Please remove Vehicle seat swapping.

[Buggsy]

With much less health of course it goes faster to repair.

Arbitrary

[Figment]

With much less health of course it goes faster to repair.

So you're saying you can't vary repair speed, just hitpoints by design? ;p


Come on Klockan, you're better than that. :)

[Klockan]

So you're saying you can't vary repair speed, just hitpoints by design? ;p


Come on Klockan, you're better than that. :)
That's the point, you don't repair faster in BF games than PS, you just had less health. Or you can say that you repair faster as a percentage of the HP which is what Buggsy must have meant. If you went out to repair after each single hit in PS then it wouldn't take long either, it is just that PS tanks can take 10 times the abuse BF tanks can.

[Ranik Ortega]

Instant swap CANNOT happen. Having someone use the main gun on a liberator until someone actually starts chasing them isn't particularly fair or fun.The solution is varying swap speeds depending on vehicle.
Buggies 3-5 seconds (whenever they are added)
Tanks 5-7 seconds
Aircraft 7-10 seconds

Big roomy vehicles have faster switch time while armored tanks have slower change time and aircraft which are cramped as all hell have the most. (with exception of the galaxy)

[ParisTeta]

If there is seat swapping, 3 manned Liberator for example will be rare, why have three, when both can fill both jobs? Over the Target, you need a gunner, when you attack you need a tailgunner and don`t have time anyway for shelling the ground.

And the reason " you need do vert into it" is really weak, because eventually everyone will have that cert!

[Revanmug]

If there is seat swapping, 3 manned Liberator for example will be rare, why have three, when both can fill both jobs? Over the Target, you need a gunner, when you attack you need a tailgunner and don`t have time anyway for shelling the ground.

And the reason " you need do vert into it" is really weak, because eventually everyone will have that cert!

What? As far as I know, nothing stop enemy air unit from attacking you when you are flying over land target. You know... when you need the main gun.

Not sure where people get that logic that only when traveling from area to area that the tail gunner is useful. I know it might sound crazy but where there is an enemy base to shell, there might be air fighter too.

[ParisTeta]

Self Defense over Mission Goal. Thats how it will be, the most effective way is to use twoman libs, and more of them, then a few threeman one, and if you need cover, sarcefice one lib for 2 Reaver/Mossi/Scythe.

[Revanmug]

Self Defense over Mission Goal. Thats how it will be, the most effective way is to use twoman libs, and more of them, then a few threeman one, and if you need cover, sarcefice one lib for 2 Reaver/Mossi/Scythe.

But this has nothing to do with hot swapping since you are going to do that anyway. All you are saying is that the tail gunner is useless comparing to what a real fighter brings.

[Azren]

People, stop dealing only in extremes; to have seat swapping or not... Why not both? It's so simple.

Air vehicle

Pilot can change seats when landed.
Passanger can change seat during flight, but it takes X seconds longer than on ground.


Ground vehicle

Driver can change seats when stationary.
Passanger can change seat while mobile, but it takes Y seconds longer than on ground.


For both

Every seat swapping increases the time the next one will require. This extra delay is removed over time.

[Redshift]

A 2 man lib will will function the same as a 3 man lib in a "1v1" fight, if the target be air or ground based. A 2 man lib will also fail horribly in a full scale battle. It will either die rapidly to air threats...etc....

Most libs in PS1 roll out 2 man as is they do get shot down if they pick up a mossie but there's so much AA around mossies aren't normally allowed to follow them for too long.

Libs will still roll out 2 man in PS2, the only difference now is they'd be able to help fight off that mossie.

Rarely does or will anybody use that 3rd seat, seat swapping would bury it's use completely

[PilotJack]

Fully agree with this thread. Hotswapping is lame, and was never in PS1. It also never needed to be, so why now? If you're going to keep hotswapping, make it so the person has to have the required certs to do so.

[Buggsy]

I wonder if you could solo a liberator. Point the gun straight forward and down, quickly switch to 2nd position fire, get back into pilot's seat and fly off.

Might be OP.

[Xyntech]

I wonder if you could solo a liberator. Point the gun straight forward and down, quickly switch to 2nd position fire, get back into pilot's seat and fly off.

Might be OP.

Clegg almost succeeded in doing this in one of the videos. If he had been at a little higher of an altitude he may have succeeded. Seat swapping was instant at the time though, so even a second delay on swapping would probably make the tactic be exponentially more difficult. The player would also have to aim and fire as quickly as possible since their time would be limited.

As long as seat swapping isn't instant (even when you have fast swapping certed), I think it will be alright. If someone was still able to pull it off, it would take a lot of skill, and still not be as effective as 2 players who could keep up a steady bombardment while flying perfectly steady.

[Novice bot]

My issue lies with the insta-bailing out. people will exploit it, your aircraft is about to go boom, no problem, just hit the exit button.

[PilotJack]

Again the insta bail is easy to counter. If they employ the same feature as in planetside 1, it will work fine. For those who don't know, when an aircraft got to a certain amount of hp, the occupants couldn't bail out because of the bailing mechanism failure. They should bring this into planetside 2 definitely.

[ParisTeta]

You get credit for the vehicle kill also, so bailing isn`t that bad. Thats another topic though.

@Azren: This makes seat swapping still the same problem, only more complex rules (which in this case is bad).

When landed grounded one could argue it`s like manualy duing it, but with leaving the vehicle, you are exposed and danger, so it`s not that good of an option.

[Klockan]

Most libs in PS1 roll out 2 man as is they do get shot down if they pick up a mossie but there's so much AA around mossies aren't normally allowed to follow them for too long.

Libs will still roll out 2 man in PS2, the only difference now is they'd be able to help fight off that mossie.

Rarely does or will anybody use that 3rd seat, seat swapping would bury it's use completely
There is a huge difference though, PS1 liberators and aircav were free, an extra aircav were better than a rear gunner and since those two had equal costs you just picked an extra aircav. From what we have seen in PS2 you wont be able to spawn as much aircav as you want so there will likely always be someone willing to take that seat since it is usually better than being a footsoldier.

[Blackwolf]

This is one of those annoyingly pointless conversations. Seat swapping is in, OK? Deal.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Unless seats are physically separated by a wall, or a cockpit or something... You SHOULD be able to swap seats.

But I agree with Blackwolf. This is another one of THOSE threads :P Lots of pointless arguing to be had here, no doubt.

[Ratstomper]

Animations.

I would like enter/exit animations....what about seat swapping animations? for vehicles you cant see into, just have a delay.

[Buggsy]

This is one of those annoyingly pointless conversations. Seat swapping is in, OK? Deal.

The AH is in Diablo 3, OK? Deal.

The NGE is in SWG, OK? Deal.

Yeah we be dealing.

[Blackwolf]

The AH is in Diablo 3, OK? Deal.

The NGE is in SWG, OK? Deal.

Yeah we be dealing.

Diablo 3 was boring crap anyway. And so was SWG. Terrible choices there bub.

Seat swapping adds another element to the game. Instead of taking out a defenseless gunnerless tank, you now have to worry about it whether or not it has 2 people in it. And that's the real problem isn't it? No more free kills because now things make sense and desperate soldiers can quickly shift from drivers seat to gunner's position and shoot back.

Personally I like the system now. I didn't at first, but then I remembered how effing annoying it was when a gunner bailed from a Galaxy and we now had 1 less gunner available to defend ourselves unless we freaking parked a 300 ton bird and someone got out and got back in because somehow the stupid thing had a modular design.

And it is epic hilarious how you suggest that this one minor game mechanic will kill the entire game. A F2P game. ZOMG doom death fly zapper from hell! Where's that rolleyes emote? Oh yeah here it is :rolleyes:

[Ranik Ortega]

Useless crap

As people have suggested REPEATEDLY. Seat swapping is ok with a delay. Feel free to ignore most of the thread though.

[Blackwolf]

more crap

I've seen more arguments about this then you have years. The thread is about removing it, whether a delay is added or not is something that could be brought up in beta but not something that should be randomly discussed now with zero physical data to back up either side.

This entire conversation is pointless. No conclusion will ever be found. And no one is going to change anyone else's mind with objective truth here.

Use your brains and think about what you say before you go judging someone else's point.

[Ranik Ortega]

Yet more useless crap

Read the thread before making blanket statements about how everyone wants it removed rather than toned down to an acceptable level. Physical data is one thing but some shit is bad enough to smell before it even comes out.

[GhettoPrince]

Yep...19 pages of people screaming about whether dudes should be able to walk around inside tanks.

http://i.imgur.com/zEcmW.jpg
The answer is yes.

I hope they start beta soon. This forum has gone pants on head retarded since the tech test began.

[Ranik Ortega]

Yep...19 pages of people screaming about whether dudes should be able to walk around inside tanks.

http://i.imgur.com/zEcmW.jpg
The answer is yes.

I hope they start beta soon. This forum has gone pants on head retarded since the tech test began.

The question people are really asking is why is it instant? If it had a small delay this conversation wouldn't be happening. Neat picture by the way.

[HeatLegend]

/Signed

With an exception of making it take at least five seconds. The same goes for entering/exiting vehicles.

[Flaropri]

With an exception of making it take at least five seconds.

I really think people don't quite realize how long a second is in an FPS.

Even 3 seconds is pushing it, let alone the 5-12 I've seen people suggest.

I mean, my position is that it should be as long a delay as it takes infantry to switch weapons, but ultimately I'm willing to negotiate a bit; but 5 seconds?

Maybe if the TTK was really long but... so far that isn't the case.

As long as hotswapping is in the game, it should at least be VIABLE (but not optimal).

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Read the entire thread? Are you out of your mind, Ranik?

Seat swapping is fine, as long as it takes a couple seconds. Note: Unbuckle, switch seats, and buckle back up, in just a couple seconds. 3-5 seconds is all that's required.

[Huntsab]

Hot swapping seats is a terrible idea. 2000 players per map. There will be no shortage of gunners. The team element is being ignored here. Play any public Battlefield server (even BF1942) and you will often see drivers just peeing off with a tank, for example, leaving the team behind. There is no better way of ensuring team play than to force the driver and gunner to work together. If you wann run solo in a tank there is already a solution...The Lighting. See solved everyone happy.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Hot swapping seats is a terrible idea. 2000 players per map. There will be no shortage of gunners. The team element is being ignored here. Play any public Battlefield server (even BF1942) and you will often see drivers just peeing off with a tank, for example, leaving the team behind. There is no better way of ensuring team play than to force the driver and gunner to work together. If you wann run solo in a tank there is already a solution...The Lighting. See solved everyone happy.

It's not being ignored... Seat swapping has nothing to do with this. It's not a game breaking issue that undermines team play. It's a practicality thing. I can switch seats in my car. See? I just proved the idiocy of this argument in a nutshell. Instantaneous seat swapping is a bad idea, because I cannot TELEPORT to another seat in my car. But just saying NO because.... of whatever. That's equally silly.

[Blackwolf]

I like to edit people's quotes because I think it makes me look funny or hysterical or hysterically funny or some shii. Meanwhile all I'm really doing is demonstrating serious attention span issues and total disregard for other people's opinions.

I'm sure people without lives would love to read the whole thread. But I tend to read the subject, and the first page or two. Then I post my comment.

The subject is "Please remove vehicle seat swapping" and the first 2 pages are a bitch fest.

My response? Wait for beta. This problem is no worse then the drop pod problem as far as "on paper" goes. In fact, I don't see how anyone can honestly claim to see a major issue that has to be fixed at this immediate point in time without any sort of data on it.

A delay would do diddedly squat, it wouldn't solve a non-existent problem because solving non-existent problems is impossible. What do you think a 5 second delay would actually do? Except make the seat swapping concept entirely pointless that is. Which, I bet, is your goal in the first place isn't it? Tank has no gunner, he has to spend 5 seconds jumping into the gunner seat of his tank in order to fend off the AV aircraft flying over his head shooting rockets at his ass. 5 seconds and that tank is dead dude, never mind the time it takes to reorient yourself once you swap to the gunner seat and acquire your target.

This is why I hate compromises. Person A always has some "brilliant" suggestion that would solve all problems! But never takes the time to really think about it. DEVs are the ones that have to think about it, and they do their thinking based on hard data, not some couch developer who hasn't even played the damn game yet.

And hell, I wouldn't care one way or another if they added a delay, makes my intended job that much easier. Frankly though, I see no reason for it. No point or excuse or tears shed because of it. And chances are if I was the tank, I'd shoot you with the main gun rather then bother with a 3-5 second delay to switch to the AA gun.

[Littleman]

Hot swapping seats is a terrible idea. 2000 players per map. There will be no shortage of gunners. The team element is being ignored here. Play any public Battlefield server (even BF1942) and you will often see drivers just peeing off with a tank, for example, leaving the team behind. There is no better way of ensuring team play than to force the driver and gunner to work together. If you wann run solo in a tank there is already a solution...The Lighting. See solved everyone happy.

Yeah... that doesn't guarantee teamwork, that's forcing a driver to potentially haul around a 20/4000 vision kill whore (I'm saying the guy may not hit $#!%.)

Teamwork happens outside of the tank even more so than it happens within the tank. A lone tank, no matter how many people are working it, is just a big target waiting to get trashed.

Read the entire thread? Are you out of your mind, Ranik?

Seat swapping is fine, as long as it takes a couple seconds. Note: Unbuckle, switch seats, and buckle back up, in just a couple seconds. 3-5 seconds is all that's required.

The year is 2800-something and we still haven't connected weapons systems to the same console, making access to them as easy as flipping a switch?

I know, I know... it's a balance thing to have a timer in. :p Something of a punishment for going in half-manned.

[Zulthus]

A delay would do diddedly squat, it wouldn't solve a non-existent problem because solving non-existent problems is impossible. What do you think a 5 second delay would actually do? Except make the seat swapping concept entirely pointless that is. Which, I bet, is your goal in the first place isn't it? Tank has no gunner, he has to spend 5 seconds jumping into the gunner seat of his tank in order to fend off the AV aircraft flying over his head shooting rockets at his ass. 5 seconds and that tank is dead dude, never mind the time it takes to reorient yourself once you swap to the gunner seat and acquire your target.


That's exactly what we all want... you should be fucked if you didn't take a gunner. You shouldn't just be able to alternate between AV and AA taking out threats as they come along. If there wasn't a delay, why would you ever want to have a gunner?

[Blackwolf]

That's exactly what we all want... you should be fucked if you didn't take a gunner. You shouldn't just be able to alternate between AV and AA taking out threats as they come along. If there wasn't a delay, why would you ever want to have a gunner?

Because I like being able to move when someone is shooting at me? I dunno, seems kinda dumb to leave the driver's seat. Especially when I have this nice 150mm cannon to shoot you with and blow half your jet away. Call me crazy.

If I had the instant seat swapping thing, I'd STILL focus on shooting you with the cannon. Because blowing half your health away in one shot is a FAR better way of scaring you off then jumping to an AA turret, rotating the turret to aim at you, then try to pull off a miracle in killing you before you destroy my stationary ass.

Wait for beta, you've no idea how long it will take to kill a tank with a bird and no idea if the instant seat swapping will actually generate a problem that needs correcting. You and everyone else in this thread are over reacting to doomsday theories and it needs to stop.

[SixShooter]

/Signed

With an exception of making it take at least five seconds. The same goes for entering/exiting vehicles.

Holy shitballs thats a long time. Climbing into tanks in PS1 was maybe 2 seconds tops, 5 seconds is an eternity:eek:

[vVRedOctoberVv]

The year is 2800-something and we still haven't connected weapons systems to the same console, making access to them as easy as flipping a switch?

I know, I know... it's a balance thing to have a timer in. :p Something of a punishment for going in half-manned.

Actually, you make a valid point there. Remote controlled weapons already exist on armored vehicles. A good example close to home are some of the Striker variants, even some Humvees have remoted controlled weapons. My arguments against single/low crew vehicles are evaporating. Although I think most should still require at least two people to be effective, from the standpoint, of whether or not it's POSSIBLE... Actually, if they split your screen, I would have no objection to it. A real one man tank would have a forward viewer displaying direction of travel, and then his targeting computer.

[GreatMazinkaise]

If you can effectively multicrew any vehicle by yourself without screwing yourself over, then that's a measure of player skill. If you can't outfight a solo tanker or solo Lib in a fully crewed vehicle then your crew sucks... this is an imagined problem.

[Blackwolf]

Actually, you make a valid point there. Remote controlled weapons already exist on armored vehicles. A good example close to home are some of the Striker variants, even some Humvees have remoted controlled weapons. My arguments against single/low crew vehicles are evaporating. Although I think most should still require at least two people to be effective, from the standpoint, of whether or not it's POSSIBLE... Actually, if they split your screen, I would have no objection to it. A real one man tank would have a forward viewer displaying direction of travel, and then his targeting computer.

Getting too complicated there.

A1 Abrams' command seat can take control of any and all aspects of the tank at will without changing his seat. It's right there.

But the point isn't realism here. The point is people wanting to implement rules in order to make their intended job easier. Or because they have some silly notion that everyone has to play the game the way they play it. Getting irritating.

Worst of all are the doomsday people claiming that some minor aspect of a F2P game will break it for whatever reason. "OMG PEOPLE CAN CHANGE SEATS INSTANTLY IN THIS GAME! THIS GAME SUCKS! I'M NEVER PLAYING THIS GAME AGAIN!"...

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Getting too complicated there.

I agree :) I was just running with the idea


But the point isn't realism here.

It is to me. I already mentioned I like realism

The point is people wanting to implement rules in order to make their intended job easier. Or because they have some silly notion that everyone has to play the game the way they play it.

Can't argue with this.

Worst of all are the doomsday people claiming that some minor aspect of a F2P game will break it for whatever reason.

DEFINITELY can't argue with this.

1234 (required characters, because in the quote don't count)

[typhaon]

I'll wait til I see how things start to play out in the Beta.. but I think the concerns are certainly valid.

I feel like 2 (or 3) people cooperating in a MBT should generally be the most powerful choice... 2/3 people each with their own MBT, or with other light vehicles... should generally be quite a bit weaker (except for certain tactical situations).

I'm not sure that's how things are set, right now.

[Novice bot]

At least on wiki's galaxy, it states that quick seat swapping and bailing out are up gradable perks.

[proxy]

If you can effectively multicrew any vehicle by yourself without screwing yourself over, then that's a measure of player skill. If you can't outfight a solo tanker or solo Lib in a fully crewed vehicle then your crew sucks... this is an imagined problem.

I have disagreed with this gentleman before, but I agree with him here.

This is a non issue; most multiperson vehicles will not be at full capability without a full crew compliment. If you can get near it with less, good on you.

[GreatMazinkaise]

I have disagreed with this gentleman before, but I agree with him here.

This is a non issue; most multiperson vehicles will not be at full capability without a full crew compliment. If you can get near it with less, good on you.

I'm not sure I agree with some of my old opinions; having started playing modern games I have begun to appreciate the differences (free time playing PS Live also hasn't been all that rosy, tbh).

What is core to my belief in general is that if one player is dominating groups of people that have access to the same tools, the problem is not with the single player, it is with the group. Having a high skill cap (whatever that means for the game genre in question) for individuals is a good thing. If your "teamwork" can't beat them then you're just a bad team.

[Flaropri]

If there wasn't a delay, why would you ever want to have a gunner?

Mobility.
Battle-field awareness.
Conservation of resources while maintaining firepower.
Letting people focus their certs on something other than vehicles (albeit this may only matter for the first few months of play for some players).
It's fun to work with a direct partner (at least for many people).
If you lose your vehicle too early you can use your partner's spawn timer instead of being stuck on foot.

There are a lot of reasons why you'd want to actually fill your crew positions even if there were still no delay on hotswapping. I'm sure I've missed a few.


EDIT: Formatting for legibility: fun for the whole family.

[Ranik Ortega]

At least on wiki's galaxy, it states that quick seat swapping and bailing out are up gradable perks.

5 second seat swapping trainable down to 2-3 seconds sounds good.

[Brusi]

5 second seat swapping trainable down to 2-3 seconds sounds good.

seat swapping... ey?

how about seat swapping takes 5 seconds and gives you aids IRL, trainable down to 2-3 seconds, with herpes.

Seat swapping in air vehicles just gives you a deadly aneurism, but trainable to down-syndrome.

[Tuoweit]

I take it that the people against seat-swapping feel that it doesn't take any skill to do so effectively? I mean, generally this is the reason that these kind of discussions take place.

I don't believe so. I don't think anyone here is arguing that individual skill should be unrewarded. It's rewarded in PS1 with combat experience for kills and so on.

Disclaimer beforehand, I haven't played PS1 myself. [...] It's a bit silly really and I'm genuinely surprised there is a discussion about this.
In every other game that involves multi-seat vehicles seat swapping is completely fine.

From my perspective, there's a couple of factors, both rooted in PS1 so if you haven't played that then I can understand why it's not immediately obvious.

One has to do with the whole player-power design in PS1. In the PS1 frame of reference, hot-swapping seats in an MBT or Liberator would be like having your cake and eating it too, because the power of the tank or liberator cert (compared to, say, an infantry weapon cert) is balanced against the fact that you need at least one other player to man the vehicle with you. Compare to a foot soldier who has a man-portable AV weapon, he is totally outclassed by either the tank or the Liberator. Against the one-man stuff like the Lightning, or a MAX, the foot soldier at least stands a chance with his AV, given good tactics. However if you were to suddenly have one-man MBTs roaming the field, regardless of whether they can stand against a fully-manned MBT or not, the certification power balance is thrown way off. It just rubs me the wrong way.

In PS2, of course, that balance problem doesn't exist since you can use any vehicle or weapon without certs - but the gut reaction of what is "balanced" remains.

Second, and related, PS1 was always more about the large scale than individual performance, and operational decisions over tactical advantage. Sure, some guys could be really good with their chosen weapons or vehicles, but ultimately one person not sway things very much through sheer application of force (with a few exceptions - the much-maligned Orbital Strike,
for example, or a well-timed rear-area generator kill which could be accomplished solo, but the latter required excellent timing and coordination with the main battle elements to be a real tide-turner). This lack of individual sway through firepower is mostly because of, as I described above, the firepower available to any one player is actually rather limited in comparison to the battle. Being in the right place at the right time was a much more significant factor, and one guy in the right place could prevent what was initially a small probing hack on a continent from escalating into a massive invasion.

Dramatically increasing the amount of available firepower to a single individual (by introducing hot-swapping, for example), regardless of how much extra skill that may require to pull off, seems on the surface to favour more the style of modern shooters, where one person can indeed single-handedly win a firefight for his team through leet skillz, even if the other side had the better planning/organization/logistics/all that good stuff that made the PS1 battlefield experience what it was and allowed one faction to win over another even though they were attacking against equal numbers and defensible positions. In other words, fear of getting my ass kicked by action heroes with no operational or strategic sense to speak of - and having that actually matter in the larger scale of the battle. ;)

Anyways this is all from thinking about my perspective as someone who doesn't really like the idea of hotswapping on first glance (but I'm willing to wait to see how it pans out in beta), I can't say I speak for anyone else.

[BlueSkies]

fear of getting my ass kicked by action heroes with no operational or strategic sense to speak of - and having that actually matter in the larger scale of the battle. ;)


It feels like this is at the root of a number of recent threads (this thread, the TTK thread, etc).

Give it a chance though. Operations and Strategy in PS2 are going to be a lot different from those we developed in PS1 (regardless of seat swapping or TTK).

[PilotJack]

Seat swapping issues aren't necessarily aimed at tanks, more at liberators and 2 man aircraft. Soloing with a tank when there's a gunner slot is silly yes, but not "game changing". However being able to solo a lib with an AT cannon on the back is. We'll have idiots everywhere solo flying libs and as mentioned, will ruin any aspect of team play. Just get rid of it, we never had it in planetside 1 so why do we need it now?

[Klockan]

Seat swapping issues aren't necessarily aimed at tanks, more at liberators and 2 man aircraft. Soloing with a tank when there's a gunner slot is silly yes, but not "game changing". However being able to solo a lib with an AT cannon on the back is. We'll have idiots everywhere solo flying libs and as mentioned, will ruin any aspect of team play. Just get rid of it, we never had it in planetside 1 so why do we need it now?
We don't need it now, it just enhances gameplay with very few drawbacks. A solo lib are way less than half as effective as a double manned lib so they are not at all viable except for the lulz. It enhances gameplay since it makes the game feel more responsive. Bad responsiveness have killed many games.

[Kran De Loy]

Honestly I don't see the problem still.
I mean..

I want to be able to change seats inside a vehicle without being forced to get out or stop the vehicle.
I do not want that change to be instantaneous.

Like PilotJack just said, MBT's aren't really the shining example to use for the issue, it's more about the Air Cavalry. Being capable of dive bombing a spot without crashing a Liberator probably does take extraordinary skill, but it is not something that should ever be allowed to happen in a teamwork/war-machine centric game like PS2 is shaping up to be.

That in mind I'd like to reiterate that "Being capable of dive bombing a spot without crashing a Liberator probably does take extraordinary skill." I seriously doubt too many people would be able to pull it off with how tough the physics (not the controls) on Aircraft are now.

[Redshift]

it just enhances gameplay with very few drawbacks.

The issue comes in the numbers, you roll 3 2-manned libs or 2 3-manned libs, unless having a dedicated tail gunner makes a huge difference (which it didn't in PS1) then two manned libs will work better.

[Klockan]

The issue comes in the numbers, you roll 3 2-manned libs or 2 3-manned libs, unless having a dedicated tail gunner makes a huge difference (which it didn't in PS1) then two manned libs will work better.
But that costs more resources, as have already been said. The resource restriction in this game will probably make it more common to fill your vehicles while in PS1 you just filled the best seats and then let the rest open.

[Redshift]

But that costs more resources, as have already been said. The resource restriction in this game will probably make it more common to fill your vehicles while in PS1 you just filled the best seats and then let the rest open.

There's no way the resource restriction is going to stop two people from pulling a constant stream of libs, if it does then it won't make it past beta,

[Klockan]

There's no way the resource restriction is going to stop two people from pulling a constant stream of libs, if it does then it won't make it past beta,
That is your assumption, if we assume that they can't then you don't have as much problem with this, right? Other than that arguing is kinda pointless if we go by different assumptions.

[EisenKreutzer]

There's no way the resource restriction is going to stop two people from pulling a constant stream of libs, if it does then it won't make it past beta,

You can't be certain of either of those things, because you haven't played the game yet.

Beta will tell all.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

There's no way the resource restriction is going to stop two people from pulling a constant stream of libs, if it does then it won't make it past beta,

If you can pull a constant stream of vehicles, then the whole resource thing is kind of moot, huh? It's safe to say it will probably NOT be like this, since there ARE resources.

While we're all just pulling stuff out of our ass to argue about that has no basis in reality, I want to lodge a formal complaint about TR guns. I think they all need a buff, and the other two factions need a nerf. I don't have any reason to think this, other than just because.

[The Loverator]

Please keep Seat swapping.





Thanks.





greetings, LV. :wave:

[Envenom]

I'm a long time Battlefield player, since Vanilla 1942 and every game since... And honestly, though I love seat switching, i'd like to see them drop it for PS2.

There are some totally valid points in this thread. Seat switching is harmful to teamwork. I know this as a fact-- I NEVER wait for another player in BF3 when I drive tanks. If I need to shoot an aircraft or use the top gun I'll simply switch on the fly. Always. I'd like to see more depth in PS2 and hope they remove seat swapping.

It's time to promote actual teamwork.

[Sledgecrushr]

I think by limiting seat switching with a short timer will make teamwork more appealing. Just forcing a no seat switch policy is kind of a turn off.

[Huntsab]

I'd like to see you swap seats, traveling at speed, alone. Mr Red October. Here's hoping PS3 shares the same vision as PS1. PS2 devs cannot play the game for toffee. Did anyone see the live stream with Higby and T-ray? Shocking the lack of knowledge they had for the game. I bet they know how to play generic shooter war shooters though. You know the watered down clones of each other.

[Revanmug]

I'm a long time Battlefield player, since Vanilla 1942 and every game since... And honestly, though I love seat switching, i'd like to see them drop it for PS2.

There are some totally valid points in this thread. Seat switching is harmful to teamwork. I know this as a fact-- I NEVER wait for another player in BF3 when I drive tanks. If I need to shoot an aircraft or use the top gun I'll simply switch on the fly. Always. I'd like to see more depth in PS2 and hope they remove seat swapping.

It's time to promote actual teamwork.

Few things...

1- The top mg on bf3 tank are pretty much useless against aircraft. Stick to the main gun.
2- Pug and unlimited ammo. Except of course if you like people firing everywhere constantly
3-Top MG is good against infantry sure... but more importantly, it spots things way more easily but BF3 doesn't have any kind VOIP to help communicate with each other. Except if you are with friend in vent/ts/mumble or whatever, you lose the biggest advantage it gives...
4-Again, VOIP for any other teamplay like repair bitch.

I keep seeing : BF3 doesn't have teamplay blablabla... Well of course, there aren't any tools for the common people for it. Restriction isn't what make teamplay possible. It is those social tools that help communication that will make teamplay a possibility.

[Flaropri]

There's no way the resource restriction is going to stop two people from pulling a constant stream of libs.

If it doesn't, perhaps it should? Not like you can't increase the timer and resource cost to make it much more viable for 3-people to support constant lib play over 2.

[maradine]

I keep seeing : BF3 doesn't have teamplay blablabla... Well of course, there aren't any tools for the common people for it. Restriction isn't what make teamplay possible. It is those social tools that help communication that will make teamplay a possibility.

360 BF3 has built-in inter-squad VOIP. It is extremely serviceable, and makes vehicle management a breeze.

[Redshift]

If it doesn't, perhaps it should? Not like you can't increase the timer and resource cost to make it much more viable for 3-people to support constant lib play over 2.

If the resources actually meant you couldn't afford to pull a vehicle each "life" (assuming you don't smash it straight into a tree in 5 seconds) then they would force you to footzerg in a map designed for vehicles... that's bad design. So i'm sticking with the idea and unless you're blowing your lib up as soon as you pull it, 2 of you will easily be able to keep them coming.

[Flaropri]

If the resources actually meant you couldn't afford to pull a vehicle each "life" (assuming you don't smash it straight into a tree in 5 seconds) then they would force you to footzerg in a map designed for vehicles... that's bad design. So i'm sticking with the idea and unless you're blowing your lib up as soon as you pull it, 2 of you will easily be able to keep them coming.

Did I say Vehicle? I thought I said Liberator.

There are multiple resources tied to different vehicles. Liberators share resources with some vehicles, but their spawn timers are their own, and several vehicles use entirely different resources... and if you have 3 players, you SHOULD be able to pull Libs consistently for at least a decent amount of time assuming you aren't terrible.

Obviously, if your crew is skilled and can consistently keep Libs alive than that would extend the time... and if you constantly crash in the first 60 seconds than likewise you'll have issues even with 3-crew (assuming the other 2 would stick to it in spite of you crashing and/or the battle being extremely hostile to air).

The trick is balancing it so that 2-crew Libs are having enough problems with resources and/or timers that they'd want a 3rd both to increase the Libs individual capabilities and to have consistent Lib spawn capability. It would still be viable to use 2-crew libs, but it wouldn't replace 3-crew libs as the optimal load-out.

And yes, I do think that if you die fast enough often enough (and not just within 5 seconds, but I couldn't guess at appropriate times for this since the game isn't balanced yet) you should lose your vehicle privileges for a time, and either suck it up and get in a transport or use Gal/Squad spawns, or point out to your team-mates that "hey, maybe we should conserve resources more so we don't have to go on foot."

[Revanmug]

360 BF3 has built-in inter-squad VOIP. It is extremely serviceable, and makes vehicle management a breeze.

Amusing that PC doesn't have that... so amusing.

PC: lead platform of BF3! ... I feel like blasting console but I'll keep that elsewhere.

[Landtank]

Did I say Vehicle? I thought I said Liberator.


Liberator is a vehicle, is it not? So his argument still applies completely.

[Flaropri]

Liberator is a vehicle, is it not? So his argument still applies completely.

No, it doesn't. Not being able to spawn a specific vehicle as an individual doesn't mean that everyone will have to Footzerg, it means they use different vehicles, or get into someone else's vehicle.

[Ranik Ortega]

Timer + Some resource cost = you pulling a vehicle
Extra mods and shit = Resource cost

Regardless I think this may be getting off topic

[maradine]

Amusing that PC doesn't have that... so amusing.

PC: lead platform of BF3! ... I feel like blasting console but I'll keep that elsewhere.

The short answer is probably that it's free with the platform and they already have all the design patterns for implementation in their pocket. I was also surprised when I heard the PC implementation didn't have anything.

The PS2 VOIP is from the same people that did the EVE VOIP, which almost no one uses. I consider that more of a failure of the interface and inertia than a knock against the engine, but we'll know very shortly.

[BorisBlade]

Please keep vehicle swapping.

Solo practitioners will not be able to deal with two threat classes at once.

Rarely do you have air and ground on ya at once, if ya do you are dead most likely anyway. What he and the rest of us mean is if you are, for example, fighting a tank then an aircraft comes in. You can magically instantly switch to AA meaning your main gun might as well just have an AA alt mode on it, there is no difference. You can instantly switch and take out the air then instantly switch back to the main gun for anything else. Same with any vehicle or weapon combo. You are a one man army. You have all the guns and can drive on top of that.

Whether you can do em at the same time is not really an issue, its whether you have the ability to instantly switch at any time to both AA/AV (or AI if you choose). Thats lame, and a huge flaw in those other standard boring FPS games. PS1 was the first to finally get it right with fixed vehicle slots and loading. Its really sad to see em keep sliding back into old sub standard gameplay mechanics. They should be going forward like they do with the improved infantry gun mechanics, and then building on forward with what PS1 had pioneered and finally got right. Battlefield is the old way, we dont need to copy that dinosaur.

Honestly this is far more important than enter/exit animations. Although its all part of the same thing. We should get the animations and fixed slots all in one patch.

[Klockan]

PS1 was the first to finally get it right with fixed vehicle slots and loading. Its really sad to see em keep sliding back into old sub standard gameplay mechanics.
Nah, they just copied what was popular at the time (Halo, which incidentally is older than the BF series). Now they just continue with that tradition.

[Katanauk]

I don't mind the whole instantly magically appear in seat of vehicle thing . . . but seat swapping is just poor form. I hope that rubbish gets removed.

[GreatMazinkaise]

There's nothing inherently wrong with a one man army. The issue at hand is that the three man army that already enjoys a numerical advantage over the one man army thinks that there numbers should be an auto win. Tough cookies, if the sum of a group's parts isn't up to the task of taking out one man your group is full of bads.

[Ranik Ortega]

There's nothing inherently wrong with a one man army. The issue at hand is that the three man army that already enjoys a numerical advantage over the one man army thinks that there numbers should be an auto win. Tough cookies, if the sum of a group's parts isn't up to the task of taking out one man your group is full of bads.

Oh please. That's an awful example.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with say an HA guy noticing a single man tank firing his AA gun in the air and wanting to exploit the vulnerability to put a couple of rounds into that tank without the enemy instant switching to the driver seat and blowing the shit out of him.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with say an aircraft trying to put a couple of rounds into the tanks on the ground without having multiple tanks just stop and switch to AA almost as effectively as a 2 man tank.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with a Mosq/Reav/Scyt chasing down a liberator bombing ground troops trying to get a few shots into the rear of the liberator before the bomber instant switches to the tail gun.

FFS don't try and create bull stories about multi man vehicles fearing for their lives versus solo vehicles. It makes you look silly. If they are going to under man a multi person vehicles their needs to be some downside other than having to stop and instant switch. A 4 second timer than can be certed down to 3-2 seconds is such a downside that doesn't screw over people who lose their gunner mid trip. Make a compromise not retarded strawmen.

[GreatMazinkaise]

The downside is lack of mobility, something that really sucks for AA. As is I predict the MBTs will be better AA than the Lightning in the open due to the fact that they can move and shoot. You should always assume that a vehicle is fully manned and not worry about attempting to exploit its vulnerabilities.

The more likely happening is that seat switching takes a couple seconds and gets certed down to instantaneous. Also, why the hell should I make a compromise? I'm not making the game or trying to please any of you... and there's no reason the developers would give a lick one way or the other what any of us say.

[Ranik Ortega]

The downside is lack of mobility, something that really sucks for AA. As is I predict the MBTs will be better AA than the Lightning in the open due to the fact that they can move and shoot. You should always assume that a vehicle is fully manned and not worry about attempting to exploit its vulnerabilities.

The more likely happening is that seat switching takes a couple seconds and gets certed down to instantaneous. Also, why the hell should I make a compromise? I'm not making the game or trying to please any of you... and there's no reason the developers would give a lick one way or the other what any of us say.

A lack of mobility means nothing when you are the guy popping over that ridge to fire a missile and can only get one shot off before the tank is active and hunting him. A lack of mobility means nothing when that bomber switches to tail gun after a few measly rounds into the tail. A lack of mobility means nothing to that aircraft as he is not likely to finish off the tank in one pass and is about to suffer near instant revenge AA fire.

You should always try to fully man a vehicle and not worry about being able to exploit and instantaneously switch seats.

If you are ok with 2 seconds then why not leave it at that being the lowest it can go?

[Klockan]

Oh please. That's an awful example.
Your examples are quite absurd as well.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with say an HA guy noticing a single man tank firing his AA gun in the air and wanting to exploit the vulnerability to put a couple of rounds into that tank without the enemy instant switching to the driver seat and blowing the shit out of him.
Just don't stand where the barrel is aiming and the tank is harmless even with seat swapping. When the barrel slowly starts turning against you then move away behind a rock. Also 2 rounds kills the tank so if you shoot it once from behind, move behind a rock and then move forward to shoot it again most likely you win since the tank wont find you in that time.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with say an aircraft trying to put a couple of rounds into the tanks on the ground without having multiple tanks just stop and switch to AA almost as effectively as a 2 man tank.
If you as an aircraft are trying to attack several tanks alone then you are an idiot. Even if you didn't know of instant seat switching the AA guns could still be manned without you knowing. If they aren't fully manned you are in the best case scenario since the tanks will take ~1 second to start firing on you (they need to readjust to the new view after the switch and then they need to find you in the sky). That assumes that there is no problem for them to just stay in the spot they are in etc, most likely it will take longer than ~1 second.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with a Mosq/Reav/Scyt chasing down a liberator bombing ground troops trying to get a few shots into the rear of the liberator before the bomber instant switches to the tail gun.
You will just have to learn to stay above it like you are supposed to instead of noobing it behind it like you could in PS1. You know that they can start shooting you with it if you want. Also instead of machinegunning them just fill them with rockets, as long as you don't shoot them the tailgunner wont be manned so you can wait a bit till you can get a clean shot.

Your examples here all assumes that the person doesn't know about seat swapping. Think how you can capitalize on their lack of information, don't just play like an idiot standing right in front of the tank barrel thinking that it is fine.

[Karrade]

Really you can swap seats in any vehicle? Then why take anyone along at all?

I know you can give me a why, but I can give you a lot more why's as to why two vehicles are better than one, let's start with twice the hull/armor/shields.

So instead of going alone: Get a team mate, get two vehicles and seat swap. Don't forget even if out numbered, you can instantly jump out and use AV, so no problem there.

This is possibly the silliest thing I've heard, apart from instant AV after leaving vehicle. I am speaking from a gameplay perspective, not realism before anyone brings that into it, as referenced above.

I will never be grouping with anyone in this setup. - Unless badly outnumbered, or seriously lacking vehicles.

[Revanmug]

I will never be grouping with anyone in this setup. - Unless badly outnumbered, or seriously lacking vehicles.

Get ready to be rape by 2 man tank which the top gunner beeing a repair bitch.

And seriously, the liberator example is just bad. Seat swapping or not, you will probably only 2 man it anyway so the "less teamplay" is wrong.

[Blackwolf]

Really you can swap seats in any vehicle? Then why take anyone along at all?

I know you can give me a why, but I can give you a lot more why's as to why two vehicles are better than one, let's start with twice the hull/armor/shields.

So instead of going alone: Get a team mate, get two vehicles and seat swap. Don't forget even if out numbered, you can instantly jump out and use AV, so no problem there.

This is possibly the silliest thing I've heard, apart from instant AV after leaving vehicle. I am speaking from a gameplay perspective, not realism before anyone brings that into it, as referenced above.

I will never be grouping with anyone in this setup. - Unless badly outnumbered, or seriously lacking vehicles.

You essentially announced yourself to be a free kill.

So allegedly tanks will have vulnerable rears compared to their front. In an air to ground engagement, the air has a massive advantage over the ground in mobility and maneuverability. Any aircraft with a gun will out maneuver a ground vehicle easily. If air has superior or equivalent firepower to deal with the ground, naturally the ground is going to want to deal with the air on equal terms.

In an engagement between air and ground in which the ground target opts to sacrifice mobility (never mind maneuverability) in order to engage the air with superior firepower, the ground will die. There is no exception to this.

In an engagement involving two ground targets against one air, the ground will have an advantage in numbers but the air still holds numerous other advantages including mobility and maneuverability. It is entirely the pilot's option whether to engage the tanks or not, and how to approach. Twice the armor in this situation does nothing but drags the engagement out. Having a single tank with active AA firepower AND mobility gives the tank more control over the engagement and prevents the air target from using his superior maneuverability to get a fix on your vulnerable rear.

The flat mathematics argument only works in engagements based on attrition. And battle of attrition fought between air and ground will always result in the air dying first, so fighting in this manner as a pilot is suicidal and foolish. Air has to use hit and run, maneuverability, and shot placement to maximize his chances over a ground target. And stationary ground targets rarely live long against air raids and air born threats.

[Karrade]

Get ready to be rape by 2 man tank which the top gunner beeing a repair bitch.

And seriously, the liberator example is just bad. Seat swapping or not, you will probably only 2 man it anyway so the "less teamplay" is wrong.
The first comment missed the fact there are two tanks with TWICE the armour and manoeuvrability, tank to tank is the worst example of your point. Tank to tank, two heavy tanks vs one heavy tank x2 ppl is going to lose, as they don't have twice the firepower - whereas with driver guns you do have twice the firepower + twice the manoeuverability + the fact the second guy can get in the tank that is left!. Not to mention one can more easily get to fire at a weaker armor area of their opponent, flanking the single tank. Given these conditions, best guess, you may get one enemy tank with two people, but you won't get two most of the time, especially not with insta AV in the mix.

You essentially announced yourself to be a free kill.

So allegedly tanks will have vulnerable rears compared to their front. In an air to ground engagement, the air has a massive advantage over the ground in mobility and maneuverability. Any aircraft with a gun will out maneuver a ground vehicle easily. If air has superior or equivalent firepower to deal with the ground, naturally the ground is going to want to deal with the air on equal terms.

In an engagement between air and ground in which the ground target opts to sacrifice mobility (never mind maneuverability) in order to engage the air with superior firepower, the ground will die. There is no exception to this.

In an engagement involving two ground targets against one air, the ground will have an advantage in numbers but the air still holds numerous other advantages including mobility and maneuverability. It is entirely the pilot's option whether to engage the tanks or not, and how to approach. Twice the armor in this situation does nothing but drags the engagement out. Having a single tank with active AA firepower AND mobility gives the tank more control over the engagement and prevents the air target from using his superior maneuverability to get a fix on your vulnerable rear.

The flat mathematics argument only works in engagements based on attrition. And battle of attrition fought between air and ground will always result in the air dying first, so fighting in this manner as a pilot is suicidal and foolish. Air has to use hit and run, maneuverability, and shot placement to maximize his chances over a ground target. And stationary ground targets rarely live long against air raids and air born threats.


Here you make the point much better, but have missed the fact there is twice the manoeuvrability in two tanks, so the single tank is actually MORE vulnerable in the rear. Sure air can hit ground hard, good, I wouldn't have it any other way. This single set up would favor AA, but don't forget, you'd have twice the AA focused on such an aircraft ;) in two tanks, so it'd be situational - if you are comparing apples to oranges, which is of course not right in large fight where many situations can happen out of the blue - the main advantage of two in a vehicle is the fact they can react to more situations quicker.

Still i'd take two tanks in some situations nearly always, with 2 individual drivers who can seat swap, over 1 tank with 2 people. Certainly in tank to tank battles nearly all of the time i'd take two tanks, if the enemy was rolling mostly armor, i'd advise going to a single tank with seat swap + insta AV at this point.

[Flaropri]

The first comment missed the fact there are two tanks with TWICE the armour and manoeuvrability

Groups are inherently LESS maneuverable than individuals. You can potentially attack from multiple vectors, but you can't maneuver as a group nearly as well. The larger a group, the less maneuverable it is compared to smaller groups.

[Karrade]

Groups are inherently LESS maneuverable than individuals. You can potentially attack from multiple vectors, but you can't maneuver as a group nearly as well. The larger a group, the less maneuverable it is compared to smaller groups.

This isn't relevant. You are not targeting the group at once.

We are comparing 1 to 2, 2 to 1.

2 are harder to hit than one when speaking about which is more powerful, as they move in different directions, they flank a target easier, they spread themselves out easier. - Surely you can see this, you'd have to hit both together for the damage to be the same. Comparing group damage vs single damage here only, as that was the point made.

You have a missile, how do you hit two moving targets at once with it, unless they are stupid enough to cluster up?

-edit
I hold out hope the vehicle bays (queue time) will balance it, or resources, but I honestly don't feel that will happen.

[Flaropri]

This isn't relevant. You are not targeting the group at once.

It is relevant to being able to actually take on a target 2 to 1. If the group spreads out too much, the single tank can divide and conquer with superior firepower. If they are too close together, it is possible for the single tank to take advantage of terrain to either escape, limit attack vectors/flanking, or even put one enemy tank in the way of the other at least delaying the second tanks offense

Moving as a group, they are less maneuverable than an individual. An army of 50 tanks can cover more terrain than a group of 10, but they will take longer to get into position, will have to be more careful about crashing into each other, and will take longer to bring about their full weaponry at a specific target (or group of targets).

A larger group is also much easier to spot, and therefore to sneak up on with a smaller group. Especially if most are focused on driving while gunners can focus on spotting. 50 tanks can and should be able to take out 10 tanks in a straight fight, but they could be picked apart with hit and run tactics to the point where those 10 tanks at least make their resources' worth and further delay the column.


2 are harder to hit than one when speaking about which is more powerful, as they move in different directions, they flank a target easier, they spread themselves out easier. - Surely you can see this, you'd have to hit both together for the damage to be the same.

You have a missile, how do you hit two moving targets at once with it, unless they are stupid enough to cluster up?

1. In this case, you have two "missiles" that can attack in multiple directions. Offensive output is the same.*

2. Why would you want, let alone NEED, to hit both targets instead of focusing on one at a time?

*(Obviously depends on weaponry and stuff.)


We are comparing 1 to 2, 2 to 1.

Which is honestly quite silly, considering the nature of the game.


EDIT: In response to your EDIT: I think you should have more optimism, and push for it if you see it not happening in Beta. I think that even if seat swapping is removed there will be problems with vehicle balance if resources and timers aren't an appropriate balancing factor.

[Revanmug]

You seem to be quick a forgeting the important part...

... repair bitch.


As soon as the tank is able to maneuver out of los for a few sec, he already got health your 2 1 man tank won't get. Do you really think the top gunner will stick to the gun when he can repair the vehicule while the pilot make sure things are fine?