Vehicle Loadout Indication

beekergunship · 2012-05-11, 06:29 PM

Thought of this during the FPSGURU interview:

I really don't want my teamspeak flooded with someone describing to me what their vehicle is spec'd to do. If I'm leading the platoon and ask for a fast galaxy, I don't want to hear a audible stock ticker of what each person has and a relative comparative.

Do what the military does: write on the side of the aircraft what armament, performance tweaks, etc apply to this vehicle. Yes, I know some things will be visually obvious as I approach to board. Other features, however, will not be.

Result: as I'm running up to the aircraft, I can see that armor was sacrificed for speed, by bars or a number written on the side. I make a quick judgment and tell the platoon to load up or ask someone to pull a gal with a little more protection.

Toppopia · 2012-05-11, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by beekergunship

Thought of this during the FPSGURU interview:

I really don't want my teamspeak flooded with someone describing to me what their vehicle is spec'd to do. If I'm leading the platoon and ask for a fast galaxy, I don't want to hear a audible stock ticker of what each person has and a relative comparative.

Do what the military does: write on the side of the aircraft what armament, performance tweaks, etc apply to this vehicle. Yes, I know some things will be visually obvious as I approach to board. Other features, however, will not be.

Result: as I'm running up to the aircraft, I can see that armor was sacrificed for speed, by bars or a number written on the side. I make a quick judgment and tell the platoon to load up or ask someone to pull a gal with a little more protection.

Isn't that the time where you tell someone to pull a fast gal and only the people that have a fast gal will go and pull one because anyone else that does is either trolling or wants attention so they can say "Yey, someone is using my useless gal, i feel so special!"

But that would be cool, maybe you can scan it or something and it tells you what it has equipped, but this would only work for friendly units.

Noivad · 2012-05-11, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by beekergunship

Thought of this during the FPSGURU interview:

I really don't want my teamspeak flooded with someone describing to me what their vehicle is spec'd to do. If I'm leading the platoon and ask for a fast galaxy, I don't want to hear a audible stock ticker of what each person has and a relative comparative.

Do what the military does: write on the side of the aircraft what armament, performance tweaks, etc apply to this vehicle. Yes, I know some things will be visually obvious as I approach to board. Other features, however, will not be.

Result: as I'm running up to the aircraft, I can see that armor was sacrificed for speed, by bars or a number written on the side. I make a quick judgment and tell the platoon to load up or ask someone to pull a gal with a little more protection.

1. My team speak won't be flooded because we have communication protocals and use communication proceedures. You have to when you may have up to 300 people on a team speak server.

2. My platoon leaders better know what my Gal pilots are specing or they are not my Platoon Leaders.

3. My Gal pilots know what I expect them to spec and be training to be my Gal Pilots.

4. My gal pilots will know when I want to do this or that, what type of Gal I want for each misson, because they are trained.

5. I was in the Military for 18 years and we used an OPORD that everyone saw so everyone knew who did what with what and when to do it. Its called a OPS plan.

6. And if you are a leader, and you ask for something they better be doing it, not telling you what they think, or what they have jaming up your commo lines.

So NO to vehicle Loadout Indicators. There are enough lazy leaders out there who fail to lead.

beekergunship · 2012-05-11, 08:09 PM

You and I might have both spent a lot of time in the military, but the folks I play with haven't, and some of them are quite young. It's not lazy, it's using your tools correctly.

Your OPORD falls apart the second it goes into action. You need to easily know what kind of gal the new guy has.

I need to know what kind of jet I'm stepping to.

Seriously, you remind me of the kind of guy who would make an on station call and slowly say what munitions he has. Like he's proud of every GBU.

Internet tough guy

RoninAfro · 2012-05-11, 11:30 PM

Maybe your idea of how this is going to work is different than mine, but it sounds to me like you're either going to have a clunkier UI (in the case of scanning a vehicle for checking sidegrades) or you're going to have to spend more time inspecting vehicles as opposed to just using what you've got.
If you've got people who verbally list off every little nut and bolt on their vehicle, just tell them to dumb it down. A defined chat protocol isn't too hard to set and you will eventually know what equipment your people use once you play with them long enough to get comfortable.
I don't hate your idea, but I don't think adding UI elements in place of defined chat protocols is the right answer.
I will agree that trying to emulate the actual military in a game is silly. I'd rather not PMCS my Gal while waiting for the Outfit Leader to sign my risk assessment before I go and shoot something. We'd all be stuck in sanctuary for weeks

beekergunship · 2012-05-12, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by RoninAfro

Maybe your idea of how this is going to work is different than mine, but it sounds to me like you're either going to have a clunkier UI (in the case of scanning a vehicle for checking sidegrades) or you're going to have to spend more time inspecting vehicles as opposed to just using what you've got.

Here's another point: you may have "greenies" jumping in your vehicle. They may not know you at all or be able to talk to you (CN). If they can glance at a placard on the vehicle that gives a quick summary of customization (that isn't visually obvious) they may make a quick decision whether or not they should join you.

It will also be a popularity contest. Those that are dedicated to ferrying troops will have the best rides. Players should be able to tell that when they are running to the door. Nothing big on UI, just a skin paint in square area that gives a quick summary. Numbers or bars.

Gonefshn · 2012-05-12, 12:41 PM

I can see some merit for this Idea but I must subtly agree with Noivad on this one. If your in an organized outfit trying to coordinate you would decide your plan, and do it. I'm not even talking about intense military operations or whatever. Simple, "ok guys lets pull a galaxy with heavy armor and everyone load up."

This idea seems targeted at outfits but it seems to me like this is only really useful to the zerg of players just running around alone or jumping in random peoples vehicles they don't know. It's only useful for those people so I can tell. "I don't want to get in that guys tank because it has 'X' modification and I don't like that/thats not what I'm looking for."

Noivad · 2012-05-15, 03:44 AM

Originally Posted by beekergunship

You and I might have both spent a lot of time in the military, but the folks I play with haven't, and some of them are quite young. It's not lazy, it's using your tools correctly.

Your OPORD falls apart the second it goes into action. You need to easily know what kind of gal the new guy has.

I need to know what kind of jet I'm stepping to.

Seriously, you remind me of the kind of guy who would make an on station call and slowly say what munitions he has. Like he's proud of every GBU.

Internet tough guy

Actually I found a lot of civie types like military style game play.
OPORDs can be verbal as well as wriiten, and any plans made at mission start can be changed as the battlefield dictates.

Higby has stated that there will be an internal Mission System where those of us who want to plan missions that people might want to carry out will be able to do so. The OPORD is a tool that is effective in the plannning phase.

Any simpleton knows the "Fog of War" lays to waste any plan that anyone makes. Battles are always very fluid. As the battle changes so do the Opords.

I don't let people fly my people around without knowing how we do things first. The good outfits train their people including Gal pilots.

You said "I need to know what kind of jet I'm stepping to." Your Airforce right"
I would think that the Airforce gave its pilots that type of training before they got into an aircraft. I mean wtf, how could you fly it if some one had to tell you what it is.

You said Seriously, you remind me of the kind of guy who would make an on station call and slowly say what munitions he has. Like he's proud of every GBU.
Ahhh GBU - Guided Bomb Unit used as a Bunker Buster. GBU 28 - GBU 15 oh and On Station, when a pilot is over a target for a period of time depending on fuel and requirements. Yes you are Airforce.

Not sure if Air Force uses OPORDS or not but I do know they have some type of general Mission briefing.

And then you say Internet tough guy
with your cute little Jped.

That gave me a good laugh. Thanks.

But the fact is, the Military Style of game play, is effective, everyone knows what they need to do to accomplish a specfic Mission , Goal , or Objective, and done properly is a lot of fun, giving its participants a achievenment.

I know I don't want to wait in a loading area, till someone decides what type of gal some one has, then wait till someone decides what we are going to do because we have to ask everyone what they want to do. Then load the gal, fly to the spot, drop from the gal, and no one does an emp so everyone dies.
Then we get to do it all over again. Thats lots of fun.

The people who fight along side with me, load the gal within a min, have the gear according to mission, know who has the emp, who had the hack, who breaches the door, who covers, who is rear security , who is medic, and we move as a team. Thats an example of PS1 organized game play.

when other people are still discussing, what do you think we should do next. By the time they get there its already done.

Internet tough guy, people who know me know I always help the new guys in the game. They are the most important ones. The new guy iis the weakest link in a unit, and deserved as much time as possible to get trained up so he is a contributing member of the team.

As a 16H40, in RL, I was an asshole when I needed to be, and a Mentor all the time. I'm still an asshole as a civilian. I shoot straight with a rifle, and I shoot straight with my tounge. I'm not politically correct, and if I were to get offended, I would have to say I get Offednded by people who get offened.
If that makes me some type of Internet Tough guy in your eyes. Thats ok,

I would rather have that image, then some wussy leader, who failed to instruct, lead, direct, order, his people, so his people lived lived to get through their mission. In Game Life and in Real Life.

Toppopia · 2012-05-15, 04:13 AM

And sometimes like the millitary approach because it lets them experience it without actually going and getting training and stuff, the only reason i want to join the army is to use guns, but since i am in New Zealand we don't have much and i would probably get taught everything then never use a gun. When i say use, i don't mean use on people, but just to test and experience using a cool LMG or assault rifle. That would be fun.

BNuts · 2012-05-15, 04:30 AM

I think the individual vehicles will look different with the side-grades. A UI is nonessential. If you aren't in an outfit and want to know what the guy has and you cant tell immediately by the side-grade visual cues, then /tell him or whatnot. The amount of side-grades that your character will be able to have is going to be crazy, and for you to have a UI (even a small texture square) to see everyone else's side-grade for that vehicle... That's allot of time rendering textures that requires coding, which will delay beta.

But for reals; You walk up to a f-16 or an ah-64, guess what, it has hardpoints, where things that go boom are mounted to, and you can see and identify them visually. So weapon loadouts in game on a vehicle will be just like RL

As far as maneuverability / armor / speed upgrades. I would assume the same. Maybe bigger exhaust ports or afterburner shrouds, some canards or thrust-vectoring panes, thicker skin or color-change of textures.

Let's see what the Dev's have cooked up 1st. A small HUD indicator that would be available to an individual query would be ok, but forcing everyone to have a bargraph readout painted on the acft is a little off.

*thread hijack!*

16H40.. So that means you joined the Army with my dad in the 70's.. Did you serve in a Nike missile unit by chance? I was in Hanau, Germany with a bunch of Patriot guys, some of the older chiefs were on some of the old legacy systems. The stories they told me made me wince. I am more afraid of our own AA than the enemy, lol. (uh-60 guy)

beekergunship · 2012-05-15, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by BNuts

But for reals; You walk up to a f-16 or an ah-64, guess what, it has hardpoints, where things that go boom are mounted to, and you can see and identify them visually. So weapon loadouts in game on a vehicle will be just like RL

As far as maneuverability / armor / speed upgrades. I would assume the same. Maybe bigger exhaust ports or afterburner shrouds, some canards or thrust-vectoring panes, thicker skin or color-change of textures.

I like this idea. The size of the attached models could be tied into your sidegrade values. Yes, you can walk up to jet and tell what is hanging off the hardpoints, but you have to crack open the aircraft forms to read what software your jammer is running and what version of your radar OFP is loaded, etc. That's what I want to account for. If there is an artistic way to do this like you suggested, I'm for it!

Ask any aircraft maintainer. Every bird you step to is different.

Purple · 2012-05-12, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Noivad

1. My team speak won't be flooded because we have communication protocals and use communication proceedures. You have to when you may have up to 300 people on a team speak server.

2. My platoon leaders better know what my Gal pilots are specing or they are not my Platoon Leaders.

3. My Gal pilots know what I expect them to spec and be training to be my Gal Pilots.

4. My gal pilots will know when I want to do this or that, what type of Gal I want for each misson, because they are trained.

5. I was in the Military for 18 years and we used an OPORD that everyone saw so everyone knew who did what with what and when to do it. Its called a OPS plan.

6. And if you are a leader, and you ask for something they better be doing it, not telling you what they think, or what they have jaming up your commo lines.

So NO to vehicle Loadout Indicators. There are enough lazy leaders out there who fail to lead.

no offence but your outfit doesent sound fun to be in, for me at least. although to be fair i know a fair amount of people who like to play games like their in the military.

Baneblade · 2012-05-12, 12:33 AM

Why does this need to be complicated? Do it the same way people used to say certs:

HA/AV, Rexo, AH/AM/Van/AMS

Xyntech · 2012-05-12, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

Why does this need to be complicated? Do it the same way people used to say certs:

HA/AV, Rexo, AH/AM/Van/AMS

If you don't have a visual on someone, you will still need to do this, so it will be a good thing for players to do, but I don't see why there shouldn't be an option to look at a friendlies loadout as well.

Just make it so that when you use the interact button with your cross hairs over a friendly vehicle or weapon who is too far away for you to physically interact with, it pulls up a display showing what customizations they have.

Then you could use the same system for scanning enemies if you had some sort of advanced targeting type of thing, so that you can more quickly double check if that MBT you are about to strafe has an AA turret or not.

Zekeen · 2012-05-12, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by beekergunship

Thought of this during the FPSGURU interview:

I really don't want my teamspeak flooded with someone describing to me what their vehicle is spec'd to do. If I'm leading the platoon and ask for a fast galaxy, I don't want to hear a audible stock ticker of what each person has and a relative comparative.

Do what the military does: write on the side of the aircraft what armament, performance tweaks, etc apply to this vehicle. Yes, I know some things will be visually obvious as I approach to board. Other features, however, will not be.

Result: as I'm running up to the aircraft, I can see that armor was sacrificed for speed, by bars or a number written on the side. I make a quick judgment and tell the platoon to load up or ask someone to pull a gal with a little more protection.

I think you make a valid point. In the heat of combat you don't have too much time to have a convo, even if all they have to say is like - Heavy Gal, Drop Pods. Even then, that might not be so worthwhile, but it'd be nice to take a look at a battlefield and have some way to easily tell what the vehicles are for. Looking at a Vanguard and it says "AA Vanguard" or "AI Vanguard". It lets you send information back to your team "We're lacking AT Vanguards, go pick up a few".

I'm hoping there will be more visual changes to show the differences, but who knows.