Vehicles are far too SQUISHY!

[Dart]

Had a lot of fun watching the streams during the last few days and I'm as excited as the rest of you about the impending beta. However one of my biggest issues with what we saw was just how fragile the vehicles seemed to be. I understand the game is faster paced than PS1 but we saw instances where vehicles were sustaining serious damage from hitting a rock or (as we saw in today's stream) exploding after a collision with a wreck of a previously destroyed vehicle.

Aircraft don't seem to be exempt from this 'imbalance' either. The PS1 version of a Galaxy can take a substantial amount of punishment however it's PS2 equivalent seems to be made of papier-mache! I understand that in the Amp Station the devs wanted to avoid too much vehicle camping (personally I think it's the map which should be altered to prevent this) but nerfing the vehicles - which has many knock-on effects - seems like such a heavy-handed way of dealing with this issue it seems to have created a larger one.

Obviously this is conclusion is drawn from just 6 hours of OBSERVED game-play and we'll only know for sure once we get into beta but the average life cycle of a vehicle in PS2 seems to compare unfavorably to that of a fruit fly!

[Dart]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

Yes. The MBTs need a buff and planes need to not take so much damage landing.

Couldn't agree more. The Galaxy taking massive damage simply from a slightly bumpy landing was equal parts amusing/alarming. Gal pilots in PS2 need better life insurance!

It should be difficult to damage your plane while landing, assuming you're travelling slow enough for the landing gear to deploy and the terrain is flat IMO.

[Taru]

I agree that it looks like the vehicles could use some buffing; but I also remember rocks and trees being the most powerful objects in Planetside 1. Rock > Tank, Branch > Plane.

[Dart]

But this was my second point; don't you suspect this was a deliberate 'balancing' issue so that the Amp Station playtest didn't become a good old PS1 "skeet farm"?

In which case my question would be, why not just alter the map rather than nerfing every vehicle in the game?!

[Landtank]

Completely agree, especially if people are going to be driving and gunning then environmental damage will need to be toned down, and I'm sure it will be even before beta, then we can iron it out to the perfect balance.

When a tank was actually being used properly it was pretty awesome to behold, there was a Vanguard with the AA secondary turret tearing it up today, shows how powerful the secondary gun is. So the actual tank vs tank combat was good to watch, but I want to see it on a more open field instead of the close quarters we saw at E3.

[Zhane]

I'm sure it will be heavily tweaked moving forward. But the aircraft being unable to make a reasonable landing without setting themselves on fire is a problem.

[Bags]

Terrain damage couldn't have been intentional. There's no way they intend for a perfect landing to remove half of your life.

I agree that the vehicle vs vehicle damage was way too high, or vehicles were way too weak.

[DerFurst]

Modern car crash at 160 kph: car is totaled, kills squishy things inside.
Futuristic super-tank crash at 40 kph: tank is ripped in half, exploding in a ball of fire.

[BigBossMonkey]

Mandatory "beta will fix it"

But yeah, it seemed a bit excessive. The only vehicle I think that seemed about right was the Flash, it slamming into stuff should break it.

[mirwalk]

watching the game there were a lot of parts that were a bit "off". Terrain damage can be explained by wrong values in a physics system and a glitch on the geometry. I remember a few games where I fell to my death from 10 feet where I could easy jump 50 and not die.
As for the damage to the vehicles. The MBTs seemed tough enough unless going against another MBT. The lightnings seemed to squishy by half. Ok versus inf, but a coffin against anything else.

(for the next comment I will reveal my biases. I HATE aircraft in most games)
Aircraft seemed to be taking each other out maybe a little to easily but for the most it seemed ok. However, I was a little alarmed at how much a double burster MAX could unload on some ships and they would still be flying. I makes me a little afraid for inf going forward. I get really tired of being a ground pounder and having near invincible air units bombing the area. Guided missiles will be dodged with afterburner or a quick flare, and ground fire is near worthless. If an AA MAX can't take them out, then you have to get a tank or fly yourself to have a chance.

Now I will admit I saw a few clips with them blowing up mosquitos, I don't know if it was Libs or Gals they were shooting at (to me they looked like reavers) that I see them unload a full clip and half of another and it was surviving. I hope it was just an issue with the AOE damage not working right.

[mirwalk]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

To quote MrBitters I dont know man when I saw a Lightening rape a MBT that was enough convincing to me that a buff is needed. I also saw a MBT shoot at a max like a half a dozen times before it finally killed the max. So yea the MBT needs some loving.

I only got to see the first day's stream as I am at work when he is streaming so maybe I don't have the best view on things.

As for the MAX attack, I think that again may be an AOE issue, that you aren't getting the proper damage unless you hit spot on. Saw a few where the max was killed in 2-3 shots. But those were more direct. I think 3-4 shots if AOE is working properly.

[meiam]

Well there seems to be vehicle auto-repair, so to balance that they might have decided to increase area damage

[mynameismud]

Damage to terrain should be tweaked, laughed at the galaxy landing and one rock killing an atv, but as far as enemy fire is concerned if the ttk infantry is lower, then obviously the vehicles need to be lower too. balance>realism

[RSphil]

combat they seem ok to me but if you hit a wall or something thy take way too much damage. aircraft come in a little hot for landing and you are in flames. i think they need to tweak the environment collision a little

[Haro]

Originally Posted by Dart

Had a lot of fun watching the streams during the last few days and I'm as excited as the rest of you about the impending beta. However one of my biggest issues with what we saw was just how fragile the vehicles seemed to be. I understand the game is faster paced than PS1 but we saw instances where vehicles were sustaining serious damage from hitting a rock or (as we saw in today's stream) exploding after a collision with a wreck of a previously destroyed vehicle.

Aircraft don't seem to be exempt from this 'imbalance' either. The PS1 version of a Galaxy can take a substantial amount of punishment however it's PS2 equivalent seems to be made of papier-mache! I understand that in the Amp Station the devs wanted to avoid too much vehicle camping (personally I think it's the map which should be altered to prevent this) but nerfing the vehicles - which has many knock-on effects - seems like such a heavy-handed way of dealing with this issue it seems to have created a larger one.

Obviously this is conclusion is drawn from just 6 hours of OBSERVED game-play and we'll only know for sure once we get into beta but the average life cycle of a vehicle in PS2 seems to compare unfavorably to that of a fruit fly!

I agree that collisions are really messed up, especially with aircraft. Cacti/cliffs are overpowered, and will likely be nerfed immediately.

I'm not sure about vehicles though. One of my really big complaints with the original planetside was that vehicles often felt overpowered compared to other vehicles or infantry. MBT vs lightning, for example, was no competition 99% of the time. Similarly, you'd need a bunch of infantry to be able to take on one tank, or they'd need to shoot around walls or something like that to stand a chance. Thus, it never felt like infantry had a point outside of a base or tower, at least for direct combat. At times, I thought Planetside felt like a vehicle game that featured infantry than the other way around.

I'd rather have vehicles be too squishy than too tough. With everyone having the ability to spawn vehicles, as long as they have resources, tanks could quickly dominate combat again if they have too much armor, especially in such large numbers. If tanks are too squishy, than the tactics will most likely have to change. Tanks will need to be cautious entering areas, work with infantry, aircraft, and other vehicles to clear out areas. On the other hand, we know they are very powerful offensively, and I've seen tanks take multiple hits from infantry rockets and survive, so I wouldn't be too worried about them completely falling out of combat.

I think beta will help sort things out, but I encourage people to keep an open mind and not feel that tanks should be sturdier just to match the tanks of PS1.