Vehicles will/should be rare.

Klockan · 2012-07-16, 08:17 AM

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

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

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

Canaris · 2012-07-16, 08:18 AM

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

Klockan · 2012-07-16, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Canaris

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

Which discussion are you talking about? This thread wasn't made in answer to one post or one other thread, I have seen this mindset all over the forum. Now, do you have anything to say that pertains to the discussion about the rarity of vehicles?

Shade Millith · 2012-07-16, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Canaris

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

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

Well done.

Dairian · 2012-07-16, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by Canaris

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

I couldn't say it better.

Atmosfear · 2012-07-16, 08:21 AM

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

Klockan · 2012-07-16, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by StealSky

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

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

SUBARU · 2012-07-16, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by Klockan

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

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

Littleman · 2012-07-16, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by Klockan

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

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

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-16, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Klockan

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

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

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

-edit

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

Originally Posted by polywomple

holy fuck this thread is stupid and oversignificant

Yeah, kinda...

wraithverge · 2012-07-16, 12:59 PM

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

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

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

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

Klockan · 2012-07-16, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

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

People don't want HA to be able to drive just because they wear a suit which has similar characteristics to the rexo suit of PS1 which couldn't drive. But there is a difference here, I was of the impression that PS2 wants all the base classes to be equally viable as infantry, that includes the HA, and that means that they should have the same vehicle restrictions. The HA isn't stronger than the medic or the engineer, just different.

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

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

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

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

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

I give back with the same tone people give me, which of course applies to me as well so I get back what I throw out. But having a harsh tone promotes more discussion, you see this thread really exploded and I learned a lot about how people think about these things, it is a success for me. I don't really expect that I can change peoples opinions this easily or such, I just wanted a discussion. Also this thread was quite easy to discuss in since people in general really have no good counterarguments, most agrees that there needs to be some limits to the amount of vehicles people can spawn we just don't agree how to do it. PS1 made it by limiting it to weaker classes and by having short cooldowns. Currently it looks like PS2 will do it mainly with resources.

Sephirex · 2012-07-16, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Klockan

But having a harsh tone promotes more discussion

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

I love you son.

Xyntech · 2012-07-16, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Klockan

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

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

Originally Posted by Klockan

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

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

Originally Posted by Klockan

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

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

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

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

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

EZShot · 2012-07-16, 08:28 AM

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

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

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