Please remove Vehicle seat swapping.

[MrBloodworth]

So as not to clegg up the other thread. :cool:

Make it Like the original.

If you do not have a full crew, you do not have full firepower. /end

[fvdham]

With yellow icons on the ground.

[maradine]

Please keep vehicle swapping.

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

[Flaropri]

If you do not have a full crew, you do not have full firepower.

Since you can't fire more than one weapon at a time, this is already the case.

[MrBloodworth]

Since you can't fire more than one weapon at a time, this is already the case.

Its not, as you can instantly swap to whatever suits the situation.

[EisenKreutzer]

I am actually opposed to this.
I am certain those who played Planetside feel nostalgic about fixed seats and yellow circles on the ground, and I'm not saying these people are automatically wrong for feeling that way, but for me it just doesn't work. I enjoy seat swapping.

In Battlefield 3, I like being able to pick up the machine gun turret if the gunner bails for whatever reason. If I were flying a Liberator (I'm not the best pilot), I would like to give the pilots seat to my friend if he is a better pilot than me. If I was driving a Magrider alone, I would like to be able to quickly man the AA turret if I suddenly came under fire by enemy aircaft.

I like the flexibility fast seat switching provides.

As I said, I don't think anyone is wrong in wanting this, but for me, personally, it just doesn't work.

[Sledgecrushr]

Really I just cant get on board with this.

[Stardouser]

This is really the same issue as instant entry/exiting.

[MrBloodworth]

Really I just cant get on board with this.

Just press 1-5. Bam, on-board!

[maradine]

The time this was argued extensively, the closest I saw anyone get to consensus was "swapping with a reasonable delay". Can we just start from there rather than fight all the way in from both sides for the N-th time?

[Canaris]

I'm opposed to hot swapping seats when airborne or on the move, I think you should have to be on the ground or not moving to do it.

[MrBloodworth]

In Battlefield 3, I like being able to pick up the machine gun turret if the gunner bails for whatever reason. If I were flying a Liberator (I'm not the best pilot), I would like to give the pilots seat to my friend if he is a better pilot than me. If I was driving a Magrider alone, I would like to be able to quickly man the AA turret if I suddenly came under fire by enemy aircaft.

Is this a generational thing? No repercussions to your choices? You don't even have to get out to man a different gun, that's ok?

Your machine gunner got sniped, so you should be able to instantly pop in and continue firing at his target? NVM that the guy who removed your gunner should now have his advantage he played tacitly for?

I'm opposed to hot swapping seats when airborne or on the move, I think you should have to be on the ground or not moving to do it.

That would at least be something.

[Landtank]

Yeah I disagree, it's nice for nostalgia's sake but when your driving and people just bail on you it really sucks. Atleast this way you can hope to maybe be useful instead of just being a wasted life. Maybe instant seat swapping should be gone, but not seat swapping, that's just silly.

[fvdham]

Why can I enter a reaver from the tail, that makes no sense.

Also add more "I win" buttons.

[exoteror]

I like the seat swapping myself. I hope they keep it.

My main reason is if you are not fully manned you can swap and try to kill the other guy. If you die well you can be happy you tried.
In the past you die and there has been nothing you can do but die, not much fun for yourself.

They always say, it's better to have tried and failed than to never try at all :D

[Rago]

I in fact like Swapping Seats, like in every newer Game.It is useful.

[MrBloodworth]

My main reason is if you are not fully manned you can swap and try to kill the other guy.:D

That's the problem.

[maradine]

Is this a generational thing? No repercussions to your choices? You don't even have to get out to man a different gun, that's ok?


There are lots of repercussions to your choices in this game - "crap, I got into the wrong seat" doesn't appear to be designed to be one of them.


Your machine gunner got sniped, so you should be able to instantly pop in and continue firing at his target? NVM that the guy who removed your gunner should now have his advantage he played tacitly for?


Presumably, that sniper is now lined up for a very quick and easy double kill, seeing as the driver parked it to get on the gun. If he could make the shot on the move, you've now just given him gravy. This is a problem?

[fvdham]

There are lots of repercussions to your choices in this game - "crap, I got into the wrong seat" doesn't appear to be designed to be one of them.

If you are in the wrong seat you did not pay attention to the yellow icon.
Just get out, move to the right icon, get in.

[EisenKreutzer]

Is this a generational thing? No repercussions to your choices? You don't even have to get out to man a different gun, that's ok?

Your machine gunner got sniped, so you should be able to instantly pop in and continue firing at his target? NVM that the guy who removed your gunner should now have his advantage he played tacitly for?


I don't see how you got from my post to "no repercussions." I believe I was both polite and clear in my post, and I'm not sure I appreciate this aggressive line of questioning, in which I believe you are trying to imply that I am juvenile and immature, but I'll try to respond.

No, I am not against choices having consequences, neither for me nor my enemies. I understand that you feel this is a valid argument for disallowing seat swapping, but I don't agree with you.
In your machine gunner/sniper example, the death of the player and the brief end of firing is, in my opinion, reward enough for the effort of the sniper.

I don't neccessarily disagree with your point, but I do feel that allowing for seat swapping solves more issues than it creates.

[MrBloodworth]

Nope, I'm not being aggressive. Sorry you feel this way. It just seems that people who grew up on the recent crop of session based shooters ( Session based shooters are built on the premiss of the disposable experience, because they end ) are the ones who seem to be OK with this.

I'm clearly not going to change peoples minds, and that is who they seem to be designing for. Its another system to protect users from themselves, personally I feel it cheapens the title, but OK.



Clearly people feel, that despite their choices, or despite "loss" ( Gunner, teammates, Support ), they should have the full arsenal a vehicle allows at any given time, regardless of this being a team based game.

[Flaropri]

Its not, as you can instantly swap to whatever suits the situation.

Yes, but you can't fire all weapons at once. You don't have all firepower if you don't have a full crew. Being able to adapt is different from having full firepower.

Now, we can debate how quickly people should be able to adapt, but I think that saying that because people can switch seats they have full firepower is flat out incorrect. You can't fire a Lib's Nose, Belly, and Tail cannons all at once if you're the only person in it. You might be able to switch and use one of those, but you don't have your full firepower to bare (or the ability to fly well).

My take on it. Hotswitching is fine at the moment. If there is a problem, it could be with (especially tanks) making use of hotswitching to bypass reload times as a single player. The easiest way to fix that (if it is actually the case) would be to reset the reload time if the person switches, so it starts again from the beginning if/when they get back into that seat.

If there is a greater problem, having it default to reload regardless or even have an engine restart for pilot seat, could be a way to deal with it, but I don't think it's necessary from what I've seen so far (but play experience could change my mind).

I don't think there's a need to remove adaptability entirely, since there are obvious trade-offs with getting out of the driver seat to man a different weapon.

[fvdham]

If I were flying a Liberator (I'm not the best pilot), I would like to give the pilots seat to my friend if he is a better pilot than me.

You don't need seat swapping for this.
Have you not played PlanetSide 1 ?

You can land, both leave the vehicle and enter the vehicle.
Or even better, the best player gets the plane.

[EisenKreutzer]

Nope, I haven't played Planetside 1.

[Stardouser]

There are lots of repercussions to your choices in this game - "crap, I got into the wrong seat" doesn't appear to be designed to be one of them.

Presumably, that sniper is now lined up for a very quick and easy double kill, seeing as the driver parked it to get on the gun. If he could make the shot on the move, you've now just given him gravy. This is a problem?

This. There are repercussions for switching seats. Ceasing movement chief among them.

Nope, I'm not being aggressive. Sorry you feel this way. It just seems that people who grew up on the recent crop of session based shooters ( Session based shooters are built on the premiss of the disposable experience, because they end ) are the ones who seem to be OK with this.

I'm clearly not going to change peoples minds, and that is who they seem to be designing for. Its another system to protect users from themselves, personally I feel it cheapens the title, but OK.

Being a session shooter has absolutely nothing to do with it. ArmA is also a session shooter. So is CoD. It's about finding the perfect balance between realism and expediency for gameplay.

Persistence and scale do not have anything to do with what the realism levels should be. If anything, persistence and scale should increase the focus on the war, not the realism levels.

And your arguments are heavily rooted in realism, it would seem. Are you consistently supporting realism across all issues? Or just this one? Example: Is PS2 using mag system or ammo pool? If ammo pool, what about the repercussions of wasteful reloading?

[MrBloodworth]

You don't have all firepower if you don't have a full crew.

You have access to all available firepower even after loosing a man(s). I believe you are arguing semantics.

[maradine]

You have access to all available firepower even after loosing a man(s). I believe you are arguing semantics.

Right. You didn't lose the gun. You have, on the other hand, lost 50% of the vehicle's simultaneous capability. It is now doing half of the things it was doing before. The difference is, the guy left behind gets to decide which is more important at the moment.

[Synapse]

Instant seat swapping seems a really poor idea to me, exactly because of the supporter's arguements.

Lots of discussion here is about tanks, but really we should be talking about the liberator. Seat swapping allows one guy to fly up over a base as a lib, jump over to the bomb seat, drop a bunch of bombs, and then back into the driver to fly away.

If doable at all, that should be extremely difficult. Personally I would rather solo liberators can't be done, but instant seat swapping makes that kind of stuff possible.

[EisenKreutzer]

Nope, I'm not being aggressive. Sorry you feel this way.
Alright, fair enough. I'm sorry for misinterpreting you.

It just seems that people who grew up on the recent crop of session based shooters ( Session based shooters are built on the premiss of the disposable experience, because they end ) are the ones who seem to be OK with this.

I'm clearly not going to change peoples minds, and that is who they seem to be designing for. Its another system to protect users from themselves, personally I feel it cheapens the title, but OK.



Clearly people feel, that despite their choices, or despite "loss" ( Gunner, teammates, Support ), they should have the full arsenal a vehicle allows at any given time, regardless of this being a team based game.
I don't think the game is being designed with this sort of mentality in mind, though I appreciate that you feel that way.
Planetside 2 is fundamentally quite different than Planetside was. It owes more to modern military shooters than it does to the war game simulation that was part of what the original Planetside was. The devs have kept many elements of the previous game, enough to make the experience very similiar, but at heart it is a modern FPS, with all the good and bad that comes with that.

I think this is part of the problem we are seeing expressed in this community through various threads and heated debates.
The old guard, those who played, enjoyed and loved the original Planetside, want this new game to mirror the old one in as many ways as possible. Those who never played it, or who didn't enjoy it quite as much when they first played it, want to see many of these old features changed or even outright removed, to make the gameplay feel more modern, for lack of a better word.

I think the devs have a desire to create a really good, really popular game. But I don't think they share the strong devotion to everything about the original game that those who are long time fans of it (or games like it for that matter) have developed over the years.

In many ways, I regret never playing Planetside 1. It seems like a very deep, very good wargame, even with all its quirks and flaws (or so I am led to believe).
But Planetside 2 will not be a wargame, it will be a modern first person shooter with strong wargame elements.

Make of that what you will.

[MrBloodworth]

Lots of discussion here is about tanks, but really we should be talking about the liberator. Seat swapping allows one guy to fly up over a base as a lib, jump over to the bomb seat, drop a bunch of bombs, and then back into the driver to fly away.

^ This.

Being a session shooter has absolutely nothing to do with it.

It absolutely does.

[maradine]

Would the stationary / landed compromise be sufficient for you?

[fvdham]

In PlanetSide 1 if you wanted to change seats, you had to leave the vehicle
and re-enter at a different side of the vehicle.

This made you vulnerable for a few seconds for snipers and put
a delay between driving and gunning a vehicle, in case you wanted to operate
a multi-crew vehicle by yourself.
It was a penalty for playing solo with a heavy vehicle.

In the case of the bomber, the guy dropping bombs could not
switch to tail-gunner position while airborne, as leaving the vehicle
would drop you to the ground.

The pilot had to make a choice: do I wait a little longer for a tail gunner
or leave without one and run a risk of being shot down from behind by a jet.

[Zetsubo]

The most natural (compared to real life) solution would be seat-swapped with delay. IRL, if your gunner gets hit and you need to take the enemy out, you do just that: park it in the best spot available and get on the gun. Same with aircraft: if your bomber's gone and you need to drop the load, the pilot puts it on auto and shifts seats.

Of course, IRL, all of this takes time. Question is, would putting real-life like timers be acceptable in game? Would you like to stare at you screen for a full minute while your guy makes the tranfers? Make crawling through the aircraft to the tail gunner spot a mini-game? All those things slow the player down from what he wants to do: play the game.

So best compromise seems to be swapping with a short delay, like between 1-5 seconds. Enough to not be instantaneous but short enough to not break the tempo of the gameplay. What exactly would be the sweet spot is anyone's guess.

But I'm pretty sure there is nothing less natural than not being able to switch seats in a vehicle.

[Flaropri]

Lots of discussion here is about tanks, but really we should be talking about the liberator.

Indeed, the question is, especially for an aircraft, is losing the ability to control your flight for that period of time (and the ability to use the Nose Cannon, by all accounts a decent weapon on it's own) worth it?

If it is more than worth it, what type of time restrictions should be in place to make it not worth it or roughly an equal trade (including the access to different weaponry)?

[MrBloodworth]

EisenKreutzer, its not about being "modern" or not, its the difference between a session based shooter, and a Team based shooter with persistence.

Right now, Ps2 is shaping up to be a session based shooter in its design, with a larger amount of players, in many aspects.

Seat swapping is a trope of the throw away experience design of session based shooters, where you only have 30 minutes to "have fun". That's why no one cares if you just hoped out of a plane at 30,000 feet at mock 2 to fire your bazooka. It resets. It does not matter, because all that matters is kill counts.

Planetside aims to emulate a persistent war, not just a single battle engagement.

Any way, I surrender.

Would the stationary / landed compromise be sufficient for you?

It would be better, but would not address ground units.


But I'm pretty sure there is nothing less natural than not being able to switch seats in a vehicle.

Most of the vehicles ate not designed with shared compartments, especially vehicles like the Lib, Gal, or tanks. I'm not talking about a mini-van here.

[EisenKreutzer]

I never said modern = good. :)

[Stardouser]

^ This.



It absolutely does.

Session shooters cover the entire range of realism and pacing from slow and realistic to fast and arcade, so I don't see how that means anything. There have only been 2 real MMOFPS, PS1 and WW2 OL, and because they had realistic(in the case of WW2 OL) or "realistic except futuristic" for PS1, you're basically inferring that because they were both realistic, all MMOFPS must be realistic?

But you know, since you want realism, I'm thinking about what would *I* want. Well, I support middle ground in very nearly everything. For this issue, that would mean no animations,but perhaps a 2 second delay before the other weapons station becomes active. But I want to be clear that I say this because middle ground is appropriate, and not because instant switching is cheesy or because I care about immersion. It's cheesy for people who might seat switch to bomb in Liberators, to be sure, but that's because a pilot is so much more important to aircraft than to a tank that even a middle-ground position would think so.

And frankly I wish we could apply the middle ground philosophy to a lot more things although to be honest, it looks like they are.

[Klockan]

EisenKreutzer, its not about being "modern" or not, its the difference between a session based shooter, and a Team based shooter with persistence.

Right now, Ps2 is shaping up to be a session based shooter in its design, with a larger amount of players, in many aspects.

Seat swapping is a trope of the throw away experience design of session based shooters, where you only have 30 minutes to "have fun". That's why no one cares if you just hoped out of a plane at 30,000 feet at mock 2 to fire your bazooka. It resets. It does not matter, because all that matters is kill counts.

Planetside aims to emulate a persistent war, not just a single battle engagement.

Any way, I surrender.



It would be better, but would not address ground units.
Since you pay for your vehicles you will want to squeeze as much out of them as possible unlike BF* where the vehicles respawn kinda like players and thus are as expendable as players.

[MrBloodworth]

I never said modern = good. :)

I wasn't saying modern = bad :)

[Rivenshield]

Please keep vehicle swapping.

Solo practitioners will not be able to deal with two threat classes at once.
Good. Anything that promotes TEAMWORK is a good thing.

And yes, keep the user-friendly yellow entry icons on the ground.

[Yutty]

i didn't like how a max unit was able to man a gunner spot in a tank

[MrBloodworth]

i didn't like how a max unit was able to man a gunner spot in a tank

That won't happen in live. That was just unfinished E3 stuff.

[fvdham]

Since you pay for your vehicles you will want to squeeze as much out of them as possible unlike BF* where the vehicles respawn kinda like players and thus are as expendable as players.

You don't need in-vehicle seat swapping to sqeeze things.

[BlueSkies]

lol, before you complain about any seat swapping in PS2, check this video out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrOIgxQ--Tc

In any event, one person trying to solo operate a multi-person vehicle is gimping himself and will be an easy target. I fully encourage people to employ this tactic, it'll buff my killcount :D

[Aurmanite]

Planetside 2 is fundamentally quite different than Planetside was. It owes more to modern military shooters than it does to the war game simulation that was part of what the original Planetside was.

There are just as many or more 'war game simulation' elements present in #2 than in the original. A lot of the original players look back at the game through a veil of nostalgia and warm feelings. They build the game up to be more than it really was.

The old guard, those who played, enjoyed and loved the original Planetside, want this new game to mirror the old one in as many ways as possible.

This isn't necessarily true. There are many of us who played and enjoyed the hell out of the original that are excited to see a lot of things change. The game feeling like a shooter from the era in which is was developed being chief among them. Planetside felt like a dated shooter when it was released.

You are alright fella. You have patience and tact, and you support your posts properly.

[Littleman]

Most of the vehicles ate not designed with shared compartments, especially vehicles like the Lib, Gal, or tanks. I'm not talking about a mini-van here.

... In Planetside LIVE.

Planetside 2's tanks don't seem to have multiple entry hatches indicating compartmentalized stations within the tank. If we're going to even remotely expect some form of realism in our game, then it makes sense to expect the interior of our tanks to be set up similarly to how we build our tanks today. Or hell, a reasonable expectation with the tech available in the 2800's, it really should be as easy as flipping a switch.

The liberator and galaxy could very well have a similar connected setup. The practicality of trusting the craft to pretty much fly itself is another matter.

And as others have pointed out, there IS a timer on seat switching, with associated certifications to reduce the timer, but no proof of completely negating it, nor how long the base or fully certed switch takes.

I'm fine with seat switching. If someone moves to their secondary turret, they forfeit movement control, and in my mind, that trade off is never worth the specialized turret when in the kill zone. Sitting ducks are easy to pick off, no matter how heavily armored.

[EisenKreutzer]

I try. ^^

[Aurmanite]

To quickly address the generational comment... I would love to have someone point out which FPS's from the first generation that weren't session based, and all of the non session based shooters since.

[EnderGraff]

To clarify something, when a pilot swaps seats to, lets say a gunner position in a lib, wouldn't the plane begin to descend rapidly, as if there was no pilot at all?

In which case, if an individual wanted to do a lame tactic such as soloing with a lib and switching seats to drop bombs, the plane would be at a huge disadvantage.

The argument for full crew= full firepower has been made several times in this thread. Yet what everyone here still fails to understand is that even if seat swapping is allowed, the philosophy of full crew full firepower is still true! One man cannot fire all weapons (100%) at once, seat swapping or not. It takes 100% of the crew to fire 100% of the weapons in a vehicle.
Logic.

[Gandhi]

I think seat switching should be in, but it should always have a delay of some kind. Whether it's 5 seconds or 1 second when fully certed isn't so important, but it has to be there. The extra versatility it gives undermanned vehicles is just too powerful otherwise, the benefits far outweigh the cost of not being able to deal with two targets at the same time.

Of course it's always better to have a fully crewed vehicle regardless, but with instant seat switching it's really not that much better. You could probably do just fine firing all the rounds in one gun and switching to the other while it reloads, especially in an aircraft like the Lib. A 2 or 3 second delay each time makes a world of difference and goes a long way to making a fully crewed vehicle a more attractive option.

[Ruwyn]

In theory when you exit a vehicle you will magically appear at different locations near the vehicle, determined by which seat you were in. So there really isn't a reason why this could not and should not work in reverse.

Pressing G to enter a vehicle then 1-5 to switch to the seat you want seems overly simplistic. I mean I should be able to get in and get right on the gun I want or a passenger spot.

[Landtank]

To clarify something, when a pilot swaps seats to, lets say a gunner position in a lib, wouldn't the plane begin to descend rapidly, as if there was no pilot at all?

In which case, if an individual wanted to do a lame tactic such as soloing with a lib and switching seats to drop bombs, the plane would be at a huge disadvantage.

The argument for full crew= full firepower has been made several times in this thread. Yet what everyone here still fails to understand is that even if seat swapping is allowed, the philosophy of full crew full firepower is still true! One man cannot fire all weapons (100%) at once, seat swapping or not. It takes 100% of the crew to fire 100% of the weapons in a vehicle.
Logic.

The OP seems intent on ignoring this fact, and it is a FACT.

[KTNApollo]

Anybody that wants seat hot-swapping has been brainwashed by games like BF3. Hot-swapping needs to be removed for the same reason enter/exit animations need to be added (or atleast a delay upon entering/exiting).

Scenario

I'm getting shot down in my Liberator with only one friend in it. He swaps to the tailgun in order to deal with the pesky Scythe on my tail. He takes it down. We need repairs. He swaps back to the bomber seat, eliminates some ground forces, allowing us to land. We land, hop out, and start repairing. Before we're done repairing a Magrider shows up and starts lobbing us with hits. We instantly hop inside (no enter animations, no delay) and take off into the air. My friend accidentally hopped into the tailgun, but no worries, he hot swaps into the bomer seat and destroys the Magrider.

What I have posed above is my main concern about no enter/exit animations and hot-swapping.

[bullet]

I don't see this as a realistic or fantasy issue, it more along the lines of imbalanced.

This is a situation I just thought of:
Enemy A is being shot upon by Enemy B. Enemy A notices that there is an unmanned tank sitting 10 meters away so he runs over to it and has 100x more armor and 100x more fire power instantly. If there was some delay to the entering or start up of the vehicle, Enemy B could have a chance to escape or prepare himself for the encounter. Since there is no delay, enemy A blows enemy B away and walks/drives away.

Edit: More so an enter/exit issue, but same general idea applies to be equipped for any situation.

[Landtank]

Anybody that wants seat hot-swapping has been brainwashed by games like BF3. Hot-swapping needs to be removed for the same reason enter/exit animations need to be added (or atleast a delay upon entering/exiting).

Scenario

I'm getting shot down in my Liberator with only one friend in it. He swaps to the tailgun in order to deal with the pesky Scythe on my tail. He takes it down. We need repairs. He swaps back to the bomber seat, eliminates some ground forces, allowing us to land. We land, hop out, and start repairing. Before we're done repairing a Magrider shows up and starts lobbing us with hits. We instantly hop inside (no enter animations, no delay) and take off into the air. My friend accidentally hopped into the tailgun, but no worries, he hot swaps into the bomer seat and destroys the Magrider.

What I have posed above is my main concern about no enter/exit animations and hot-swapping.

That is such an unrealistic scenario, and I would be my left nut that it will never happen. If the scythe pilot and the mag pilot both die in that scenario then they deserve to die horrible, violent deaths.

Although I do like how it's only Vanu dying!

As for the more recent post: why didn't you kill the guy before he got in the tank?

[Stardouser]

I don't see this as a realistic or fantasy issue, it more along the lines of imbalanced.

This is a situation I just thought of:
Enemy A is being shot upon by Enemy B. Enemy A notices that there is an unmanned tank sitting 10 meters away so he runs over to it and has 100x more armor and 100x more fire power instantly. If there was some delay to the entering or start up of the vehicle, Enemy B could have a chance to escape or prepare himself for the encounter. Since there is no delay, enemy A blows enemy B away and walks/drives away.

There is a delay. The tank is 10 meters away, and there is a physical transit time to run there, and enemy B can kill him before he gets there, or head for cover when he sees enemy A headed to it.

Also, how often would there be a vehicle just sitting there? This isn't Battlefield where they spawn randomly on the map. And a lot of people are talking about locking their vehicles to squad only.

[Klockan]

I don't see this as a realistic or fantasy issue, it more along the lines of imbalanced.

This is a situation I just thought of:
Enemy A is being shot upon by Enemy B. Enemy A notices that there is an unmanned tank sitting 10 meters away so he runs over to it and has 100x more armor and 100x more fire power instantly. If there was some delay to the entering or start up of the vehicle, Enemy B could have a chance to escape or prepare himself for the encounter. Since there is no delay, enemy A blows enemy B away and walks/drives away.

Edit: More so an enter/exit issue, but same general idea applies to be equipped for any situation.
Since you can also see the tank sitting around there you know that if he runs for it he can enter it instantly. If you didn't know that he could enter it instantly you would have a point, but as it is the game got full information so you know that he can become a ton more dangerous by running to and entering the tank.

[Ruwyn]

that's certainly not unrealistic to think that would happen. I personally can't wait for an outfit to set up a dozen tanks and put up a video of a shell game in the middle of an infantry battle. That shit will be hilarious. exit/enter instantly back and forth down a line of tanks.

[PoisonTaco]

How about a compromise? Keep seat swapping, but have a quick cooldown preventing you from switching back and forth all the time. Have it something like 5-10 seconds. Or alternatively you could make it so it takes that long to switch into the seat.

That way if you need to use your 2nd gun to handle an enemy, it leaves you vulnerable in the other area. You still have the ability to switch seats and respond to different situations, but you have to be careful not to leave yourself exposed.

It would work for aircraft that way because you couldn't just switch back and forth from the pilot seat to the gunner seat in a Liberator without it falling like a rock.

[bullet]

There is. The tank is 10 meters away and enemy B can kill him before he gets there, or head for cover when he sees enemy A headed to it.

Also, how often would there be a vehicle just sitting there? This isn't Battlefield where they spawn randomly on the map. And a lot of people are talking about locking their vehicles to squad only.

You're saying you wouldn't TRY to kill the guy as hes running to it? You would instantly GTFO?

This is going back to PS1 and could be easily replicated in PS2. You have to get out of your vehicles to cap points. In PS1, bases were littered with empty vehicles during a base cap. In PS2, vehicles could be sitting around unmanned while the infantry are inside capping points. Yes, a lot of people will have driver's position locked to squad/self. Why would people lock ALL the seats? The general player doesn't care who guns their tank.

[Littleman]

I don't see this as a realistic or fantasy issue, it more along the lines of imbalanced.

This is a situation I just thought of:
Enemy A is being shot upon by Enemy B. Enemy A notices that there is an unmanned tank sitting 10 meters away so he runs over to it and has 100x more armor and 100x more fire power instantly. If there was some delay to the entering or start up of the vehicle, Enemy B could have a chance to escape or prepare himself for the encounter. Since there is no delay, enemy A blows enemy B away and walks/drives away.

Edit: More so an enter/exit issue, but same general idea applies to be equipped for any situation.

There is an exit delay, entry I think is instant but there's a start up time involved before they have control of the craft.


Anyone else ever notice how all the people AGAINST seat switching, entry/exit think it's all instant, when we have evidence point to there being time involved? Am I wrong in saying that it's only the uneducated posters on this board having panic attacks over every minor detail?

[Azren]

I'm opposed to hot swapping seats when airborne or on the move, I think you should have to be on the ground or not moving to do it.

Agreed

[Stardouser]

You're saying you wouldn't TRY to kill the guy as hes running to it? You would instantly GTFO?

This is going back to PS1 and could be easily replicated in PS2. You have to get out of your vehicles to cap points. In PS1, bases were littered with empty vehicles during a base cap. In PS2, vehicles could be sitting around unmanned while the infantry are inside capping points. Yes, a lot of people will have driver's position locked to squad/self. Why would people lock ALL the seats? The general player doesn't care who guns their tank.

I'm saying it's your choice. In games that have a lower TTK, such as how PS2 will be, you can actually kill people before they reach a vehicle. It should be the same in PS2. And if it is possible, then you have a viable option either way.

And abandoned vehicles are very much C4 bait. And honestly this is an argument for allowing players to get into abandoned enemy vehicles, even if you can't hack them.

[Azren]

There is an exit delay, entry I think is instant but there's a start up time involved before they have control of the craft.


Anyone else ever notice how all the people AGAINST seat switching, entry/exit think it's all instant, when we have evidence point to there being time involved? Am I wrong in saying that it's only the uneducated posters on this board having panic attacks over every minor detail?

Watched the latest videos. It is instant. You can even jump in a flying liberator. You can even bomb for your own liberator. All hail Planetside 2: Solo Edition

[Flaropri]

Anybody that wants seat hot-swapping has been brainwashed by games like BF3. Hot-swapping needs to be removed for the same reason enter/exit animations need to be added (or atleast a delay upon entering/exiting).

Scenario

I'm getting shot down in my Liberator with only one friend in it. He swaps to the tailgun in order to deal with the pesky Scythe on my tail. He takes it down. We need repairs. He swaps back to the bomber seat, eliminates some ground forces, allowing us to land. We land, hop out, and start repairing. Before we're done repairing a Magrider shows up and starts lobbing us with hits. We instantly hop inside (no enter animations, no delay) and take off into the air. My friend accidentally hopped into the tailgun, but no worries, he hot swaps into the bomer seat and destroys the Magrider.

What I have posed above is my main concern about no enter/exit animations and hot-swapping.

If you're enemies come at you one at a time it could be a believable scenario (no land-based AA while you're against the Scythe, no other Scythes or gunships while dealing with ground targets).

If the Magrider that takes you by surprise has any skill or a second crew themselves they should easily be able to take you out before you can destroy them, even if your friend jumps into the right slot to begin with. Remember that entry-exit might currently be instant, but that doesn't mean you can get a good distance from the enemy or the ground (while being bombarded no less) instantly as well.

Overall, I think your concerns are fairly unlikely to be realized.

[Redshift]

I don't like it, half of higbys videos seem to be him driving up to someone swapping seats and killing them, the swapping back and driving off.
That's just horrible design.

[Littleman]

Watched the latest videos. It is instant. You can even jump in a flying liberator. You can even bomb for your own liberator. All hail Planetside 2: Solo Edition

One word: testing.

Here's something from E3 for ya:

http://wiki.planetside-universe.com/ps/Liberator

I doubt they removed the certifications. I don't promise they'll be there at release, mind you, but this very issue was clearly a thought they had considered at one point in time.

[bullet]

I'm saying it's your choice. In games that have a lower TTK, such as how PS2 will be, you can actually kill people before they reach a vehicle. It should be the same in PS2. And if it is possible, then you have a viable option either way.

And abandoned vehicles are very much C4 bait. And honestly this is an argument for allowing players to get into abandoned enemy vehicles.

Why would you go around C4ing empty vehicles? No this is an arguement about the issue of entering a vehicles (sorry to hijack the post) that are not yours, but your factions. Not every attacking faction member will be inside, there will be people who are running to get back inside after getting killed or who are just arriving.

One word: testing.

Here's something from E3 for ya:

http://wiki.planetside-universe.com/ps/Liberator

I doubt they removed the certifications. I don't promise they'll be there at release, mind you, but this very issue was clearly a thought they had considered at one point in time.

So I'm uneducated because they are discussing behind closed doors on what they want done with it? As it stands right now, its instant. Nicely done.

[Azren]

To clarify something, when a pilot swaps seats to, lets say a gunner position in a lib, wouldn't the plane begin to descend rapidly, as if there was no pilot at all?.

There is a video of just this. The guy dies trying, but it is far from being impossible. If you fly mid height at normal speed you can easily jump into the belly gun and get some shots off before it gets dangerous.

Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_dcfjVnLrgQ#t=1475s

[Stardouser]

Why would you go around C4ing empty vehicles? No this is an arguement about the issue of entering a vehicles (sorry to hijack the post) that are not yours, but your factions. Not every attacking faction member will be inside, there will be people who are running to get back inside after getting killed or who are just arriving.

Why wouldn't you C4 empty vehicles? First there will probably be points for them and secondly, for the very purpose of preventing the enemy from getting back into them and using them.

[bullet]

Why wouldn't you C4 empty vehicles? First there will probably be points for them and secondly, for the very purpose of preventing the enemy from getting back into them and using them.

Oh, I forgot we have those little backpacks of infinite ammo. Nvm, blow them all apart then. Issue solved!


Edit: Ok, that was a dickhead comment. This isnt BF3 where there are 2 tanks per map. People will come with many vehicles. I doubt you would have that much C4 to blow them all up, unless the little infintie ammo backpacks are actually there...

[Stardouser]

Oh, I forgot we have those little backpacks of infinite ammo. Nvm, blow them all apart then. Issue solved!

No, but then, isn't this the moment where everyone brings up the scale/player count? If you don't have the ammo, your squadmate might. Even empty vehicles are threats.

[Littleman]

Why wouldn't you C4 empty vehicles? First there will probably be points for them and secondly, for the very purpose of preventing the enemy from getting back into them and using them.

Pshaw... you're not thinking long term!

You C4 the tank, wait for someone to get into or near the tank, THEN press the big red button.

[Stardouser]

Pshaw... you're not thinking long term!

You C4 the tank, wait for someone to get into or near the tank, THEN press the big red button.

You know what would even better? C4 a tank, wait for someone to get in it, drive it into a Lodestar(which I know doesn't currently exist in PS2), then blow it up.

Or if you could put them on enemy infantry wait til they get into a Galaxy.

[Littleman]

You know what would even better? C4 a tank, wait for someone to get in it, drive it into a Lodestar(which I know doesn't currently exist in PS2), then blow it up.

Or if you could put them on enemy infantry wait til they get into a Galaxy.

Boomers this time around are going to be so much fun :devilwink

[Metalsheep]

I hope they remove instant seat swapping. If you got in the wrong gun, stop, get out, and get in the gun you want. It makes no sense that the driver can warp from the drivers compartment, to the Cannon or bombers seat instantly. How did he get there? Through the wall?

It's a lot more balanced to have to switch seat manually. Sure, the vehicle might be gimped or immobile, but if the driver switched to the proper gun to destroy whatever is attacking him, he should win regardless, then switch back and drive away. If he has to stop and get out, he cant do that.

(Also wants vehicle enter/exit animations)

Planetside Vets don't want the game to mirror Planetside 1 perfectly, we want it to be similar, with problems fixed. So far, from what i have seen, Planetside 2 is only similar in name and graphic design and size. A lot of mechanics are just modern mechanics with a Planetside skin.

In calling the game Planetside 2, it infers that it is some kind of sequel to Planetside. But absolutely everything is different. Other game series keep many similarities in mechanics and design between sequels while still improving the experience. (Halo 1-Reach for instance.) Anyone can look at them or play Combat Evolved or Reach and tell you right away its Halo without knowing anything else. But from looking at the two games i can't really tell they are from the same series aside from some visuals like the Factions colors/symbols. They should have just named it Battlefield Auraxis or something along those lines.

/rant

No to seat swapping, yes to delay/manual switching.

[ThGlump]

Pshaw... you're not thinking long term!

You C4 the tank, wait for someone to get into or near the tank, THEN press the big red button.

Youre not thinking long term. You C4 enemy tank, get in with your second account, drive it to his friendlies, THEN press the button.
Why waiting, hoping that someone get in? :)

[ArcGuard]

All this talk of "session based shooters" is making me tired... Honestly, how many non-session based shooters are there on the market? Maybe 1/10th of the total number of shooters? (And I'm being very generous)

As for the instant swap in planes. Yes, you can switch, take a few shots, and then get back in and drive away. That is assuming you are the ONLY PLANE IN THE SKY... How many people are just going to see a liberator flying in a strait line and just go "huh... I think I'll just let him go, he's not hurting anybody. I'm not going to easily lock on and fire rockets at a plane moving completely straight forward"

Be serious people. 2000 players on a continent, and you think a guy is going to be so alone that he can seat-swap and not get hit by some rockets by aircraft and infantry that see a giant target flying in a straight line?

[Synapse]

All this talk of "session based shooters" is making me tired... Honestly, how many non-session based shooters are there on the market? Maybe 1/10th of the total number of shooters? (And I'm being very generous)

As for the instant swap in planes. Yes, you can switch, take a few shots, and then get back in and drive away. That is assuming you are the ONLY PLANE IN THE SKY... How many people are just going to see a liberator flying in a strait line and just go "huh... I think I'll just let him go, he's not hurting anybody. I'm not going to easily lock on and fire rockets at a plane moving completely straight forward"

Be serious people. 2000 players on a continent, and you think a guy is going to be so alone that he can seat-swap and not get hit by some rockets by aircraft and infantry that see a giant target flying in a straight line?

YES. Yes he can. Not over some big 3 team furball, but over a tower with a few people in it, absolutely he can.

[ArcGuard]

YES. Yes he can. No over some big 3 team furball, but over a tower with a few people in it, absolutely he can.

You expect me to believe, this guy, flying by himself, from some vehicle spawn on his side of the map... just flew across enemy lines, to an almost deserted tower, and wasn't shot down along the way? There is no way that a solo liberator is going to encounter an almost deserted tower with 2000 people playing unless he is very sneaky. And then on top of that, has to pull of a rather risky technique to kill one or two people?

You're making me take a lot of leaps of faith to get to an applicable situation there... :doh:

[ThGlump]

All this talk of "session based shooters" is making me tired... Honestly, how many non-session based shooters are there on the market? Maybe 1/10th of the total number of shooters? (And I'm being very generous)

And thats why many ppl are angry. Throwing away game mechanics that made PS something different, and making PS2 blend with any other modern session based shooter with their shitty mechanics. Then only difference will be scale and persistence. No wonder they changed PS2 motto to "size always matter" becase thats the only thing it differs from other games. Its really sad.

[EisenKreutzer]

I really think the people who are saying that seat switching, no entry/exit animations and driver/gunners will lead to a game in which you are encouraged to play solo are making mountains out of molehills.

Even with all these things, the mission system, the built-in voice system, the way capture of facilities and resources works and the presence of strong Outfits will still create a game environment where teamplay is paramount.

To my mind, it would take a lot more than a few mechanical particulars to shift the focus of Planetside 2 so dramatically from what the developers had in mind when they created this game.

I'm not trying to be contrary here, and I do feel the yes-camp makes some valid points, but it doesn't change my mind about this particular mechanic or it's siblings.

[KTNApollo]

If the Magrider that takes you by surprise has any skill or a second crew themselves they should easily be able to take you out before you can destroy them, even if your friend jumps into the right slot to begin with. Remember that entry-exit might currently be instant, but that doesn't mean you can get a good distance from the enemy or the ground (while being bombarded no less) instantly as well.

Overall, I think your concerns are fairly unlikely to be realized.


I don't know if you've seen some of the footage, but it only takes one volley of Liberator bombs to take out an MBT. It takes a lot more shots from the tank to take out the Lib.

[NewSith]

What bothers me is that liberator isn't really a 3-man aircraft... It's a 2-man one...

EDIT: Also, no need for circles, do it (flameon) the halo way. Where you just have different text for different locations as in:

Press E to enter the {vehicle name} as a driver
Press E to enter the {vehicle name} as a passenger
Press E to enter the {vehicle name} {weapon name} gunner seat

...depending on where next to the vehicle you stand. You can even make it so anywhere other than gunner-passenger postions you get driver entrance message.

[Raymac]

I'm from the pro driver=gunner camp here, and I don't really want to see the drivers of vehicles able to instantly switch seats. I personally think the driver should have to get out if they want to change.

I don't mind if passengers/gunners can change seats without getting out, but I probably would want like a 1 second delay for that.

That's just my 2 cents.

[Stardouser]

I'm from the pro driver=gunner camp here, and I don't really want to see the drivers of vehicles able to instantly switch seats. I personally think the driver should have to get out if they want to change.

I don't mind if passengers/gunners can change seats without getting out, but I probably would want like a 1 second delay for that.

That's just my 2 cents.

That reminds me. At least insofar as tanks go, won't driver gunners have a coaxial machine gun now? Surely that's an available customization at the least.

[Figment]

The problem Bloodworth, is that they look only at or find more important the perspective of what is convenient for the switching player (usualy refered to as "I like" or "me" by these players). Meanwhile you look at the reward and tactical advantage for the enemy player given this enemy faces a team that decided to use equipment not built around their manpower.

The people here argueing with you are not interested in manpower balance, they don't want to be dependent on others and they don't want to make long term tactical and strategic disadvantage choices as compensation for exploiting a unit designed for three with two or less. Hence they ignore any argument based on fairness of manpower.

They even think it is already a disadvantage that you try to use it with less. That is where they are wrong, because it is no guarantee you need to use both at once as they presume to justify their position. Meanwhile, where did the third gunner go? He is elsewhere. As another unit. Meaning Bloodworth and I conclude you get more units than entitled to without paying a price for it.

[Aurmanite]

Hence they ignore any argument based on fairness of manpower.


No, some of us ignore it because we realize that since everyone can do it, it's fair. If only one faction could have this 'extra man power' then it would be unfair. Since everyone can do it, no one has extra manpower and your whole point falls apart.

I love how you came in, created a position that 'people arguing against you' had, and then struck it down.

You don't even need anyone else posting. You can just debate against yourself all day.

[Figment]

Oh so one man units have gunner spots now?

You don't balance a one man unit as equal to a two man unit (well, you do). They are not the same. :/

[Stardouser]

No, some of us ignore it because we realize that since everyone can do it, it's fair. If only one faction could have this 'extra man power' then it would be unfair. Since everyone can do it, no one has extra manpower and your whole point falls apart.


That is very true, unfairness rarely comes into it. But the thing is, you can't make every single thing in the game have "repercussions" or be "tactical", if you do, eventually you've got ArmA: Auraxis and it's watered down with realism.

[Aurmanite]

Oh so one man units have gunner spots now?

You don't balance a one man unit as equal to a two man unit (well, you do). They are not the same. :/

I am not a huge fan of seat swapping to be honest. It is one of the things from the original I would like to remain the same.

That said, some of the stuff you guys type out is completely ridiculous. The only way it makes sense is if you warp your perception to a point where this minor detail becomes something significant and game changing.

This mechanic is already on display in other shooters. It doesn't break the game, change the value/balance of a 1 person/2 person unit. Really, it's just a matter of taste and nothing more.

That mole hill ain't no mountain.

[Rivenshield]

Even with all these things, the mission system, the built-in voice system, the way capture of facilities and resources works and the presence of strong Outfits will still create a game environment where teamplay is paramount.

I sincerely hope you're right. I hope all my concerns are much ado about nothing.

I do.

I still disagree.

[EisenKreutzer]

I sincerely hope you're right. I hope all my concerns are much ado about nothing.

I do.

I still disagree.

That is a fair position, and I respect it.

[Accuser]

Um... so I set my Magrider with AA for the gunner, but I lock the tank so no one can get in. I ride around, tearing up with the main gun until I see an aircraft, hop in the AA and take it out too.

Do I really NEED a gunner at that point? Isn't it much better to have 2 Magriders firing their main guns, and then 2 AA turrets firing when an aircraft shows up? The silliness comes from this being the only game where, if you decide not to have a gunner, that person can get yet another tank. No other game (that I'm aware of) does that. I mean, in BF3 if you and your gunner came upon an empty enemy tank, one of you ALWAYS hopped out and took it. Imagine that situation where the gunner can almost always spawn a new empty tank... I would expect almost all tanks to run with just the driver, and to actively avoid letting anyone be a gunner.

[EisenKreutzer]

Um... so I set my Magrider with AA for the gunner, but I lock the tank so no one can get in. I ride around, tearing up with the main gun until I see an aircraft, hop in the AA and take it out too.

Do I really NEED a gunner at that point? Isn't it much better to have 2 Magriders firing their main guns, and then 2 AA turrets firing when an aircraft shows up? The silliness comes from this being the only game where, if you decide not to have a gunner, that person can get yet another tank. No other game (that I'm aware of) does that. I mean, in BF3 if you and your gunner came upon an empty enemy tank, one of you ALWAYS hopped out and took it. Imagine that situation where the gunner can almost always spawn a new empty tank... I would expect almost all tanks to run with just the driver, and to actively avoid letting anyone be a gunner.

There are two things coming into play preventing this: Vehicle resource cost and spawn-timer.

vehicles are expensive, and once you have bought one you can't buy another for a set period of time. To my mind, this means the sensible thing to do is to buy one Magrider for two guys, fight until you're killed, and then the other guy buy a new one.

[Aurmanite]

Um... so I set my Magrider with AA for the gunner, but I lock the tank so no one can get in. I ride around, tearing up with the main gun until I see an aircraft, hop in the AA and take it out too.

Do I really NEED a gunner at that point? Isn't it much better to have 2 Magriders firing their main guns, and then 2 AA turrets firing when an aircraft shows up? The silliness comes from this being the only game where, if you decide not to have a gunner, that person can get yet another tank. No other game (that I'm aware of) does that. I mean, in BF3 if you and your gunner came upon an empty enemy tank, one of you ALWAYS hopped out and took it. Imagine that situation where the gunner can almost always spawn a new empty tank... I would expect almost all tanks to run with just the driver, and to actively avoid letting anyone be a gunner.

You really think two tanks are going to have a huge impact on the field?

Suddenly 2 Magriders become the ultimate force on the field because they can spec less than optimal AA and switch seats. The two Prowlers with dual AV and 2 gunners? Owned! I mean, it's Magriders with AA and seat swap.

Didn't we all play Planetside? Don't we remember that 2 units could rarely (if ever) have a large impact on the battle? Galaxy gunships and low pop fights aside.

[Accuser]

There are two things coming into play preventing this: Vehicle resource cost and spawn-timer.

vehicles are expensive, and once you have bought one you can't buy another for a set period of time. To my mind, this means the sensible thing to do is to buy one Magrider for two guys, fight until you're killed, and then the other guy buy a new one.

I guess that depends on the timer, resource cost, and survivability. Still, I strongly suspect that the best tank drivers will avoid having a gunner so long as they stay alive long enough. I expect tank-oriented outfits (where seat swapping is fast/instant) to have a one-person-tank policy, so long as the members can afford it. There's just much more firepower in having 2 tanks that can seat swap, rather than one fully manned.

You really think two tanks are going to have a huge impact on the field?

Em, you aren't following. I'm saying it would likely become the policy of tank outfits to have one-person-tanks so long as the members can afford it. That means that instead of 50 fully manned tanks, you have 100 tanks that can all seat swap to AI/AA in an instant (or near instant) when needed. Yeah, I think that would effect the battle a bit.

[EisenKreutzer]

I guess that depends on the timer, resource cost, and survivability. Still, I strongly suspect that the best tank drivers will avoid having a gunner so long as they stay alive long enough. I expect tank-oriented outfits (where seat swapping is fast/instant) to have a one-person-tank policy, so long as the members can afford it. There's just much more firepower in having 2 tanks that can seat swap, rather than one fully manned.

I doubt there will be a one-person-tank policy. There will be open season on tank pilots without auxiliary gunners, and Heavy Assaults will happily line up and plant rockets up his ass while he is switching seats and playing the sitting duck game trying to shoot them in hi stationary tank. With a bit of cover, three-four HAs could take out more than a couple of tanks, if they play it smart.
Whereas with machine gunners, the tanks could have spotted them while they were getting into position, and they'd have over twice the firepower to deal with them effectively.

Same goes for aircraft, perhaps even doubly so. Hitting a stationary target is much easier than hitting a moving target, AA guns or no.

[Accuser]

Suddenly 2 Magriders become the ultimate force on the field because they can spec less than optimal AA and switch seats. The two Prowlers with dual AV and 2 gunners? Owned! I mean, it's Magriders with AA and seat swap.

Wow, you just gave me the perfect example for my argument!
Imagine these options, you can have:
2 Prowlers with 2 AV gunners - that's 4 people with 4 AV guns
4 Prowlers with unmanned AA guns - that's 4 people with 4 AV guns, the option of 4 AA guns, and double the health points for the enemy to shoot through

[Aurmanite]

Wow, you just gave me the perfect example for my argument!
Imagine these options, you can have:
2 Prowlers with 2 AV gunners - that's 4 people with 4 AV guns
4 Prowlers with unmanned AA guns - that's 4 people with 4 AV guns, the option of 4 AA guns, and double the health points for the enemy to shoot through

This point keeps coming up over and over. You're thinking too small, too literal. There's no law saying that for every person that is doing one thing, there will be an equal amount of people doing that same thing. The game doesn't play that way. If you're running 2 fully manned tanks, you aren't guaranteed to run into 2 fully manned enemy tanks, 4 single manned tanks, or anything.

Besides, who is to say that 2 dual AV tanks wouldn't be able to kill twice as fast?

[VSENSES]

Keep seat swapping like it is.

[Death2All]

I hope they remove instant seat swapping. If you got in the wrong gun, stop, get out, and get in the gun you want. It makes no sense that the driver can warp from the drivers compartment, to the Cannon or bombers seat instantly. How did he get there? Through the wall?

It's a lot more balanced to have to switch seat manually. Sure, the vehicle might be gimped or immobile, but if the driver switched to the proper gun to destroy whatever is attacking him, he should win regardless, then switch back and drive away. If he has to stop and get out, he cant do that.

(Also wants vehicle enter/exit animations)

Planetside Vets don't want the game to mirror Planetside 1 perfectly, we want it to be similar, with problems fixed. So far, from what i have seen, Planetside 2 is only similar in name and graphic design and size. A lot of mechanics are just modern mechanics with a Planetside skin.

In calling the game Planetside 2, it infers that it is some kind of sequel to Planetside. But absolutely everything is different. Other game series keep many similarities in mechanics and design between sequels while still improving the experience. (Halo 1-Reach for instance.) Anyone can look at them or play Combat Evolved or Reach and tell you right away its Halo without knowing anything else. But from looking at the two games i can't really tell they are from the same series aside from some visuals like the Factions colors/symbols. They should have just named it Battlefield Auraxis or something along those lines.

/rant

No to seat swapping, yes to delay/manual switching.


This man speaks the truth!

And oh boy, the Battlefield fanboys are out in full force tonight I see. I've yet to see any argument apart from "seat swapping in convienent when my gunner bails on me" to keep seat swapping in the game.

Most of you are even acknowledging that the unfairness of firepower will occur, yet you use "Well everyone else can do it too! So it's fair!!!" as your justification.

Some even try to justify it further by adding in delays to swapping seats or putting it on a cooldown. The issue is neither here nor there how often you can swap seats. The issue is that you can do it period.


Figgy said it well:

The problem Bloodworth, is that they look only at or find more important the perspective of what is convenient for the switching player (usualy refered to as "I like" or "me" by these players). Meanwhile you look at the reward and tactical advantage for the enemy player given this enemy faces a team that decided to use equipment not built around their manpower.

The people here argueing with you are not interested in manpower balance, they don't want to be dependent on others and they don't want to make long term tactical and strategic disadvantage choices as compensation for exploiting a unit designed for three with two or less. Hence they ignore any argument based on fairness of manpower.

They even think it is already a disadvantage that you try to use it with less. That is where they are wrong, because it is no guarantee you need to use both at once as they presume to justify their position. Meanwhile, where did the third gunner go? He is elsewhere. As another unit. Meaning Bloodworth and I conclude you get more units than entitled to without paying a price for it.


I know the concept of long term decision making and repercussions for your mistakes can be scary, but is it really that daunting that you can't find room for it in a video game?

So you're driving a tank and you lose your gunner? Stop and find another one. Losing one of your gunners does not justify you being able to swap seats and use every gun yourself. The whole point of this game is to have thousands of players all working together. The game is going have litterly thousands of players everywhere, it's not like there's going to be any shortage of gunners. Pull your tank over and find someone you lazy piece of shit.

You jumped in the wrong spot of your vehicle? Darn! Maybe you should learn the correct spot to jump in next time so that doesn't happen in the future. A little learning never hurt anyone did it? What's that? The current game design doesn't allow you to pick which spot you want to get in? Then that's a flaw in the current game design, not a justification for allowing seat swapping. Start thinking outside of the box for once.


I'm not one of these realism freaks, but why does it make any sense at all why the driver of the vehicle could jump from the driver seat to the back tail gunner spot in a second? Doesn't that ruin your immersion that you guys are all crazy about?


The system in PS1 worked fine. There were little icons outside of the vehicle informing you on which seat each spot was for. Over time you learned where the gunner and passenger seats were for each vehicle. If you got in the wrong seat for the wrong situation then you were shit out of luck and you died. You learned in the future not to make that mistake. Why are people so persistent on degenerating society into a legion of idiots where no one is wrong, everyone is a winner and it's okay to be different. It starts with video games, then before you know the whole world has gone to shit.


Okay, maybe I sound a little crazy with that last part :rofl:. But seriously, no vehicle seat swapping, it's stupid.

[Aurmanite]

What does Battlefield have to do with this?

Oh I see, if you are for seat swapping you're a Battlefield fanboy and we hate Battlefield around here. :rolleyes:

Way to completely shoot yourself in the foot with ignorant fuckery.

[NexAnima]

Interesting, in the 26th century all vehicles are build with individual pods for seating, I did not know that.

Seriously, why is it so improbable for the passengers to shuffle around inside the vehicle? Add a delay, problem solved. No pilot in an aircraft, realistically there's auto pilot...For balance, make the aircraft start falling out of the sky until a someone reclaims the cockpit.

Hell even in real life, we don't need to swap seats to control most military arms on a vehicle, some tanks even use souped up tablets to control the cannons. Even if the gun needs to be manned, the vehicles are built as not to expose the soldier to fire. Did we some how devolve in military tactics in 600 years?

[EisenKreutzer]

Sure is elitist in here.

[pengalor]

It just seems that people who grew up on the recent crop of session based shooters ( Session based shooters are built on the premiss of the disposable experience, because they end ) are the ones who seem to be OK with this.

Is this a joke? 'Recent crop'? Just about every FPS on the market in the history of gaming has been 'session-based'.

[EisenKreutzer]

Is this a joke? 'Recent crop'? Just about every FPS on the market in the history of gaming has been 'session-based'.

He means were all CoD fanboys. ^^

[Aurmanite]

Is this a joke? 'Recent crop'? Just about every FPS on the market in the history of gaming has been 'session-based'.

The OP will never address this fact. I have brought it up a dozen times in a dozen threads. It's so much easier to be condescending when you aren't accountable for the crazy shit you say.

[pengalor]

He means were all CoD fanboys. ^^

Lol guess so. That's everyone's excuse nowadays. "You don't agree with me, you must be a CoD fanboy". This, of course, ignoring the thousands of games that came before CoD that had similar mechanics.

The OP will never address this fact. I have brought it up a dozen times in a dozen threads. It's so much easier to be condescending when you aren't accountable for the crazy shit you say.

Agreed. Honestly, I get the feeling from a lot of the anti-swapping people in this thread that they've never played a game with it. The only game I've ever seen it be remotely effective in was BF2, and that was through a glitch. In a game like this, go ahead and try to 1-man army with a Lib. When you get locked up by 4 or 5 guys with missiles watching your Liberator slowly descend and not making any evasive maneuvers I think they'll see that it's a non-issue.

[Flaropri]

I don't know if you've seen some of the footage, but it only takes one volley of Liberator bombs to take out an MBT. It takes a lot more shots from the tank to take out the Lib.

I've seen footage. Looks like 2-3 direct hits with the main cannon (no doubt varies by cannon of course). Considering that they hadn't finished repairing, it would likely be 2 at most, and they get 1 off before they even get inside. Add in a second gunner, especially if it's AA, and that Lib is easily destroyed even faster than with just a 1-crew Magrider.



@Figment: I don't ignore manpower and I think most others don't either, but I do think that resources are something that you underestimate. This is understandable since you've played PS1 without such considerations, but I think both factors should be taken into account, and that neither should be dismissed out of hand. I also think that you should WANT resources to be a factor, because given the lack of Certs as a means of limiting player capability, we need some more things as well besides just Cooldown.

I no doubt missed it, but I'm actually curious as to what solution you want to see. You are, thus far, against forcing 3-man variants because of what changes would be needed for the Magrider (based on past posts, perhaps you've changed your position on this), and in any event as long as there is an "optional" crew slot your view is that that crew slot simply wouldn't be used (based on previous discussions concerning 1-crew vs. 2-crew).

I'm not really clear what it is you WANT to see, if you're fine with current implementation, or if you want to remove seat swapping and up the number of crew slots or... what? And do you WANT resources to fit into the who thing?



In any event, I think it is short-sighted for people to accuse others of simply ignoring a point for their own convenience when it may be that they simply disagree with it, or acknowledge it as a potential problem to be mitigated in a different way. (Especially since that generally happens on all sides by accident anyway, either missing or not having a quick answer and forgetting to address it later or whatever.)

[Baneblade]

Swapping is fine, as long as you have to see an exit animation and then an enter animation first. :o

[Zulthus]

I don't care if there's swapping inside vehicles as long as there is a timer.

I made a poll on this a while back. http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=41752


The majority wants to either get out to switch or have a timer. And I'm a part of that.

Instant seat switching is bad. It's a no-no. I absolutely hate it in every game that has it. I realize it makes sense to swap seats from inside a vehicle but you cannot do it instantly.

[noxious]

Please keep instant vehicle seat swapping. It's fun!

[Accuser]

This point keeps coming up over and over. You're thinking too small, too literal. There's no law saying that for every person that is doing one thing, there will be an equal amount of people doing that same thing. The game doesn't play that way. If you're running 2 fully manned tanks, you aren't guaranteed to run into 2 fully manned enemy tanks, 4 single manned tanks, or anything.

Besides, who is to say that 2 dual AV tanks wouldn't be able to kill twice as fast?

No, you're thinking too small.
I'm saying that, if my buddy and I could get one tank with 1 AV gun and 1 AA gun, or 2 tanks (double the health) with 2 AV guns and the option of switching to 2 AA guns, we're going to do that. Now expand that to an entire outfit, or several outfits that are specialized in using tanks.

The point is that it won't just be me and a few friends with 4 Prowlers and the option of 4 AA guns, it will be the majority of tanks that roll without a gunner. The point is, I'm much more powerful in my own Prowler with the option of switching to my AA gun instead of sitting in an AA gunner seat the entire battle hoping an aircraft shows up. So why would anyone waste their time in an AA gunner seat when they can blast people with their own Prowler and hot-swap to AA if necessary?

[Aurmanite]

No, you're thinking too small.
I'm saying that, if my buddy and I could get one tank with 1 AV gun and 1 AA gun, or 2 tanks (double the health) with 2 AV guns and the option of switching to 2 AA guns, we're going to do that. Now expand that to an entire outfit, or several outfits that are specialized in using tanks.

The point is that it won't just be me and a few friends with 4 Prowlers and the option of 4 AA guns, it will be the majority of tanks that roll without a gunner. The point is, I'm much more powerful in my own Prowler with the option of switching to my AA gun instead of sitting in an AA gunner seat the entire battle hoping an aircraft shows up. So why would anyone waste their time in an AA gunner seat when they can blast people with their own Prowler and hot-swap to AA if necessary?

You didn't actually read what I said. This post just elaborates on what you said earlier.

That stationary Prowler with the moderate AA is sure gonna strike fear into a pilot. :rolleyes:

[noxious]

A stationary vehicle is a dead vehicle. This is why instant seat swapping isn't a problem in games that feature it. You're worrying too much about an issue that won't exist.

[Aurmanite]

So you head out one manning a tank being all badass. After a short drive you come across another tank, cool, kick its ass seabass. You start the fight and you get the upper hand forcing it to retreat. Badass. Then an enemy aircraft comes at you bro so you switch seats to AA it, but you only manage to get a shot or two off after the aircraft has unloaded an entire volley. It streaks away from your now motionless tank. You weren't able to prevent the aircraft from getting in that free damage because you were focused on that tank you first encountered, which has returned and is shooting at your stationary ass. Swap seats back into the drivers seat and try to get a shot off! Too late! That aircraft has flown back and unloaded another volley killing your ass dead.

So you and 4 of your friends head out 1 manning tanks, cause you're badass...You run into a group of people using combined arms and equipment they way they're supposed to and you get fucked up royally. If you were less of a scrub you might have had a chance.

[CutterJohn]

Switching delay is enough. No combat vehicle today requires you to exit the vehicle to change seats, except the small aircraft like helos and fighters(but I believe those tend to be set up so that the pilot or gunner can pilot or gun if needed).


A delay makes sense from both a realism and gameplay perspective. It is exactly the same drawback as a delay for holstering and pulling out a new weapon.

Though the actual seat switch should be instant, just the gun or vehicle controls should take a couple seconds to come online. This would be to facilitate people getting into the right seat without having to deal with delays.

[Raymac]

A delay makes sense from both a realism and gameplay perspective. It is exactly the same drawback as a delay for holstering and pulling out a new weapon.

^THIS

[DownloadFailed]

I'm fine with seat swapping, but maybe as a bit of a compromise between the two, perhaps there should be a small delay between the press of a button to switch seats to when you actually take the seat, to sort of simulate your player moving within the vehicle. It would allow players to move seats without jumping out while also making sure one person couldn't man a multi-seat vehicle all on his own.

Edit: Turns out I was already beaten to the punch. Oh well.
In a somewhat similar note, I think tanks should be two-seated. Except maybe small, light tanks. If there were more classes for tanks, maybe at least one more, designating the one-seaters as light tanks and two-seaters as heavier tanks, I'd be ok with it.

[Shadowrath]

I'm opposed to hot swapping seats when airborne or on the move, I think you should have to be on the ground or not moving to do it.

Better than nothing but remove it D:<

[Xyntech]

Seat switching delays and vehicle entry/exit delays seem enough to me, so long as the default time is at least three seconds (or longer, depending on play test results) and the "fast exit" and "fast seat swap" certs still taking a minimum of two seconds to swap/exit even when the cert is maxed out.

A minimum two second delay doesn't sound like that much in general, but it's going to leave even fast switchers significantly more vulnerable when they are actively taking fire, especially when there are more than one type of threat nearby, as is often the case in Planetside.

With instant switching, a player can hop back and forth between the two weapons to instantly start engaging multiple different types of threats, but with even a one second delay, they are going to have to think hard about whether to switch to AA to scare that reaver off, or whether they better stay in the drivers seat because they aren't sure whether that enemy tank just spotted them or not.

[Rago]

Oh this Topic got far Popular, as it seems.
I Still like swapping seats :P
Id would be nice to have a Poll coming with this, but because of the Misue it does not seem possible.Well i hope they keep it ! ;)

[Ruffdog]

Seat swapping needs to be in during beta to at least try it imo.
Practically speaking, for the next few months or more, at times your gunner buddies will be dropping from the server for netcode reasons or whatever, and you at least need the option to defend yourself, e.g. from airborne threats if you're in an mbt.

[Azren]

Seat switching delays and vehicle entry/exit delays seem enough to me, so long as the default time is at least three seconds (or longer, depending on play test results) and the "fast exit" and "fast seat swap" certs still taking a minimum of two seconds to swap/exit even when the cert is maxed out.

A minimum two second delay doesn't sound like that much in general, but it's going to leave even fast switchers significantly more vulnerable when they are actively taking fire, especially when there are more than one type of threat nearby, as is often the case in Planetside.

With instant switching, a player can hop back and forth between the two weapons to instantly start engaging multiple different types of threats, but with even a one second delay, they are going to have to think hard about whether to switch to AA to scare that reaver off, or whether they better stay in the drivers seat because they aren't sure whether that enemy tank just spotted them or not.

The delay should differ for each vehicle.

For example in the lib, the delay should be long enough so you can not fly and bomb at the same time. Maybe like 5 seconds. But in the sunderer (where you have a lot of space to move around) it should only take 1-2 second.

Seat swapping needs to be in during beta to at least try it imo.
Practically speaking, for the next few months or more, at times your gunner buddies will be dropping from the server for netcode reasons or whatever, and you at least need the option to defend yourself, e.g. from airborne threats if you're in an mbt.

What are you talking about?

Beta is for testing, not your gaming enjoyment! If your gunner drops, you just have to respawn and wait for him to come back.

[Ruffdog]

What are you talking about?

Beta is for testing, not your gaming enjoyment! If your gunner drops, you just have to respawn and wait for him to come back.

Yeah of course, I'm not gonna enjoy a single second of Beta. How dare I?


They are not mutually exclusive things you know.

[Murkie]

Artificial delays are an awful gameplay mechanic. Any time when you're not in full control of your character in order for the game to simulate you doing something is frustrating. I'd predict if the game went live with a seat swapping delay that it would take about 6 months before it got removed due to complaints.
Being able to hotswap only encourages solo play. On a well populated server you'd be able to fill your seats in a matter of minutes, having seat swapping would just mean people wont wait around as much. It's not about Planetside nostalgia, it's about generating the same level of teamwork and cooporation as Planetside.

[Rivenshield]

Artificial delays are an awful gameplay mechanic. Any time when you're not in full control of your character in order for the game to simulate you doing something is frustrating. I'd predict if the game went live with a seat swapping delay that it would take about 6 months before it got removed due to complaints.

Uh huh. That's why PS1 has survived a decade with such a rabid fanbase that they decided to make another one. A game where you have to stop, get out, and get back *in*. Yeah.

/sarcasm off

[Coreldan]

I agree with this thread.

I think there are a few ways the devs can do this, some better than the other. They have been mentioned already but the two I come up with (same as eveyrone else)

1) A delay before you can switch from one seat to other
2) Make it like PS1 where you have to be in in a pre-set area to jump into a specific seat.

Neither is that pretty of a solution without the entry/exit animations, but better than hot swapping.

[Murkie]

Uh huh. That's why PS1 has survived a decade with such a rabid fanbase that they decided to make another one. A game where you have to stop, get out, and get back *in*. Yeah.

/sarcasm off

Right. You pick 1 tiny part of Planetside and try to tell me that is the reason it's still going after all these years? That's the worst argument possible. You like that bit of Planetside where you can't do anything to affect your character? Good for you.

[fvdham]

Uh huh. That's why PS1 has survived a decade with such a rabid fanbase that they decided to make another one. A game where you have to stop, get out, and get back *in*. Yeah.

/sarcasm off

It's true. I fell in love with PlanetSide when I saw my character climb in and out of the Lightning tank. That was in 2003.

[RoninOni]

The most natural (compared to real life) solution would be seat-swapped with delay. IRL, if your gunner gets hit and you need to take the enemy out, you do just that: park it in the best spot available and get on the gun. Same with aircraft: if your bomber's gone and you need to drop the load, the pilot puts it on auto and shifts seats.

Of course, IRL, all of this takes time. Question is, would putting real-life like timers be acceptable in game? Would you like to stare at you screen for a full minute while your guy makes the tranfers? Make crawling through the aircraft to the tail gunner spot a mini-game? All those things slow the player down from what he wants to do: play the game.

So best compromise seems to be swapping with a short delay, like between 1-5 seconds. Enough to not be instantaneous but short enough to not break the tempo of the gameplay. What exactly would be the sweet spot is anyone's guess.

But I'm pretty sure there is nothing less natural than not being able to switch seats in a vehicle.

^This. Even if you want realism argument.... vehicles are designed with seat swapping in mind. Tanks are different with driver and turret... but that's also 1 man in PS2 already so.........

I have no issue whatsoever with having a seat swap delay. It shouldn't be excessively long... only 2-3 seconds... and if you swap while reloading the reload is canceled. 3 seconds would prevent a Lib pilot from 1 manning it as it would take 3 full seconds to swap to gunner... then fire rounds... then 3 to tail... then 3 to pilot before he can reengage thrusters.

Hell, 2 seconds would prevent that.... that's 6 seconds overhead on top of time to shoot. Not to mention you'd be fighter bait and wouldn't survive 1 run anyways.

2 seconds is plenty.


Edit: Turns out I was already beaten to the punch. Oh well.
In a somewhat similar note, I think tanks should be two-seated. Except maybe small, light tanks. If there were more classes for tanks, maybe at least one more, designating the one-seaters as light tanks and two-seaters as heavier tanks, I'd be ok with it.

The Lightning tank would like a word with you...

All factions have the 1 seater Lightning Tank as a .... light tank

and then their Prowler/Vanguard/Grac Faction heavy tank which seats 2. Driver+Main gunner & a secondary gunner seat.

[Flaropri]

Uh huh. That's why PS1 has survived a decade with such a rabid fanbase that they decided to make another one. A game where you have to stop, get out, and get back *in*. Yeah.

/sarcasm off

There's a difference survive and thrive.

In any event I think people are making entirely too big of a deal out of this. I doubt that Planetsides success or lack thereof was due even by a large minority to the vehicle entry system, just as I doubt that the different system for Battlefield or Crysis were any sort of large reason why they did well.

Almost everyone here wants to make team-play rewarding and satisfying. The difference is in the method.

I (and some others) want to use mechanisms to encourage team-play and make that the optimal choice for multi-crew vehicles without removing the ability to play a vehicle solo (but sub-optimally).

Others, want to force players to buddy up.

Honestly, they are both valid approaches, but my belief is that the game will be more successful encouraging people to do more rather than restricting them from doing something basic. Obviously, if there is a problem with balance (and balance isn't just similar vehicle to similar vehicle across factions but ensuring that all vehicles are viable options etc) to a great extent, than I'm willing to sacrifice relative freedom for the sake of balance.

I just don't think it is necessary at this point.

You've got people talking about really long delays, like 3 seconds for example. Like another poster I think if you're going to do delays it should depend on the vehicle and probably weapon, and in any event, 3 seconds is probably too long in most cases.

I also think that in the case of tanks mobility is being undervalued, and I doubt anyone really cares about hotswapping in a transport.


As I understand it, what people have a problem with balance-wise (concerning hotswapped seats) is under-manned craft (theoretically) performing as well as fully-manned craft. I don't think that's right, simply because you won't be able to deal with as many targets, even in a Lib where you might not have to sacrifice mobility as you would in MBTs or transports, but I can understand the concern. Aesthetics also play a role in the subtext as well on both sides, and that gets in the way of discussing acceptable mechanics.

The question then becomes: "Maybe that one vehicle does worse but your side can field more vehicles per person!"

Ultimately, it just goes back to making full crews optimal to non-full crews, and what the best way of doing that is. Whether it's resources (my method) seperate driver/gunner roles in MBTs or even Libs (another issue that was brought up), removing or restricting hotswapping (this thread) or some mixed combination of any or all of these.

[RoninOni]

Take the Lib.

A 2 man crew can have dedicated pilot and a Gunner.

Now the gunner can EITHER shoot the cannon or the tail gun.

If he's shooting ground targets... the primary reason for using a lib and thus most likely position... then he won't be in the tail position to see the Mosquito approaching from their 6. When the Mosuito unloads his rockets and guns into the surprised Lib, the canon gunner now must leave his post, removing the biggest battlefield advantage of the Lib in field, in order to deal with this new airborne threat... AND he's already taken a preliminary beating without return fire.

Now imagine that same Lib but with 3 people in it. The Mosquito now starts getting shot before he can get close enough for his unguided, high damage rockets. The Canon continues to rain hell on the tanks below.

And lets not forget that with hundreds of potential enemies in your Hex, you'll likely be CONSTANTLY dealing with air threats...

How much canon fire will that Lib ever deliver?


Full manned crews is still VERY much required.

[Rago]

Take the Lib.

A 2 man crew can have dedicated pilot and a Gunner.

Now the gunner can EITHER shoot the cannon or the tail gun.

If he's shooting ground targets... the primary reason for using a lib and thus most likely position... then he won't be in the tail position to see the Mosquito approaching from their 6. When the Mosuito unloads his rockets and guns into the surprised Lib, the canon gunner now must leave his post, removing the biggest battlefield advantage of the Lib in field, in order to deal with this new airborne threat... AND he's already taken a preliminary beating without return fire.

Now imagine that same Lib but with 3 people in it. The Mosquito now starts getting shot before he can get close enough for his unguided, high damage rockets. The Canon continues to rain hell on the tanks below.

And lets not forget that with hundreds of potential enemies in your Hex, you'll likely be CONSTANTLY dealing with air threats...

How much canon fire will that Lib ever deliver?


Full manned crews is still VERY much required.

So what ? I dont have a Problem with that, its the Same in Other Games, switching seats for example from right to left cannon seat is very Usefull and only skilled players will do so.
Its not even unfair.Seat switching is fine.
Its not that it makes the Game Overpowered.
You have to repair the Liberator sometimes, (and Land it for that)and Mozzys or Reavers do much Damage even if they Die in the Fight.

No, Seat switching seem fine to me.
It´s Fun and thats the most important Part Fun in Gameplay.
Everybody will be able to do so.So it is fair.

Some People will not Fly like in every FPS.But thats their own fault and yeah it has nothing to to with seat swapping.

[Klockan]

I realize it makes sense to swap seats from inside a vehicle but you cannot do it instantly.
Do you realize that most "seats" in planetside aren't actual seats but instead different computer interfaces, I mean you haven't seen anyone actually man a turret have you? Instead they are sitting at terminals or at least something very like a terminal, so changing which weapon this terminal is controlling should be just as fast as the player changing "seats" as it is now. It is not unrealistic at all. None of the turrets are "manned", they are controlled from a computer, and it wouldn't be hard to make all computers being able to control any turret. That would make sense from a design perspective since then the soldiers would be able to switch roles instantly in case someone gets taken out.

[Zenben]

When I think of instant seat-swapping, the biggest problem in my mind is that a Liberator pilot becomes that douchebag in Battlefield that seat-swaps the TV missile in the attack chopper, only now he has a tank cannon to do it with. No thanks.

[Notsononymous]

So can the yes-camp please explain (as their arguments seem to be founded in pro-realism) why in real life you would not be able to switch to the gunner seat in a tank or aircraft without getting out?

The way all modern combat vehicles are designed you can easily change seat without having to exit your vehicle!

[BlueSkies]

Filthy seat swapping bastard, look at how OP he is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3xUxSfqAO8#t=1m34s

[Azren]

So can the yes-camp please explain (as their arguments seem to be founded in pro-realism) why in real life you would not be able to switch to the gunner seat in a tank or aircraft without getting out?

The way all modern combat vehicles are designed you can easily change seat without having to exit your vehicle!

O' really?

http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/boeing_ah_64a_apache.jpg

http://media-1.web.britannica.com/eb-media/05/60705-004-04DA7A50.jpg

http://blog-imgs-18.fc2.com/m/i/l/militaryworld/080212cobra-1.jpg

Yes, I'm sure they always fly solo, it's just that the pilot switches seats when he needs to fire...

[ringring]

I agree. ~When I see video of a liberator and the main gunner is swapping back and forth with the tail-gun position you think 'that's wrong'.

[Azren]

Do not allow any seat changes for the Liberator. The seats are sealed from eachother in that craft.
Allow on-the-fly seat change for Galaxy, but make it slower than when landed. Pilot can only change seat when landed.
Allow seat change while mobile for Sunderer and MBT, but make it slower than when stationary. Driver can only change seat when stationary.

[Klockan]

Do not allow any seat changes for the Liberator. The seats are sealed from eachother in that craft.
Allow on-the-fly seat change for Galaxy, but make it slower than when landed. Pilot can only change seat when landed.
Allow seat change while mobile for Sunderer and MBT, but make it slower than when stationary. Driver can only change seat when stationary.

Read my post, realism isn't an issue, seat swapping is realistic in most vehicles since they are controlled through computers and are not actually manned through specific seats. So you just switch control from one terminal to the other, there real life instant seat swapping!

[KTNApollo]

Do not allow any seat changes for the Liberator. The seats are sealed from eachother in that craft.
Allow on-the-fly seat change for Galaxy, but make it slower than when landed. Pilot can only change seat when landed.
Allow seat change while mobile for Sunderer and MBT, but make it slower than when stationary. Driver can only change seat when stationary.


This. Anybody that disagress with this is doing it wrong.

[Klockan]

This. Anybody that disagress with this is doing it wrong.
Funny that you are ignoring me who completely crushed his argument.

[KTNApollo]

I'm sure Pilots can instantly swap to bomber cameras, line up shots, swap back to pilot, give themself some vertical momentum, swap to tailgunner and harass the aircraft shooting them from behind, and then swap back to pilot in real life. Please, don't be stupid. Is it ineffective to do so and likely to result in your death? Yes. Should you be able to do it anyway? No.

Scenario time.

4 guys decide to get 2 Liberators, because who needs a 3rd gunner? If fully manned, 4 people only gets you one Lib. If 6 people get Liberators, you can either have 2 fully manned or 3 two-thirds manned. This problem gets exponentially worse with each new member. 12 guys? 6 with 2, or 4 with 3. 24 guys? 12 with 2, or 8 with 3. 12 Liberators can kill more tanks than 8 Liberators can, and then they can swap to tailgun and take out any aircraft faster than 8 Liberators can.

The same problem presents itself with MBTs. Players will favor solo-ing MBTs because 2 MBTs will be able to handle any situation better than 1 MBT with a secondary gunner.

Seriously, stop wearing the dunce cap and look at the problems here. Vehicles need to be fully manned. Seat-swapping makes this less pertinent.

[Klockan]

Seriously, stop wearing the dunce cap and look at the problems here. Vehicles need to be fully manned. Seat-swapping makes this less pertinent.
Yes, that is true, but using the realism argument doesn't work. If it should be removed it should be because it is bad for gameplay for some reason. To me it seems like it creates a lot of situations where skillfull play can win the day which is good for gameplay. No matter what people say this is a shooter and not WoW so twitch player skill should still matter and not just manpower. There are arguments in favor of both sides really.

[KTNApollo]

Yes, that is true, but using the realism argument doesn't work. If it should be removed it should be because it is bad for gameplay for some reason. To me it seems like it creates a lot of situations where skillfull play can win the day which is good for gameplay.

Realism can suck a dick. I agree with you. Stop using that argument. This is bad for gameplay reasons, and gameplay reasons alone. This is bad for the same reasons that BF3's vehicle mechanics are bad. Jump out of a jet going straight up, turn around, headshot the pilot of another jet, jump back in the jet as it falls back to you. Skillful? Yeah, okay, who cares? It's still retarded and shouldn't be in the game.

[Rago]

Realism can suck a dick. I agree with you. Stop using that argument. This is bad for gameplay reasons, and gameplay reasons alone. This is bad for the same reasons that BF3's vehicle mechanics are bad. Jump out of a jet going straight up, turn around, headshot the pilot of another jet, jump back in the jet as it falls back to you. Skillful? Yeah, okay, who cares? It's still retarded and shouldn't be in the game.

I disagree.

I love Seat swapping, like i told and i like not realistic Stuff.
Goind out of a Jet killing sombody, and then get back into the Jet, is something what ist "Very Satisfying" You need a lot of Luck and Skill for this and when its working, its very much of FUN.

Basically there are People who like this and People who dont.

Its the same with many other Things.As soon we get the Orbital Strikes Back for example People will cry arround like, OS Noob :D.The Same Goes for the Redeemer Noods in UT ect. ITS FUN.
Look at this Guy, even if you dont want such things in Games
I love THAT STUFF !

Epic 007 Moment - BF3 - BASE JUMP INTO HELICOPTER! - YouTube

Such Things you dont like, but they are FUN ! Realism is Cheap, to be against fun in Gameplay ,too:D:p Dont hate me for that !

[Zulthus]

Do you realize that most "seats" in planetside aren't actual seats but instead different computer interfaces, I mean you haven't seen anyone actually man a turret have you? Instead they are sitting at terminals or at least something very like a terminal, so changing which weapon this terminal is controlling should be just as fast as the player changing "seats" as it is now. It is not unrealistic at all. None of the turrets are "manned", they are controlled from a computer, and it wouldn't be hard to make all computers being able to control any turret. That would make sense from a design perspective since then the soldiers would be able to switch roles instantly in case someone gets taken out.

This has to be the biggest reach I have ever seen on these forums.

[fvdham]

PlanetSide 1 was a bit of a war simulator like ARMA 2
only with lots more strategy.

[Tamas]

O' really?

http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/boeing_ah_64a_apache.jpg

http://media-1.web.britannica.com/eb-media/05/60705-004-04DA7A50.jpg

http://blog-imgs-18.fc2.com/m/i/l/militaryworld/080212cobra-1.jpg

Yes, I'm sure they always fly solo, it's just that the pilot switches seats when he needs to fire...

AC 130; Any APC, tank, transport vehicles, Black Hawk, Chinook etc.

[Klockan]

This has to be the biggest reach I have ever seen on these forums.
That is not a reach at all. There are no "seats" in the classical sense, everything is remote controlled from inside with cameras and such. Have you actually looked at the liberator turrets, the tank turrets or the sunderer turrets?

PlanetSide 1 was a bit of a war simulator like ARMA 2
only with lots more strategy.
No it was not at all. Things died waaaaaay too slowly.

[Zulthus]

That is not a reach at all. There are no "seats" in the classical sense, everything is remote controlled from inside with cameras and such. Have you actually looked at the liberator turrets, the tank turrets or the sunderer turrets?

Alright, let's go along with your theory that all guns are controlled by computers. Why would they all be linked together? I'm going to add onto your theory and say that to prevent interference between guns, each computer is linked to its individual gun. This serves to boost performance and eliminates risk of accidentally firing someone else's weapon.

There. Now you have to switch seats.


No it was not at all. Things died waaaaaay too slowly.

Vehicles dying slowly was one of the best parts of PS1 :)

[BlueSkies]

O' really?

http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/boeing_ah_64a_apache.jpg

http://media-1.web.britannica.com/eb-media/05/60705-004-04DA7A50.jpg

http://blog-imgs-18.fc2.com/m/i/l/militaryworld/080212cobra-1.jpg

Yes, I'm sure they always fly solo, it's just that the pilot switches seats when he needs to fire...

"O' really?" Try researching it next time. I'll just use the first helicopter you used as an example. The Apache has two seats, one for a pilot, one for the co-pilot/gunner. However, BOTH seats have full sets of flight/gunnery controls. Why? Because it would be stupid for the craft to lose firing ability, or crash, if one of the crewman became disabled or died. So.. yes, it can be flown and gunned solo, and you don't even have to switch seats :D

[Klockan]

Alright, let's go along with your theory that all guns are controlled by computers. Why would they all be linked together? I'm going to add onto your theory and say that to prevent interference between guns, each computer is linked to its individual gun. This serves to boost performance and eliminates risk of accidentally firing someone else's weapon.

There. Now you have to switch seats.
Do you even know how computers work? You can do these things today in modern vehicles, it is not hard. We even got remote controlled unmanned vehicles, switching which terminal is controlling it is trivial. Since it is possible today then using realism argument that it shouldn't be possible in X number of years feels a bit dumb. Most modern vehicles usually aren't designed for it, some aeroplanes are though.

[Azren]

"O' really?" Try researching it next time. I'll just use the first helicopter you used as an example. The Apache has two seats, one for a pilot, one for the co-pilot/gunner. However, BOTH seats have full sets of flight/gunnery controls. Why? Because it would be stupid for the craft to lose firing ability, or crash, if one of the crewman became disabled or died. So.. yes, it can be flown and gunned solo, and you don't even have to switch seats :D

Think you're being real smart now, eh? He was arguing that all modern warmashines are designed to allow seat changing. Not role changing, seat changing as in physically moving from seat A to B. Let me see you do that in an apache while it's flying.

[Zulthus]

Do you even know how computers work? You can do these things today in modern tanks, it is not hard. We even got remote controlled unmanned vehicles, switching which terminal is controlling it is trivial. Since it is possible today then using realism argument that it shouldn't be possible in X number of years feels a bit dumb.

Then why even sit in the vehicle? We should have RC terminals where you can control every gun and drive it from the safety of your base, just since you say we have that technology.

[Klockan]

Then why even sit in the vehicle? We should have RC terminals where you can control every gun and drive it from the safety of your base, just since you say we have that technology.
Because you got latency, are vulnerable to interference and wouldn't be able to drive in a tunnel.

[Zulthus]

Think you're being real smart now, eh? He was arguing that all modern warmashines are designed to allow seat changing. Not role changing, seat changing as in physically moving from seat A to B. Let me see you do that in an apache while it's flying.

Call me Rico and give me a grappling hook.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bgMn1erkcVc/TcLAWvHkAVI/AAAAAAAAADg/j5ABZNHMR6M/s1600/Just+Cause2+Helicopter+Hijack.jpg

[fvdham]

I happen to know that the PlanetSide 2 vehicles were based on WW2 tech. Just because.

[NexAnima]

Think you're being real smart now, eh? He was arguing that all modern warmashines are designed to allow seat changing. Not role changing, seat changing as in physically moving from seat A to B. Let me see you do that in an apache while it's flying.

The real argument stands, Why would you need to. The difference is in PS2, we will change the seats to change our roles. In real life we don't need to, we can just change the roles. The only reason we should have hot swaping (with a delay) is to balance the gameplay.

[Zulthus]

Because you got latency, are vulnerable to interference and wouldn't be able to drive in a tunnel.

I'm sure that far in the future their technology is advanced enough to completely negate those problems, hm? Each vehicle has a very distinct frequency and the waves they send out are much more powerful, able to penetrate through Auraxium.

[BlueSkies]

Think you're being real smart now, eh? He was arguing that all modern warmashines are designed to allow seat changing. Not role changing, seat changing as in physically moving from seat A to B. Let me see you do that in an apache while it's flying.

/facedesk

A: Many modern vehicles of war allow seat changing

B: Some don't! (examples given)

C: *demonstrate that in those examples given seat changing is unnecessary because the roles can be wrapped up into one seat, thereby negating the "Some don't!" argument as the seats can be either physically or electronically switched.

D: redneck pipes in

[Klockan]

I'm sure that far in the future their technology is advanced enough to completely negate those problems, hm? Each vehicle has a very distinct frequency and the waves they send out are much more powerful, able to penetrate through Auraxium.
But the devs set the rules of what new things are in the future and that isn't in. The point is that you can't use the "it is unrealistic" argument. So, lets just end this discussion here and talk about gameplay implications since it is those that matters. It is realistic with instant vehicle role changes, but is it good for the game?

[Zulthus]

But the devs set the rules of what new things are in the future and that isn't in. The point is that you can't use the "it is unrealistic" argument. So, lets just end this discussion here and talk about gameplay implications since it is those that matters. It is realistic with instant vehicle role changes, but is it good for the game?

Since when are video games supposed to be realistic? This is a sci-fi game, remember that. But no, it is not good for the game. You shouldn't be able to switch to your AA turret just because an aircraft appears. You should be fucked because you decided to go solo. You can rape all the tanks you want with your AV weapon but there needs to be a delay on switching so that aircraft can fuck your vehicle up before you get the chance to retaliate. That's the price of not bringing a gunner.

[Marinealver]

Please keep vehicle swapping.

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

Agreed, I actuall say add another seat and keep the swapings. Oh well we will find out what happens.

[Klockan]

Since when are video games supposed to be realistic? This is a sci-fi game, remember that.
It is your side who argue that seat swapping is unrealistic and thus shouldn't be in the game, not anyone else. You just killed your own argument that I already killed, congratulations.

But no, it is not good for the game. You shouldn't be able to switch to your AA turret just because an aircraft appears. You should be fucked because you decided to go solo. You can rape all the tanks you want with your AV weapon but there needs to be a delay on switching so that aircraft can fuck your vehicle up before you get the chance to retaliate. That's the price of not bringing a gunner.
You can see it that way or you can see it as a way to promote skilled play. Teamplay in vehicles will be promoted as long as each seat is more valuable than a footsoldier, making the most out of each tank is important.

[Sledgecrushr]

This being sci fi you should be able to operate all of the weapons via remote control from the other side of Auraxis. Just a little one second delay would punish a solo driver enough I think.

[Zulthus]

It is your side who argue that seat swapping is unrealistic and thus shouldn't be in the game, not anyone else. You just killed your own argument that I already killed, congratulations.

That was more me mocking you for saying this game is supposed to be a realism sim. Whereas instantly switching spots in a vehicle is not realistic at all.


You can see it that way or you can see it as a way to promote skilled play. Teamplay in vehicles will be promoted as long as each seat is more valuable than a footsoldier, making the most out of each tank is important.

Pressing F2 and instantly swapping to your AA turret to take out an aircraft is not skilled play. It's cheap and shouldn't be able to be done.

This being sci fi you should be able to operate all of the weapons via remote control from the other side of Auraxis. Just a little one second delay would punish a solo driver enough I think.

Hey, that's pretty much what I'm saying, going off of most of the logic in this thread.




*sigh* might as well leave now, this is a very pointless thing to be arguing about, it's so far off topic it isn't even funny

[Azarga]

I think that we should be able to swap seats, NOT instantaniously but with some delay, say 2.5 or even 3.25 sec. That's a long time in combat.

[Klockan]

That was more me mocking you for saying this game is supposed to be a realism sim. Whereas instantly switching spots in a vehicle is not realistic at all.
Firstly I didn't say that this should be a realism sim and secondly it is realistic to instantly switching spots in a vehicle, it is done today in almost all aircrafts.

Pressing F2 and instantly swapping to your AA turret to take out an aircraft is not skilled play. It's cheap and shouldn't be able to be done.
Requires way more skill than just sitting in the AA and waiting for some aircraft to appear.

[EisenKreutzer]

Dedicated driver and gunner, animations for entering and exiting vehicles, no seat swapping in vehicles, manual transmition, vehicle fuel..

You know, all of these suggestions seem fine on their own, but all together? With all of those things, PS2 would be a tedious war-sim that I would not want to play, just as I have no interest in playing ArmA 2.

Do people really want all these things? Do you really want a slow, pondering, cumbersome game of minute tactics and grueling detail, where absolutely every choice has grave, potentially game-ruining consequences?

I do not. I want a fast-paced, modern FPS with a heavy focus on teamplay, not a realistic war-simulator with sci-fi paint on.

[sylphaen]

I suggest that instead of talking about delays, we instead talk about "timings".

When you get the jump on someone who is not ready and positioned, should he be able to instantly pull out the correct weapon or should a timing be involved ?

I think for instance that there should be a risk/reward balance in the choices you make in the game:
- healing should be risky
- reviving should be risky
- hacking should be risky
- repairing should be risky
- being along in your vehicle on the wrong seat should be risky

There should be benefits for catching a player off-guard but as far as we have seen, it's only done through the low TTK. However, instant everything is a bit too fast imo.

It was definitely possible to play alone with a vehicle in PS1 and man all the guns. It was just very risky to do so because it took time to switch from one position to the other.
e.g.:
- in a skyguard, bailing while slowing down and jumping in the gun seat took 4-5 seconds. Very risky manoeuver but if the aircav did not spot you first, you would take them down easy.
- if you were caught up with the wrong gun in hand (like the healing gun) at the wrong moment, you would get toasted because switching back to your rifle (holstering medgun+pulling out rifle) took a 1-2 seconds. It was a choice between safe healing and readiness.

Some people on these forums keep talking about eSports so my guess is they watch some SC2 webcasts. There is a similar concept to which zerg players are familiar: if you over-drone, you may not be ready for an attack but if you are not attacked, you end up a great deal forward.

To me, choosing what to do and when is just as important as knowing where to aim and how to shoot.

I am against instant seat swapping.
I am against instant vehicle entry/exit.
On the other hand, I am not saying it should be super slow. There should be balance in all things and I find that instant is a bit extreme. It can't get faster than instant so we are definitely sitting at one end of the spectrum for the moment.

[Coreldan]

There is a huge difference between not making it slow and tedious and allowing for ridicilous soloing by allowing INSTANT seat switching. I'm not against it per se, but it needs to be done so that it's not viable to go around solo and still manage too good.

Sure, a fully manned crew is going to be better, but that doesnt really stop people from solowhoring with the tanks in BF3 either.

[EisenKreutzer]

There is a huge difference between not making it slow and tedious and allowing for ridicilous soloing by allowing INSTANT seat switching.

What you call ridiculous soloing, I call viability of solo play. Honestly, i do not believe this will be a huge issue. The beta may prove me wrong, and we should definately try it out en masse to see if it really is an issue, but as of now i do not think that the option of running solo in a tank will in any way negatively impact the gameplay.

You don't have to break out the whips and chains to ensure that players play cooperatively and rely on teamwork. The massive size of Planetside 2, the way mechanics like resources and base capture work, the in-game voice chat and such systems will ensure that.

[Coreldan]

What you call ridiculous soloing, I call viability of solo play. Honestly, i do not believe this will be a huge issue. The beta may prove me wrong, and we should definately try it out en masse to see if it really is an issue, but as of now i do not think that the option of running solo in a tank will in any way negatively impact the gameplay.

You don't have to break out the whips and chains to ensure that players play cooperatively and rely on teamwork. The massive size of Planetside 2, the way mechanics like resources and base capture work, the in-game voice chat and such systems will ensure that.

I hope your right :P That said, I'm not concerned anyways. I'm sure if it ends up as a problem, SOE will do something about it.

Or then I'll just have to go solo-tank-lame-mode Higby so much that he starts hate the feature and adds a delay or something :D

[sylphaen]

Truth be told, I am still very sour they took out the solo play viability I had with Lasher 2.0.
:rofl:

@Eisen: no worries, just poking some fun. ;)

I am in the same train of thought with Coreldan on this topic. Hopefully, it turns out for the best.

[EisenKreutzer]

I hope your right :P That said, I'm not concerned anyways. I'm sure if it ends up as a problem, SOE will do something about it.

I'm glad I'm not the only voice of moderation here. There are plenty of people to advocate the extremes of these issues, but not enough who point out the middle ground. :P

Beta will tell us all we need to know about these things. ^^

[NCLynx]

1.5 second delay to change seats while taking no damage. Taking damage resets the 1.5 second delay.

[Corpse]

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.

Disclaimer beforehand, I haven't played PS1 myself. If you feel that because of this my input has no value whatsoever, I recommend you go play some more games and/or open yourself up to some other opinions.

My view on the issue of this particular discussion:

From what I've seen from the latest footage, where the guy switches from the pilot seat of the liberator to the bomber seat, it very much looked like the plane dropped almost instantly to the ground. There is a good reason why the guy crashed even after quickly switching back to the pilot seat.
Wouldn't you agree that it would take quite some skill to pull this off effectively? And thus making it rather nonviable for most of the players?
As someone earlier in this thread pointed out, pulling off this kind of stuff successfully is rather satisfying, and to me that's a rather good reason to keep playing PS2. :)

Ground vehicles might not crash down, but when the driver switches seats he gives up 2 rather important things:

His main firepower
All of his mobility


What does he give this stuff up for? A secondary weapon that does indeed allow him to deal with enemies he can't really engage from the driver seat (think AA), in the end is going to have less firepower than what he had in the other seat.

What the swapping gives you is options. People playing games like options.
I'm seeing a lot of PS1 players that apparently liked not having these options in PS1.
But there are more people around, including me, that simply can not understand why you'd want to limit yourself like this.
It may force teamplay, but it's rather arbitrary for most people.
"Why am I not allowed to switch seats in the vehicle? It's not like it has that big of an impact on the game. Every other game allows you to do it, why not this game? This is just ridiculous, what a roundabout way of doing something so trivial. This makes no sense."
^this is what I see most people thinking when they find out it isn't in the game.
Hell, it's what I'm thinking right now. What is the big fuss about?
The fact that it was part of PS1 doesn't mean it has to be present in #2.

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. And the argument that this is because all those other games are "session based" instead of persistent like PS2 and that because of this the seat swapping is perfectly fine in those games, but not in PS2, isn't even a valid argument, it's utter bogus.
Give me a solid link between the two first and then I might consider my opinion on this one...


TL;DR (this seems to be the proper annotation for an ending summary on the internet nowadays)
Seat swapping brings more options. Who in their right mind would want to limit someones options? And it's not like these options don't have their own massive drawbacks. Why all the hate for seat swapping?

[EisenKreutzer]

The fact that it was part of PS1 doesn't mean it has to be present in #2.

This is, honestly, the most vital part of your post IMO.

[sylphaen]

1.5 second delay to change seats while taking no damage. Taking damage resets the 1.5 second delay.

That would just be frustrating... I'd simply make the delay a tad longer along with a visible/audible hint that will inform other players that the tank owner is switching to his gunner spot.

More about the topic (and slightly off-topic):
I haven't seen this mentionned much but actually, anything that can tell which positions of the vehicle are being manned (advanced targeting was useful for that in PS1) would be nice.
e.g:
empty tank: no sound
driver: engine sounds
gunner: turret sounds
entering/exiting vehicle: sound+timer
switching seat: sound+timer

Knowing if the guy is still camping the door or if he is repositioning is important. I sometimes got out of the driver seat in PS1 just so the engines would stop making noise and improve the odds of ambushing other players.

I've had odds where thinking a tank was heavily damaged or had no-gunners changed my behavior (i.e. opportunity target). Being able to switch seats from inside the vehicle is already a buff in PS2. In PS1, you could shoot a driver trying to switch to his gunner seat if he was not already in position. And if he was in a bad position, it was risky for him to get out of the tank to reach the driver seat.

Would I still choose to attack a gunner-less vehicle in PS2 if I had a damaged vehicle myself ? Most likely not (because driver=gunner) and still likely not if it was driver/gunner because of switching seats.

At this point, a terrible idea to add would be repairing from inside vehicles. Drivers already do not appear too vulnerable to cloakers/snipers/ATVs/other small caliber threats when repairing:
- the repairing is kind of fast
- they can instantly jump in their armor (from any side) and obliterate the threat

Basically, one of the most likely choices vs. a driver repairing seems to be dealing with the tank (e.g. C4) instead of the player. At least, in PS1, the drivers were sometimes forced away from the entry points. They also had to unholster their equipped weapon before the vehicle enter animation would start. It gave a chance to a cloaker to assassinate the driver or gunner with his gun. And then, seat switching with the cloaker still around was also dangerous because he knew where you would get out and when (and there was a time-requirement to equip your gun). In PS2, you apparently can enter from any side and switch instantly between seats to choose on which side to get out.

What's the point if there is instant entry ? What's the point if there is instant-seat-switching-from-inside-the-tank ?

Sorry for the long post and thank you for reading. These were just thoughts to further why timing/delays/entry points/seat swapping have an impact on gameplay.

[fvdham]

Ground vehicles might not crash down, but when the driver switches seats he gives up 2 rather important things:

His main firepower
All of his mobility


What does he give this stuff up for? A secondary weapon that does indeed allow him to deal with enemies he can't really engage from the driver seat (think AA), in the end is going to have less firepower than what he had in the other seat.

What the swapping gives you is options. People playing games like options.
I'm seeing a lot of PS1 players that apparently liked not having these options in PS1.
But there are more people around, including me, that simply can not understand why you'd want to limit yourself like this.


The subject is called "no seat swapping", but that is not really the topic,
since there was seat swapping in PlanetSide 1.

The topic really is: "no seat swapping
without having to exit the vehicle and enter it again using another door".

In PlanetSide 1 there was a penalty to seat swapping:

for the solo player who was driving a multi-crew vehicle.
He was exposed for a while to say a cloaked guy with a pistol
who was standing next to his vehicle, while he was changing seats
and there was the time delay because of the animation
of climbing out, the walking around to the other door and the
animation of climbing into the vehicle.




What the swapping gives you is options. People playing games like options.
I'm seeing a lot of PS1 players that apparently liked not having these options in PS1.
But there are more people around, including me, that simply can not understand why you'd want to limit yourself like this.


So these options were already in PlanetSide 1.
What the devs has done is remove the risk and the time delay of seat swapping.
Making things easier for solo players who drive multi-crew vehicles.
Devs making PlanetSide more solo side and less team side.

Which is odd since there already is a single player tank called the Lightning.

I drive the Lightning 99% of the time, yet I am against SoloSide and against EasyWaySide.

[EisenKreutzer]

What the devs has done is remove the risk and the time delay of seat swapping.
Making things easier for solo players who drive multi-crew vehicles.
Devs making PlanetSide more solo side and less team side.

This is just flat out wrong. And honestly, I am getting a little bit tired of seeing the never ending stream of people who write about how SOE is "dumbing down the game," how Planetside 2 is turning into "SoloSide," how rampaging hordes of solo players will drive around in Liberators and MBTs alone and dominate everyone because the game rewards "Ramboing," and a ton of other ridiculous notions that are floating around here.

First off, while inventing funny little words like SoloSide and Ramboing does create a team atmosphere among those who share these opinions, it does absolutely nothing for the community as a whole.

The game will not totally lack teamplay without these features.
The game will not be flooded with 12-year-old Call of Duty players because you can instantly swap seats, or have the option of driving alone in a main battle tank.
The game will not be better with all these restricting, cumbersome and frankly archaic features.

These features, or rather the lack of them, are a result of the design philosophy behind Planetside 2. PS2 is a different game from the original Planetside, and though it shares many features with it's predecessor, it is built on a fundamentally diffrent platform.

PS1 was a war simulator with FPS elements. PS2 will be an FPS with warsim elements.

It's that simple.

[Vanath]

Drivers/pilots can't swap seats if they are moving/in the air. Everyone else moves to their seat instantly but has a delay on being able to use the new position if applicable. This allows people that want to swap seats to do so fairly quickly but still limits swapping between weapons.

[MrBloodworth]

Filthy seat swapping bastard, look at how OP he is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3xUxSfqAO8#t=1m34s

That's a hummer, its designed like that. It's the equivalent of a buggy.

[ThermalReaper]

Well don't remove them, just don't make them instant. 3-7 second delay would be nice.

[MrBloodworth]

The OP will never address this fact.

I have addressed it a number of times.

Its the difference between a game design that places emphasis "Playing alone, together" VS. Team based with the added bonus of persistent. One is built around the disposable experience and shallow rewards ( Not meant in a derogatory way ) with no larger impact because it focuses on a single battle, not a content crossing war with persistence. In one design, reliance on others is removed, because its seen as a hindrance due to the short playtime window of a match. Session based design allows for players exiting vehicles at 10,000 feet to shoot a bazooka, because it does not matter when the match ends, and it can be quite fun. But the map has reset. They allow for instant switching because and instant entry because they are not focused on players playing together to bring firepower. They feature designs where in players playing alone together can achieve goals like capturing points simply by being in the same area, planed or not. We know this as "The zerg". One of the largest design pots for a session based shooter, is anything that keeps from constantly firing is bad, you must be engaged at all points, at all times, constantly. Hence systems like instant squad spawning and tiny death penalties. You do not even have to re-climb that hill if you fail.

I personally like COD and BF series, but I recognize that they are a different design, with different goals. Those two games are the largest influence on Planetside 2 development. Many systems do not belong in a team based, Persistent, design.

Not where team work, connection to the world and its objects should be priority. More "Worldly" aspects if you will. Less "Gamey" aspects.


Do people really want all these things? Do you really want a slow, pondering, cumbersome game of minute tactics and grueling detail, where absolutely every choice has grave, potentially game-ruining consequences?

This is hyperbole, and why its so hard to post on this site. No, I do not want what you describe. However your concept of the passage of time and its speed my differ from mine it seems.

There is zero reason those items can not be included in a measured way. It does not mean the game will slow to a snails pace, unless your idea of a snails pace is anything slower than a meth addict. They can be added in a measured, considerate way that adds to the experience, impacts the pace slightly.

I personally see the removal of such things as an overreaction for the pursuit of "Faster". Pendulum has swung to far.

[fishirboy]

^^^^^He proves the point better but i show you why :)

Well as I read the about fan boys of BF3 talking about being able to just go in with your one man army get the tanks down switch to your light guns and kill the 5 or so men around you as well as switching to your AA gun on your tank and killing the aircraft coming towards you is Ridiculousness, first you can see what seat of the vehicle your getting into. Second no you should not always be able to just change seats on the fly, it makes TEAMWORK (you know the whole point of having 2k players on the map deal) go down to nothing but you and your engineer just cleaning off the blood on your tank. The game should be based around team work and the next video is to prove a point no a realism point but a point to show that if this was a world that it could happen no tel-porting from gunner of a tank to the main cannon in less then a second.

Rolling Thunder - Battle 2 - ArmA 2 Large Scale Tank PVP - YouTube

Rolling Thunder - Battle 3 - ArmA 2 Large Scale Tank PVP - YouTube

You cant get this coordination in a game were your a one man army and BF3 should not rub off on PlanetSide 2 to much or very little.

Please tell me you guys out there that say quick swapping is actually possible and really, because your able to move around your vehicle fast means its fair?

[Kran De Loy]

Hot swapping while inside the vehicle is perfectly fine. There is no need to limit people for it in anyway that I can think of other then the possibility of a delay for getting into or out of the pilot seat of an aircraft. Something small like 1 or 1.5 second at most.

Hot swapping between any other seat is just not a problem.

[Jonny]

The way I see it at the moment is, hotswapping as they have it now, but make sure they add in that delay for entering/exiting a vehicle with those animations everyone wants.

Sound good?

[EisenKreutzer]

I personally like COD and BF series, but I recognize that they are a different design, with different goals. Those two games are the largest influence on Planetside 2 development. Many systems do not belong in a team based, Persistent, design.



My emphasis.

Sorry for chopping up your post like this. I did actually read the whole body of the post, but this sums up your point IMO.

First off, there can be real and meaningful teamplay in both Call of Duty and Battlefield. I have some experience with organised team play in BF3, and it is definately not based around the idea of a "disposable experience" where nobody cares about long term impact of any decition.
On the contrary, teamwork in these games is all about coordination, communication and hrasp of game mechanics.

Sure, a typical match ends after roughly 30 minutes when one side completes their objectives, but the battlefield is a fluid, shifting enviromnent with constantly changing priorities and tactical decitions.

I would also like to contest your point about wether these systems belong in Planetside 2.
As I have been saying across multiple threads, Planetside 2 is going to be a very different game compared to the original Planetside. The developers have shifted the focus away from war simulation and towards the modern FPS genre.
With that choice come some tropes of the FPS genre, and they are tropes because they have a purpose. A purpose which, I might add, goes beyond just catering to a "disposable experience."


This is hyperbole, and why its so hard to post on this site. No, I do not want what you describe. However your concept of the passage of time and its speed my differ from mine it seems.

Again, my emphasis.

So, when I do it, it's hyperbole, but when you and the other proponents of these alterations to the game do it, it's perfectly acceptable?

[Aurmanite]

I have addressed it a number of times.

Its the difference between a game design that places emphasis "Playing alone, together" VS. Team based with the added bonus of persistent. One is built around the disposable experience and shallow rewards ( Not meant in a derogatory way ) with no larger impact because it focuses on a single battle, not a content crossing war with persistence. In one design, reliance on others is removed, because its seen as a hindrance due to the short playtime window of a match. Session based design allows for players exiting vehicles at 10,000 feet to shoot a bazooka, because it does not matter when the match ends, and it can be quite fun. But the map has reset. They allow for instant switching because and instant entry because they are not focused on players playing together to bring firepower. They feature designs where in players playing alone together can achieve goals like capturing points simply by being in the same area, planed or not. We know this as "The zerg". One of the largest design pots for a session based shooter, is anything that keeps from constantly firing is bad, you must be engaged at all points, at all times, constantly. Hence systems like instant squad spawning and tiny death penalties. You do not even have to re-climb that hill if you fail.

I personally like COD and BF series, but I recognize that they are a different design, with different goals. Those two games are the largest influence on Planetside 2 development. Many systems do not belong in a team based, Persistent, design.

Not where team work, connection to the world and its objects should be priority.



This is hyperbole, and why its so hard to post on this site. No, I do not want what you describe. However your concept of the passage of time and its speed my differ from mine it seems.

There is zero reason those items can not be included in a measured way. It does not mean the game will slow to a snails pace, unless your idea of a snails pace is anything slower than a meth addict. They can be added in a measured, considerate way that adds to the experience, impacts the pace slightly.

I personally see the removal of such things as an overreaction for the pursuit of "Faster". Pendulum has swung to far.

Great effort, but this post is mostly misdirection.

Tell me which FPS's from the first generation weren't session based with disposable experiences that had persistent and achievable goals?

How about the fact that players working together in any shooter from the dawn of the genre will always have an advantage over those who aren't. If you're 'playing alone, together' you are missing the point of multiplayer games. Friends. Play with them.

Was Planetside your first shooter? Serious question.

[sylphaen]

This is just flat out wrong. And honestly, I am getting a little bit tired of seeing [...] elements. PS2 will be an FPS with warsim elements.

It's that simple.

I am quite certain most of us realize that PS2 is a different game. As a PS1 vet, I am actually quite happy that SOE stuck with the Planetside IP and had the balls to stick to the risky MMOFPS genre and create PS2 (it could definitely have been less original).

It may appear to you that we want "PS1 Redux" but what we simply want is a successful Planetside game that involves depth and offers a diverse set of playstyles for all kinds of players.

I personally love that the infantry shooting part was updated but we want to make sure that what made Planetside (logistics, strategy) retains importance vs. the purely tactical aspect of aiming&firing.

PS1 players had a chance to experience another set of vehicle gameplay mechanics than the Battlefield standard. I do not think anyone tries to say "it's from PS1 so it must be good" just like you are not saying "it's from Battlefield so it must be good".

What really matters is the impacts of gameplay choices made by devs.


What I see is that to disable a tank in PS1, you could:
- jam it [easy]
- blow it [easy]
-force a retreat for repairs (finding a safe spot+ non-negligible time to repair) [easy]
- kill the pilot or gunner [hard]
- hack+deconstruct/die gunning the vehicle [suicidal]

In PS2, it seems you are currently limited to:
- blow it [easy]
- force a retreat for repairs (finding a safe spot) [easy]


In terms of depth and variety in gameplay, something is lost in translation and it feels like devs are forcing hard on the resource drain by favoring vehicle destruction (see how long a PS2 vehicle lasts).

Do I realize that PS2 is a different game than PS1 ?

Definitely.

Is vehicle related gameplay better than PS1 ?

Not sure.

I like how a lot of things were improved:
- very fast vehicles spawn.
- new prowler/lightning looks fun.
- empire specific aircav is a nice idea.
- I love the cockpits
- I love the physics and gravity feel
- I like the new Sunderer design (the PS1 sundie was a failure except for EMP)
- I love the customization ideas
- Aircav looks awesome in action and the new lib too

I dislike how some things were implemented:
- I'm waiting to see the results of driver=gunner. At least, it brings equivalent power to a ground vehicle driver than aircav did to a pilot.
- I strongly believe instant entry/exit is a terrible idea
- I strongly believe instant seat switching is a terrible idea

I believe they are a terrible idea mainly because I feel the amount of benefits they bring is disproportionate when you consider the low risk they involve (and not because they are different than PS1).


I think you are right saying that transposing exactly the PS1 vehicle mechanics to PS2 is a terrible idea. I also think you are wrong saying everything instant is a good idea. As mentionned earlier, a middle ground could be a decent solution.

[Diddy Mao]

Seat swapping is a minor issue on the grand scale of things, this shouldn't be such a hot button issue.

[Aurmanite]

How exactly did you kill the driver/gunner in Planetside? They were invulnerable while inside the tank. If you did it when they got out to repair, you will be able to do the same thing in #2. Jammers are also making a comback.

[MrBloodworth]

First off, there can be real and meaningful teamplay in both Call of Duty and Battlefield. I have some experience with organised team play in BF3, and it is definately not based around the idea of a "disposable experience" where nobody cares about long term impact of any decition.
On the contrary, teamwork in these games is all about coordination, communication and hrasp of game mechanics.

There can absolutely be meaningful team-play in those titles. However its an exception, not a rule. Its also quite effective, that does not mean the game design does not focus on "Playing alone, together".

I contest that they are focused on team-play, they are Not ET:QW a game with high reliance on team play. They are the antithesis of it.

[Aurmanite]

There can absolutely be meaningful team-play in those titles. However its an exception, not a rule. Its also quite effective, that does not mean the game design does not focus on "Playing alone, together".

I contest that they are focused on team-play, they are Not ET:QW a game with high reliance on team play. They are the antithesis of it.

This post makes it seem like you have a split personality.

"Teamwork exists in these games. But that doesn't mean that teamwork exists in these games."

[EisenKreutzer]

Thanks for not being confrontational about this. I appreciate a good debate, but I hate arguing over the internet. ^^


In terms of depth and variety in gameplay, something is lost in translation and it feels like devs are forcing hard on the resource drain by favoring vehicle destruction (see how long a PS2 vehicle lasts).

I agree with this. The devs have been more than willing to listen to the communityregarding base capture, and I am certain that it would be possible to bring more variety into the way we deal with vehicles. Good point.

I believe they are a terrible idea mainly because I feel the amount of benefits they bring is disproportionate when you consider the low risk they involve (and not because they are different than PS1).

Understood. I disagree with you, mainly about the risk factor and it's importance. This ties into my previous statement about the possibility of adding more variety in how we deal with vehicles. But I won't try to change your mind on it.


I think you are right saying that transposing exactly the PS1 vehicle mechanics to PS2 is a terrible idea. I also think you are wrong saying everything instant is a good idea. As mentionned earlier, a middle ground could be a decent solution.

Agreed.

[EVILoHOMER]

Erm keep it...

In real life you can swap positions from inside the vehicle.

[Klockan]

There can absolutely be meaningful team-play in those titles. However its an exception, not a rule. Its also quite effective, that does not mean the game design does not focus on "Playing alone, together".

I contest that they are focused on team-play, they are Not ET:QW a game with high reliance on team play. They are the antithesis of it.
But why would teamplay have anything to do with seatswapping? People didn't teamplay less in BF games because they could swap seats, tanks and helicopters were still usually fully manned etc and it is not like the tank driver would wait for a machinegunner if he couldn't swap, he would just solely rely on the maingun just like he had to do in BF2 where the machinegunner was a suicide position. Having a large persistent world is what creates the teamwork, not the fact that you were unable to hotswap vehicles or making certain vehicles only viable with multiple crew members. Any group of solo player will be heavily disadvantaged against coordinated teams anyway, why do you want to make that gap larger than necessary? I am not really against being unable to hotswap positions, but I don't really get why it would destroy teamplay in any way.

[EisenKreutzer]

There can absolutely be meaningful team-play in those titles. However its an exception, not a rule. Its also quite effective, that does not mean the game design does not focus on "Playing alone, together".

I contest that they are focused on team-play, they are Not ET:QW a game with high reliance on team play. They are the antithesis of it.

I am sorry, but IMO you are wrong. The games are absolutely designed with teamplay in mind, simply because a large portion of the player-base wishes to play like this. While you will see lone wolves a good portion of the time, you do not have to join many random games until you end up facing a highly organised, communicating Clan who know how to play and how to cooperate.

I agree that there are many players with the "Playing alone, together" mindset, but there are just as many strong tam players, and the game caters to this even with instant seat-swapping, driver/gunners and instant respawns.

EDIT: Can I just say that I love the wording "Playing alone, together?" It perfectly illustrates the mentality!

[sylphaen]

How exactly did you kill the driver/gunner in Planetside? They were invulnerable while inside the tank. If you did it when they got out to repair, you will be able to do the same thing in #2. Jammers are also making a comback.

#2 is very good news.

#1 yes, when they were out to repair. The time it took to unequip the repair gun was enough to kill someone (of course, if you shot the engi with a vanguard shell, no chance for him to get back inside but we were talking about cloakers). This forced to go farther away from battle for safer repairs.

What I was referring to is that in PS2, from the videos we've seen, you can instantly enter the vehicle, from anywhere, weapon equipped or not. Repairing looks also super fast. Essentially, it's a shorter window of opportunity and much harder to achieve the kill.

That's why I conclude that it would be much easier to just destroy the vehicle (-> with C4 for example (which is a new PS2 mechanic)).

Oh, and unless quicknife is instakill ! (and grenades too)
:)


I find that the choice between safety and getting back in the fight asap was a nice balance. Repairing a vehicle in the middle of a battlezone was a heartpumping experience. If there is no risk, there is no fun for me !
:D

Edit: you can call me crazy for liking tension and feeling vulnerable when hacking/repairing/healing/.... I just... enjoy it.
^^

[Badjuju]

I was unaware that vehicles were compartmentalized. Must be some new high tech super genius strategy that us primitive 2012 folks just cant grasp yet. Seriously though, this is something that can happen in real life for the most part. Sure not quite as quickly but the game play is actually faster than RL combat so I don't see that as a too convincing argument. I don't see any reason to burden some one who whats to go out solo. They won't be any where near as powerful as a full vehicle operating all weapons and moving at the same time. If they switch to the secondary gun on a tank for example, they wont be moving and provide for a huge target. They also wont be using their most powerful weapon. With so many people on the battlefield they will be hard pressed to properly defend themselves if not fully manned. Sure it was cool seeing the enter/exit animations in PS1 but the game play is faster and less forgiving in PS2. I think this is a nostalgia thing again. People simply have a hard time accepting change. It is a game that emphasizes the benefit of team game play, but that dosn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to play solo at times if they want. Doing a Chinese fire drill around a massive vehicle every time they want to switch weapons, or two people want to switch seats, seams like the opposite of tactical if you ask me. Wouldn't they just swap within the vehicle? I think it should be instant, or creating a short timer even is fine with me. Getting out of the vehicle to switch seats just seems silly to me.

[MrBloodworth]

Aurmanite, I will respond to you if you actually read someones post, take the time to understand what they are saying, and not just use that time to come up with your next aggressive attack. Until then, see you on the battlefield.

[fvdham]

How exactly did you kill the driver/gunner in Planetside?

Most of the time while they were repairing.
Driving a tank in PlanetSide 1 meant spending half the time repairing.
Usually the driver would repair and the gunner would cover or help repairing.

One situation would be if the driver had stopped to clear a minefield.
You could put 10 mines on the road and wait near it.
The enemy tank would maybe get damaged by some of the mines and stop.
The driver would get out for mine clearing and repairing.
If you killed the driver, the gunner would be stuck there if he had no driving licence.

Another situation would be if some1 operated the 2 men AA vehicle on its own.
If you arrived in the light tank and he wanted to flee by switching from gunner seat
to driver seat, he may be machine gunned down while trying so.

[EisenKreutzer]

.

#1 yes, when they were out to repair. The time it took to unequip the repair gun was enough to kill someone (of course, if you shot the engi with a vanguard shell, no chance for him to get back inside but we were talking about cloakers). This forced to go farther away from battle for safer repairs.

All of which can be fine-tuned or changed in the beta, without adding exit animations or removing seat swapping. ^^

[MrBloodworth]

I am sorry, but IMO you are wrong. The games are absolutely designed with teamplay in mind, simply because a large portion of the player-base wishes to play like this. While you will see lone wolves a good portion of the time, you do not have to join many random games until you end up facing a highly organised, communicating Clan who know how to play and how to cooperate.

I agree that there are many players with the "Playing alone, together" mindset, but there are just as many strong tam players, and the game caters to this even with instant seat-swapping, driver/gunners and instant respawns.

EDIT: Can I just say that I love the wording "Playing alone, together?" It perfectly illustrates the mentality!

The design documents, design features, and progression of that design say otherwise. "Playing alone, together" is an industry design theory. There are many articles and papers about it, mostly coming from the more modern age of gaming, and the advent of MMO style games ( MMO style games that FPS have been moving towards for a while now ).

Team play is facilitated by some aspects of the design, but not required in any way. Exception of course, is like minded groups, but you mostly find those on private servers, or the ArmA community. Planetside for all intents is a public server equivalent.

It ( PS2 ) should be progressing the standard, not emulating the contemporary in all aspects.

I'm not arguing "reality" I'm arguing two different schools of thought/design, however they may intersect in some areas.

But why would teamplay have anything to do with seatswapping?
Pace. Connection to the world. Ownership. Connection to that equipment. Rebuking of the idea its disposable. Removal of the idea that its just another armor pool you are temporarily wearing. Lots of this is not a quantifiable except in feel and use cases. But its important.

Doing a Chinese fire drill around a massive vehicle every time they want to switch weapons, or two people want to switch seats, seams like the opposite of tactical if you ask me.

You can't have a tactical possibility with out the possibility of venerability of the target.

[EisenKreutzer]

Team play is facilitated by some aspects of the design, but not required in any way.

Sorry for reducing your post to one sentence.

This is where we differ. You see, when I hear "teamplay is fascilitated, but not required," my immediate conclusion is that this is good game design.

And I guess this is what this whole debate, as well as their counterparts have been about. One camp wants to heavy-handedly regulate what decisions players can make in the game, while the other camp wants the teamplay emerge naturally.

IMO, fascilitating but not demanding, leaving the actual meaningful choices to the players, is what good game design is all about.

[MrBloodworth]

Sorry for reducing your post to one sentence.

This is where we differ. You see, when I hear "teamplay is fascilitated, but not required," my immediate conclusion is that this is good game design.


It is, for a session based shooter. :)

[Aurmanite]

Aurmanite, I will respond to you if you actually read someones post, take the time to understand what they are saying, and not just use that time to come up with your next aggressive attack. Until then, see you on the battlefield.

Bloodworth, I'm sorry that I harp on you as much as I do. But since you say a lot of stupid shit, it has to be done.

You make all these threads complaining about about every single new feature we see, and you expect people to accept your opinion as evidence that these new features aren't good. When you're confronted with reason and well supported arguments, you change the subject or out right ignore the post.

"This feature isn't like a war game, take it out."
"People play alone, together, that is not like a war game, take it out."
These are not well reasoned or properly supported points and quite often these are the only posts you make in your negative threads.

Lastly, Planetside was not everything you build it up to be. It wasn't this grand tactical strategy game where everything everyone did was coordinated and significant. A fuckload of the 500ish people on a map were playing alone, together. No matter how strategic you wanted to be, you only had the option to pour into a tower or base trying to win a slow battle of attrition in order to capture it...and move on to the next one.

[EisenKreutzer]

It is, for a session based shooter. :)

No, it is good game design period. Artificially constraining players is never a good thing, no matter the game. Within the constraints of the genre, there should never be systems that so agressively push players in one direction. Because players will rebel against these constraints, and the game will end up only catering to a very specific subset of the playerbase who want one specific experience and nothing else.

I do not want Planetside 2 turning into ArmA, and I will fight to stop that happening.

[Aurmanite]

No, it is good game design period. Artificially constraining players is never a good thing, no matter the game. Within the constraints of the genre, there should never be systems that so agressively push players in one direction. Because players will rebel against these constraints, and the game will end up only catering to a very specific subset of the playerbase who want one specific experience and nothing else.

I do not want Planetside 2 turning into ArmA, and I will fight to stop that happening.

Teamwork was facilitated but not required in the original.

There were plenty of lonewolf pilots, snipers, soldiers, and cloakers that were extremely effective at killing people, creating havoc, and enjoying the game their way.

[Klockan]

Pace. Connection to the world. Ownership. Connection to that equipment. Rebuking of the idea its disposable. Removal of the idea that its just another armor pool you are temporarily wearing. Lots of this is not a quantifiable except in feel and use cases. But its important.

How would seat swapping give people the idea that it is disposable, and how would removing seat swapping also remove the thought that it is disposable? You pay a lot for the vehicles so of course they aren't disposable. Since the vehicle isn't disposable you want to keep it alive as long as possible and the best way to do that is to fill all the positions. The difference is that if one of the zerglings manning your vehicle decides to bail on you and go do his own thing elsewhere (He don't care about it, hes just there for the kills) you aren't completely screwed since you can at least substitute his role to a degree with yourself or the other passengers filling in.

It is, for a session based shooter. :)
Session based shooters will lack sense of ownership, teamplay and social behavior almost no matter how you build them while persistent world games will have all of those almost no matter how you build them. There are no reasons why session based games would require wastly different mechanics than persistent world games, except that in any persistent games there needs to be long term goals.

[MrBloodworth]

No, it is good game design period. Artificially constraining players is never a good thing, no matter the game. Within the constraints of the genre, there should never be systems that so agressively push players in one direction. Because players will rebel against these constraints, and the game will end up only catering to a very specific subset of the playerbase who want one specific experience and nothing else.

I do not want Planetside 2 turning into ArmA, and I will fight to stop that happening.

I do not want ArmA either. I all ready own it :) You are also going right back in to Hyperbole territory. I'm not speaking in black and white terms, well reasoned implementation is all that is required. Like I said, its a case of the pendulum going to far in the search for speed. There is more than "Completely casual" and "Mill sim" in the world. Proclamations of doom on either side help no one.

Also, good game design period? Um...

http://amnesiagame.com

[fvdham]

The difference is that if one of the zerglings manning your vehicle decides to bail on you and go do his own thing elsewhere (He don't care about it, hes just there for the kills) you aren't completely screwed since you can at least substitute his role to a degree with yourself or the other passengers filling in.

If the gunner bails you get another gunner. Enough players.

In PlanetSide 1 the passengers could become gunner. You would stop the car.
The passenger would exit from the passenger door and enter the car using the gunner door.

[demonicale]

Seat swapping must stay, when i play BF3 it's great to swap to a diffrent gun if my gunner has bailed and ran off crying :)

[EisenKreutzer]

I do not want ArmA either. I all ready own it :) You are also going right back in to Hyperbole territory. I'm not speaking in black and white terms, well reasoned implementation is all that is required. Like I said, its a case of the pendulum going to far in the search for speed. There is more than "Completely casual" and "Mill sim" in the world. Proclamations of doom on either side help no one.

Also, good game design period? Um...

http://amnesiagame.com

Definitions of hyperbole aside, it's much more enjoyable when you aknowledge my points instead of traipsing around them. :)

I do agree that it is a spectrum between "Completely Casual" and "Military Sim," and that the various debates about features in PS2 fall on one end or another. The middle ground is rarely brought up, and I'm pleased that you do.

I disagree with you on where on the spectrum the game lies at present, and how far in the other direction your (and others) suggestions would take the game, but that is more a matter of opinion than anything else.

As far as Amnesia is concerned, it is hardly a game at all. It is an experiment in conveying experiences, comparable with Dear Esther and similiar games. That said, the game is fundamentally built around the idea of exploration, and uses few constraints to encourage the player to explore and advance. As such, it is a rather poor example in support of your position.

[Klockan]

If the gunner bails you get another gunner. Enough players.
There aren't always time to do that, sometimes you need one now and not later.
In PlanetSide 1 the passengers could become gunner. You would stop the car.
The passenger would exit from the passenger door and enter the car using the gunner door.
But you can't do that while under fire.

But the essence of the issue is that vehicles lose less from being undermanned with hot swapping implemented. This works great to encourage teamplay with randoms since then you can allow people in your tank that you don't trust, they might bail on you but even if they do that role can still be semi covered while a bailing tailgunner on a liberator means that you are dead otherwise. Then if you meet someone who stays with you a bit longer you might team up and friend each other which could develop to a lasting friendship. Teamplay is still encouraged, just in slightly different ways. Sure it costs less to go out alone but it also costs less to go with players you don't already know. This is an mmo, the purpose isn't to just play with the same people all the time but to learn to know new people.

[fvdham]

Seat swapping must stay, when i play BF3 it's great to swap to a diffrent gun if my gunner has bailed and ran off crying :)

Yeah, but the topic is not really about seat swapping, which already is in PlanetSide 1.

The topic is about whether seat swapping should be instant
and whether you should have to leave the car from one door
and enter using a different door as it was in PlanetSide 1.

[ArcGuard]

It is, for a session based shooter. :)

I thought we were past this already :doh:


Everyone saying seat swapping causes overpowering is thinking about combat in a vacuum. If someone seat swaps, he loses his ability to do the previous ability. So yes. In a one on one fight, seat swapping is overpowered (against also stationary targets).

HOWEVER, one fully manned vehicle is more powerful than one non-fully manned vehicle. If a liberator gets attacked by infantry and aircraft simultaneously (which is likely to be the case), a non-fully manned liberator can only combat one of the two threats, where a fully manned can combat both simultaneously.

[basti]

Teamwork was facilitated but not required in the original.

There were plenty of lonewolf pilots, snipers, soldiers, and cloakers that were extremely effective at killing people, creating havoc, and enjoying the game their way.

Mind if you actually PLAY planetside?

There were almost no lone wolf guys. It was mostly a small group of people doing stuff together, but a single lone wolf did almost nothing, ever.


And to get to the original point: Seat swapping needs to be removed, at least in its current form. In the leaked Tech test Video, the guy actually swapped form his Lib Pilot seat to the Gunner, fired a bunch of shots, and swapped back. He also was gunning for a lib for quite some time, swapping between the gunner seats as he needed.
That obviously cant stay that way.

[MrBloodworth]

I was not going to bring up the leaked Tech test Video. :)

[Aurmanite]

I thought we were past this already :doh:


Everyone saying seat swapping causes overpowering is thinking about combat in a vacuum. If someone seat swaps, he loses his ability to do the previous ability. So yes. In a one on one fight, seat swapping is overpowered (against also stationary targets).

HOWEVER, one fully manned vehicle is more powerful than one non-fully manned vehicle. If a liberator gets attacked by infantry and aircraft simultaneously (which is likely to be the case), a non-fully manned liberator can only combat one of the two threats, where a fully manned can combat both simultaneously.

Exactly. Not only would your 2 man Liberator lose situational awareness, but the ability to have two independent roles active at the same time.

People are thinking too small. They picture a tank with AA and seat swap and believe they will be this glorious one man army. Anyone who has played Planetside knows that a lot happens in a short amount of time. One player will not be able to successfully handle 2 roles.

[codylee]

Alright we have some people who are talking about a game they know nothing about you can swap seats in arma 2, instantly. it's just a little more realistic to be able to swap seats thats why it's in arma 2. now that thats out of the way Seat swaping is a GREAT idea! :D KEEP it and lets keep the no seat swaping T_T trolls away

[Aurmanite]

Mind if you actually PLAY planetside?

There were almost no lone wolf guys. It was mostly a small group of people doing stuff together, but a single lone wolf did almost nothing, ever.


And to get to the original point: Seat swapping needs to be removed, at least in its current form. In the leaked Tech test Video, the guy actually swapped form his Lib Pilot seat to the Gunner, fired a bunch of shots, and swapped back. He also was gunning for a lib for quite some time, swapping between the gunner seats as he needed.
That obviously cant stay that way.

To your first point, you're wrong. But that's for another thread.

As to your second, they were playing in a battle where they came across almost no opposition. How do you think they would have handled a few dozen enemy aircraft, AA soldiers/tanks on the ground? This is something you should understand as a tenured Planetside player.

Watch TB's video for a much better representation of what it will look like.

[sylphaen]

lets stop the no seat swaping T_T trolls away

So people on one side of the argument are trolls and there are none on the other side because they are on the right side ? Riiiiiiight...
:rofl:

[codylee]

So people on one side of the argument are trolls and there are none on the other side because they are on the right side ? Riiiiiiight...
:rofl:

YUP :D.. that is if i'm understanding what you said and i fixed my comment lol

[ArcIyte]

Liberator might as well be a 2 man vehicle then if this goes live

[haticK]

I think one reason seat swapping is necessary in something like BF3 is because you can actually spawn on someone in your squad that's in a vehicle and it doesn't ask you what position in the tank/heli you want if multiple are available. But I also think fast seat swapping is in most games now because it lets the gameplay flow smoothly. You don't have to take the time to stop and wait for someone to switch, you just keep going.

[RodenyC]

I just wonder the reason why people are for hotswapping and all that instant enter/exit stuff.

[DarkChiron]

I just wonder the reason why people are for hotswapping and all that instant enter/exit stuff.

Why not?

[BlueSkies]

A In the leaked Tech test Video, the guy actually swapped form his Lib Pilot seat to the Gunner, fired a bunch of shots, and swapped back. B He also was gunning for a lib for quite some time, swapping between the gunner seats as he needed.
That obviously cant stay that way.

As for A, did you see what happened immediately afterwards? The part with the Lib crashing and exploding?

For B, so what? 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 (not using the tail gunner seat), or die to ground threats (HA rockets, AA maxes, AA vehicles, AA base/tower turrets). Sounds like the 2 man lib team loses in this trade-off.

Libs are big juicy targets. A 2 man lib in anything beyond a skirmish won't last long.

Simply:
2 man lib (one man MBT, whatever) = free exp for anyone paying attention.

For the team-play side of the issue... thats what I have an outfit for. Mission system, waypoints, and whatever other command tools they put in the game = fantastic. Anything that helps me and my team function more effectively is great in my book. I can honestly say that in all the years I played Planetside, never, not once did I find myself thinking that the seating mechanics had somehow improved any aspect of squad/platoon/outfit team-play.

[RodenyC]

Why not?
Well,just seems like its something every game does that involves combined arms. Was hoping planetside would be a little more unique with the little things.Plus all the second life stuff blah blah blah lib pilot bombs blah blah blah stuff.

[Raymac]

I really don't see much of a problem with being able to switch seats on the fly. However, there really needs to be a delay. I honestly cannot see how people can basically unanimously accept a delay an infantry has in switching weapons and reloading, but can advocate instant seat swapping in a vehicle.

Switching seats in a vehicle should take at least as long as an HA reload.

[EisenKreutzer]

Liberator might as well be a 2 man vehicle then if this goes live

Now this is hyperbole!

[noxious]

Indeed, he's got a future in American politics with argumentation like that.

[Flaropri]

I really don't see much of a problem with being able to switch seats on the fly. However, there really needs to be a delay. I honestly cannot see how people can basically unanimously accept a delay an infantry has in switching weapons and reloading, but can advocate instant seat swapping in a vehicle.

Switching seats in a vehicle should take at least as long as an HA reload.

Question:
Why does a vehicle weapon switch need to be longer than infantry weapon switch?


I do think that seat swapping in anything except maybe a Lib (for the second crew-man) does come with a lot of tradeoffs that could justify instant swapping (lose of mobility, potentially disorientation if the weapon is facing a different direction), but I don't think it really needs to be instant. I just find the call for 2-4 seconds (I think I saw someone suggest up to 7 seconds even) to be over-doing it.

[SolLeks]

Hello, first post on the form. in fact, I made an account instead of just lurking because of the arguments in this topic.

I am a 06 - 08 PS1 players. I am also a competitive BF3 players.

1. Session based shooter vs persestant stuff.

This is really annoying to me as trying to make a distinction between the two for gunplay / Vehicle play makes no sense.

In one, Tanks are free but set on a long spawn timer. In the other, tanks cost a resource and have a "spawn timer" (or cool down). This makes neither tank a disposable asset to anyone that has a competitive mindset. Both games have "sessions" but they are just formatted differently.

In one, you have a literal session where the round ends. In the other you have a "session fight" then a travel to the next fight. If BF3 had you driving in a tank to the next fight for a loading screen, it may as well be the same thing. I know and understand there are differences to both, but they are not this "HUGE OMG GAMECHANGING" aspect you all seem to clam (I know I'm gonna get flamed for this one).


2. In competitive battlefield, You want 2 people in the tank at all times. One will be a Driver / Main gunner, the other will be the repair / machine gunner. A common tactic is to have the machine gunner out of the tank to repair when ever your fighting another tank or a large amount of infantry with RPGs, and in the tank watching for supports trying to place C4 on the tank (as well as just gunning people down in general).

You will basically never see single manned tanks that will do as much damage than multi manned tanks. See another tank in the area and have 2 people in yours? Tell your team mate in VOIP that the tank is there and to go get it wile you and your gunner drive past it. I know the repair will be different in PS2 however, but being able to spot the threat before it starts firing (as in a mossie wile you have a AA on a vanguard) and being able to fire and keep moving is 1000000% more effective than swapping seats after the mossie has started shooting then becoming a stationary target. In games with lower TTK, Movement is key, Not moving means death.


Lastly, the lib thing.

I fly choppers a good bit when playing BF3, The only times Pilots will swap and TV a tank then swap back are when there is NO OTHER AIR OR AA to counter them. It is a tactic that good players do when they are screwing around (IE not viable 90% of the time). If i see another chopper doing this? he gets killed by a Jet / AA. On top of that He will need a good altitude to be effective and not crash and that makes him a easy target for jets / choppers / AA.


TL;DR I do like hotswaping, but it is not as effective as people make it out to be. It is more of a convenience thing to me than an effective way to play.

[Rago]

Hello, first post on the form. in fact, I made an account instead of just lurking because of the arguments in this topic.

I am a 06 - 08 PS1 players. I am also a competitive BF3 players.

1. Session based shooter vs persestant stuff.

This is really annoying to me as trying to make a distinction between the two for gunplay / Vehicle play makes no sense.

In one, Tanks are free but set on a long spawn timer. In the other, tanks cost a resource and have a "spawn timer" (or cool down). This neither tank a disposable asset to anyone that has a competitive mindset. Both games have "sessions" but they are just formatted differently.

In one, you have a literal session where the round ends. In the other you have a "session fight" then a travel to the next fight. If BF3 had you driving in a tank to the next fight for a loading screen, it may as well be the same thing. I know and understand there are differences to both, but they are not this "HUGE OMG GAMECHANGING" aspect you all seem to clam (I know I'm gonna get flamed for this one).


2. In competitive battlefield, You want 2 people in the tank at all times. One will be a Driver / Main gunner, the other will be the repair / machine gunner. A common tactic is to have the machine gunner out of the tank to repair when ever your fighting another tank or a large amount of infantry with RPGs, and in the tank watching for supports trying to place C4 on the tank (as well as just gunning people down in general).

You will basically never see single manned tanks that will do as much damage than multi manned tanks. See another tank in the area and have 2 people in yours? Tell your team mate in VOIP that the tank is there and to go get it wile you and your gunner drive past it. I know the repair will be different in PS2 however, but being able to spot the threat before it starts firing (as in a mossie wile you have a AA on a vanguard) and being able to fire and keep moving is 1000000% more effective than swapping seats after the mossie has started shooting then becoming a stationary target. In games with lower TTK, Movement is key, Not moving means death.


Lastly, the lib thing.

I fly choppers a good bit when playing BF3, The only times Pilots will swap and TV a tank then swap back are when there is NO OTHER AIR OR AA to counter them. It is a tactic that good players do when they are screwing around (IE not viable 90% of the time). If i see another chopper doing this? he gets killed by a Jet / AA. On top of that He will need a good altitude to be effective and not crash and that makes him a easy target for jets / choppers / AA.


TL;DR I do like hotswaping, but it is not as effective as people make it out to be. It is more of a convenience thing to me than an effective way to play.

Indeed ! They are just overdoing it, im also a friend of switching seats.
Vehicles are also Heavy, look at the Liberator.
If you fly this think swich to 3 (Backside) Seat shot and get back to the Pilot seat you will probably chrash, because the Vehicle is rather Heavy in Mass to bring up.

;)

[Raymac]

Question:
Why does a vehicle weapon switch need to be longer than infantry weapon switch?


I do think that seat swapping in anything except maybe a Lib (for the second crew-man) does come with a lot of tradeoffs that could justify instant swapping (lose of mobility, potentially disorientation if the weapon is facing a different direction), but I don't think it really needs to be instant. I just find the call for 2-4 seconds (I think I saw someone suggest up to 7 seconds even) to be over-doing it.

I don't know if it needs to be longer. The HA reload time seemed quite long enough to me. As for a reason to why it should be longer, the only reason I could think of is the power. The power from a vehicle gun is much stronger than an infantry gun, so that may call for a slightly longer switch time. But like I said, from the recent TB video, the HA reload time seems long enough.

[Buggsy]

With yellow icons on the ground.

Agree. Instant hopping from one position to another, and no enter/exit animation, cheapens gameplay.

[Flaropri]

I don't know if it needs to be longer. The HA reload time seemed quite long enough to me.

Reload times are longer than weapon-switch times*. So I'm asking, why does it need to be longer for vehicles than infantry?

You point out that vehicle weapons are more powerful than infantry weapons, and that's usually true, but they aren't more powerful than the vehicle's other weapons, and it has yet to be demonstrated to be problematic. Again, the only problem I see is if weapons are reloaded automatically even if there is no one manning them (so you could swap weapons whenever the reload timer starts and just keep firing, that isn't cool and would trivialize reloading).


*(I think it was even in the same video, could be wrong, where the HA swapped out during the reload animation to another weapon, and he could fire that other weapon faster than if he had waited for the reload to finish and stayed with the previous weapon. However, he also had to restart the reload animation (I believe) when he went back to the previous weapon.)

[GuyFawkes]

Its not, as you can instantly swap to whatever suits the situation.

have you ever been in a real vehicle? even in a box standard car you can climb from the drivers seat into the back with no trouble.

you need to meet some females, multitasking to them is their forte, you might be enlightened;)

[Landtank]

have you ever been in a real vehicle? even in a box standard car you can climb from the drivers seat into the back with no trouble.

you need to meet some females, multitasking to them is their forte, you might be enlightened;)

<33 best post

[Buggsy]

2. In competitive battlefield, You want 2 people in the tank at all times. One will be a Driver / Main gunner, the other will be the repair / machine gunner. A common tactic is to have the machine gunner out of the tank to repair when ever your fighting another tank or a large amount of infantry with RPGs, and in the tank watching for supports trying to place C4 on the tank (as well as just gunning people down in general).

Bad design. Nobody wants to play the MG-repair bitch.

A better design is PS1 where the driver gets the short end of the stick.

[EisenKreutzer]

Bad design. Nobody wants to play the MG-repair bitch.

A better design is PS1 where the driver gets the short end of the stick.

I have played the repair bitch on numerous occasions, and I have had lots of fun with it.

[Buggsy]

I have played the repair bitch on numerous occasions, and I have had lots of fun with it.

Well most people don't like it, which is why you find 90% of tanks in BF2/BF2142 being soloed; and the tank/infantry balance being designed around this fact.

Repair times are also balanced around this fact, it's too easy and too quick to repair vehicles in BF2/BF2142. In Planetside1 it took longer glue-gun time which is better.

[Klockan]

Repair times are also balanced around this fact, it's too easy and too quick to repair vehicles in BF2/BF2142. In Planetside1 it took longer glue-gun time which is better.
With much less health of course it goes faster to repair.