Please remove Vehicle seat swapping.

[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]

Originally Posted by Littleman

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Synapse

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...

[ThGlump]

Originally Posted by 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)

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]

Originally Posted by Flaropri

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Figment

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]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

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.