no limits to how many tanks, planes or lemmings on foot, (just kidding of course), your allowed to have that make it awesome.

[Wakken]

Why does everyone want more resource cost on stuff... poor dedicated vehicle players.. :/

[SleepyZombie]

A tank is supposed to dominate the outdoors and this game isn't just about running around on foot with the occasional tank or airplane in support, its about their being massive numbers of everything. Its as much a tank and dog-fighting FPS as it is an infantry FPS. And for the record I would like to point out that someone flying a plane or driving a tank in the original Planetside is just as capable of jumping out and kicking ass as they seem to be in PS2.

Limiting a entire two thirds of gameplay is a stupid idea and I'm fairly certain a good 99% of the population here know it, so really your thread seems written to deliberately cause hostility.

If not there are plenty of other games for you to play, but I hope you stay with Planetside and learn to like it for what it is; because it is the very fact that there are no limits to how many tanks, planes or lemmings on foot, (just kidding of course), your allowed to have that make it awesome.

QFT

But hey I am just a "The only ones who will whine about that are stuck up PS1 vets who wants to drive around in a tank or a plane 24/7." My reading "Comprehension" is pretty low as well.

[ThermalReaper]

Heh. This is sort of off topic BUT, if the vehicles get the stupid thermal optics, auto lock on missiles and all that "the gear does the job for you" crap, I'm certainly going to be pissed.

[SleepyZombie]

Heh. This is sort of off topic BUT, if the vehicles get the stupid thermal optics, auto lock on missiles and all that "the gear does the job for you" crap, I'm certainly going to be pissed.

Meh auto lock missiles wouldn't be bad depending on the down side to them. The fact that aircraft get flairs makes me giddy.... That was one thing I wished so much to have in ps1.

[TerminatorUK]

I think the resource cost (especially aircraft) coupled with the fact that the Sunderer / Galaxy look pretty solid + the numbers of people about might see the return of lots of public transport again...

[Klockan]

So your approach to proving a point is become insulting? You are right... you are on a much higher intellectual level than me.
I never said that I was on a higher intellectual level than you. I do however read peoples posts before replying so that I understand what they say. You obviously have dismissed me before you even started arguing making this whole ordeal rather pointless. But luckily I like pointless discussions so it is fine.

I don't honestly think you even know what you want... I think you made a post because you were bored thinking people would agree with your battlefield approach to a game you have limited to no understanding of. Now you are spending hours constantly back peddling everything you have said because in truth you don't know the first thing about balance or how to keep a mild calm composure in the face of opposing opinion.
Nope, I knew that this would happen. I wouldn't post a thread where I expect people to agree with me, that would be boring. Why would you want to say something that everyone already thinks? That would seem kinda useless to me.

There is a reason you are not developing planetside 2 and I for one am glad that reason exists.
Yup, game development is not really a lucrative occupation compared to what you could have done with similar credentials. Also you should be happy, I would probably have less restrictions. 15 minute respawn timer seems a bit harsh, but it could be good for the success of the game.

Now I am just going to become one of the bias masses who just doesn't care to see your side... huur durr :doh:

Sorry we couldn't have an adult conversation
If you don't even try to have an adult conversation from the start then it gets hard to have one. If you don't even read what the opponent writes in a discussion then it isn't a discussion, then it is just you trying to lecture me. But your arguments failed since you don't know anything about PS2 so now you just try to attack me as a person.

[SleepyZombie]

"No, this isn't a problem. The battlefield series thrived on having a low vehicle count. There are tanks and planes, but ~80-90% of the manpower is on foot. The only ones who will whine about that are stuck up PS1 vets who wants to drive around in a tank or a plane 24/7."

I still don't think you know what you are talking about lets do some math shal we?

90% infantry
6000 population server
600 vehicles
2000 per faction
200 vehicles per side
10% of your game time will be in a vehicle

I think you should re think your original post.....
You know just as little about planetside 2 as we all do
You cannot take from what you saw in a demo area 1/100th the size of the actual map with superimposed ideas "re spawn timer AND resource" and claim "OH! Vehicles will be rare! Not only that only 10% of the population should have them!"

I doubt there will be a 15 min re spawn timer on release of the game.... I am fairly sure it was there because there was no stopping the players of e3 and other places from spawning an over abundant amount of tanks/aircrafts

I don't really know why I am still replying to you when you are an obvious troll, maybe i am just optimistic about your evolution.

[Quantum Spices]

Klockan, you're concerned about vehicles dominating everything in PS2. Don't be. everything will be all right, the devs are on top of things.

[Landtank]

Is this thread real life? Go watch the gameplay videos, even Higby's stream. Vehicles will not be rare, and they shouldn't be, they are half, if not more, of the game. Higgles was playing with ~100 people and we saw him with two other tanks multiple times.

The idea of making vehicles rare is really pretty stupid, this is a large scale war game, and having vehicles adds multiple layers to the game asides from simple infantry combat.

I want infantry to rule the indoors, like they should, and vehicles to rule the outdoors, like they should.

You claim other people don't know anything about PS2, but you yourself know very little, if anything ,about the game judging by your latest post and your original post.

If I look outside a window of a base under attack, I want to see 20+ aircraft in the sky and 20+ tanks shelling each other, who the hell wouldn't?

Higby has also stated NUMEROUS times that currently for beta they are planning on a 5+ minute cooldown, but those who cert into a specific vehicle can lower the cooldowns to next to nothing so that they can be dedicated drivers.

Soooo /thread

[KTNApollo]

For those wondering about vehicle cooldowns, yes, they are in the game. Higby said there will be a cert for "dedicated drivers" to reduce the cooldowns to negligible amounts for spawning vehicles.

Sauce : http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/wju1y/a_ps1_beta_testers_impressions_of_ps2_after/c5dy2zw

[SleepyZombie]

Is this thread real life? Go watch the gameplay videos, even Higby's stream. Vehicles will not be rare, and they shouldn't be, they are half, if not more, of the game. Higgles was playing with ~100 people and we saw him with two other tanks multiple times.

The idea of making vehicles rare is really pretty stupid, this is a large scale war game, and having vehicles adds multiple layers to the game asides from simple infantry combat.

I want infantry to rule the indoors, like they should, and vehicles to rule the outdoors, like they should.

You claim other people don't know anything about PS2, but you yourself know very little, if anything ,about the game judging by your latest post and your original post.

If I look outside a window of a base under attack, I want to see 20+ aircraft in the sky and 20+ tanks shelling each other, who the hell wouldn't?

Higby has also stated NUMEROUS times that currently for beta they are planning on a 5+ minute cooldown, but those who cert into a specific vehicle can lower the cooldowns to next to nothing so that they can be dedicated drivers.

Soooo /thread
QFT

This guy is smart

Even if he is a NC

[Wakken]

Klockan, you're concerned about vehicles dominating everything in PS2. Don't be. everything will be all right, the devs are on top of things.

I thought it was the opposite of that, he that infantry will be dominating everything in PS2 :shrug:

[Maarvy]

You are thinking too much in PS1 terms here. Have you see the PS2 bases? People have complained that vehicles are too viable in them, the only thing you would get if people can have as many vehicles they want is that everyone uses vehicles outside bases and to get to bases while they jump out to get to infantry only areas. Also if 80% of the manpower is on foot you will not feel left out in battles between bases since most others are also on foot, being on foot is only a problem when everyone else have tanks and planes.

Edit: I am not saying that vehicles should be like they are in Bf games with just a set number being spawned, I am saying that the resource system should be roughly as limiting in terms of quantity as the BF series. Ie there should be 1 vehicle per 5-8 people.

The only footage we have seen in bases has been disorganized players at a games convention , getting inside one vs organized outfits will involve a lot of additional player built deffence .

Once theres tanks driving around your base you should be considering wtf you did wrong and how your gona do it better at the next base back .... and you better do it quick because that armarda of tanks if coming !

Just to be clear i support Readily available vehicles , not to the point where you can be a numpty and loose a BT every 5 mins . But available to the point where every right minded player can pull whatever they cert'd at most times .

[Klockan]

I doubt there will be a 15 min re spawn timer on release of the game.... I am fairly sure it was there because there was no stopping the players of e3 and other places from spawning an over abundant amount of tanks/aircrafts

No, there were no spawn timer for E3, I am talking about the community event that was held a few days ago which was running with a more recent build.

Higby has also stated NUMEROUS times that currently for beta they are planning on a 5+ minute cooldown, but those who cert into a specific vehicle can lower the cooldowns to next to nothing so that they can be dedicated drivers.

Soooo /thread
Source please. I think he is talking about certing it down to 5 minutes, not certing it down from 5 minutes.

Is this thread real life? Go watch the gameplay videos, even Higby's stream. Vehicles will not be rare, and they shouldn't be, they are half, if not more, of the game. Higgles was playing with ~100 people and we saw him with two other tanks multiple times.
Watch Higbys stream video, how long is he in a vehicle and how long is he running around as a soldier? I counted 7 minutes in a vehicle and ~24 as an infantry. Clearly they are promoting this game as a vehicle game.

PlanetSide 2 - TwitchTV stream of Matt Higby - YouTube

[JesNC]

I would have it roughly like this, with the grouped things linked

Lightning: 15 min
Mosquito/Reaver/Scythe: 20 min

Flash: 3 min
Sunderer: 20 min
Galaxy: 30 min

Prowler/Vanguard/Magrider: 25 min
Liberator: 30 min


Here we go, that sounds reasonable. Not this 80% crap you spewed earlier. Thumbs up! :cool:

I'm just going to expand on your ratio idea, so you can stop calling me a troll:

Let me just paraphrase you words, since I can't be arsed to quote (correct me if I'm wrong):

"There will be 80% of the players playing as infantry at all times."

Right, so in a 100vs100 engagement there will be around 40 vehicles total. Sounds about right. A bit on the low side IMO, but that's just me. No issues there.

Now, you're saying resource generation/cost should be balanced around that ratio. That's going to change a lot. Now it's basically saying:

"Joe Average is forced to play 80% of his time as infantry at all times."

That means for every hour Joe Average plays as a tank driver, he has to play 4 hrs as infantry just to get the required resources. Now if Joe Average can only play weekday evenings for an hour tops, he's going to roll a tank once a week. Which is bullshit. Well, hypothetical bullshit, but anyway.

[EisenKreutzer]

[..] Watch Higbys stream video, how long is he in a vehicle and how long is he running around as a soldier? I counted 7 minutes in a vehicle and ~24 as an infantry. [..]

Do you really think that video snippet was supposed to convey the idea that the game is infantry focused?

Personally, i think it was a guy dicking around in Planetside 2.

I don't think that video is anything to go on.

[Klockan]

Do you really think that video snippet was supposed to convey the idea that the game is infantry focused?

Personally, i think it was a guy dicking around in Planetside 2.

I don't think that video is anything to go on.
But landtank wanted me to watch it so that I would understand that the game was vehicle focused. Wasn't my argument.

Here we go, that sounds reasonable. Not this 80% crap you spewed earlier. Thumbs up! :cool:
With how short the average player will keep their vehicle alive I think that those numbers would keep the vehicle spam down quite a lot.

[Sephirex]

But landtank wanted me to watch it so that I knew that the game was vehicle focused. Wasn't my argument.

Problem with the quote system is it's easy to lose track of the original point when people jump in the middle of the conversation.

And yes I totally agree, Klockan, TR golf carts should be nerfed, no matter what Landtank says.

/donottakethispostseriously.

[EisenKreutzer]

But landtank wanted me to watch it so that I knew that the game was vehicle focused. Wasn't my argument.

In that case, my apologies.

I'd still like an answer form anyone who in fact does think that video proves anything about the game, beyond that it supports dicking around.