PlanetSide Next Reaver Exclusive - Page 18

Firefly · 2011-02-16, 09:38 AM

As much as I hate the tactic on a personal level, I have to disagree with you, Grim. I've seen outfits (including my own) use it in coordination, and teamwork was very much a factor.

Grimster · 2011-02-16, 09:40 AM

Well thats great for you guys. I don't like the tactic either but it doesn't bother me so much that I want to see it prohibited.

Aractain · 2011-02-16, 09:43 AM

It limits choices, its bad design. If it was done in a way that it didn't limit choices it would be fine. In Planetside that would mean buffing ground transport and the galaxy to stupid levels and maybe assault infantry also.

Edit: Another way you could say it is that I want to see other options made viable rather than bailing prohibited.

Firefly · 2011-02-16, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Grimster

Well thats great for you guys. I don't like the tactic either but it doesn't bother me so much that I want to see it prohibited.

I don't want to see it prohibited either.

Hamma · 2011-02-16, 05:10 PM

I can't really see how it would be prohibited. If it was not intended they would have taken it out long ago because it's been around since the game started for the most part.

Livefire · 2011-02-16, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Firefly

Pretty sure whilst it may not have been the original intent, it's not an exploit. Because a lot of people did it, a lot of the time, and practically nobody was ever banned for it. I say practically nobody because I'm not positive, but I'd bet good money that nobody ever got banned for it.

Ever meet CSR DanB? That guy was a real, royal cunt. I'm absolutely certain if he could ban someone for exploiting, he would. And since I don't know anyone who was a bailure who was banned for that, I'm gonna have to say you don't know what you're talking about, --> again.

I was not saying it was something that could get you banned I was saying it was something that was not planned in the development and players just figured it out and started doing it ALOT and the dev's and csr's just let it go. But being this is a new game they are making, fresh from the start they can fix this so transport vehicles are used more and like they suppose to be. which would make alot of players happy and a few kill whores unhappy

I don't want it prohibited, I like choices and no limitations, what im saying is you simply should not some how have a mini gun or rocket luncher in your cockpit with you so you can go on a killing rampage after you jump out of your vehicle. Simply only give them a light weapon like a hand gun or a compact sub machine gun so its mainly only for defense thats all im saying.

Firefly · 2011-02-16, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Livefire

I was not saying it was something that could get you banned I was saying it was something that was not planned in the development and players just figured it out and started doing it ALOT and the dev's and csr's just let it go. But being this is a new game they are making, fresh from the start they can fix this so transport vehicles are used more and like they suppose to be. which would make alot of players happy and a few kill whores unhappy

I've noticed you have this habit of saying one thing, and when someone rips your shit to shreds, you change tacks and say something completely different. You really ought to stop and think about the shit you post before you post it, to avoid all the heartbreak you're going to get each and every time you step on your dick and say something ignorant. You specifically said this was a game mechanic that was not intended by the devs and that it was an exploit. An exploit, as it pertains to a video gaming company, can get you banned. Unless they're incredibly lax or fucking stupid. An exploit in a video game is an exploit - there's no special nickname or synonym. It's an EXPLOIT, which means in just about every sense of the word that the general concept is that it's when a player knowingly uses a flaw in a game to gain an unfair advantage. There's an unspoken rule of thumb which is touted on at least one major MMO company's CSR floor is this: "Once is an exploit, twice is verification, three or more is abuse". If this were an exploit, it's unfathomable that SOE and its PS devs and CSRs were that idiotic as to let it slide for the last seven years.

Now, since you're in the habit of making gross assumptions, let me firstly point out that unless you're riding a secret identity then you're not a developer or a CSR. Ergo, it's not your place to spew drivel that makes claims as to what the developers intended, nor are you permitted to tell everyone else what the CSRs and developers let go. Now secondly, I'll grant you the point that maybe *PERHAPS* a developer did not intend for a Mossie to become a bailure machine when they first implemented the vehicle in the game. But it's definitely NOT an exploit because if it was, the developers would have fixed it in short order. Point of fact, a CSR rarely lets anything go when it comes to cheating. If you get caught, and they can prove it, you're fucked six ways from Sunday. They have this thing called paying customers. There are usually a lot of them. Paying customers get really pissy when there are a lot of cheats and exploits, unless it's a shit game where nobody cares. And considering the sheer amount of people doing it, it's not like there just wasn't anyone from the CSR team watching the umpteen million times it's happened. When subs go down from pissed off players, people lose their jobs. And CSRs might be the first to go, if you believe stories that EA Mythic laid off about 150 CSRs within the first year and a half of WAR being launched.

Livefire · 2011-02-17, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Firefly

I've noticed you have this habit of saying one thing, and when someone rips your shit to shreds, you change tacks and say something completely different. You really ought to stop and think about the shit you post before you post it, to avoid all the heartbreak you're going to get each and every time you step on your dick and say something ignorant. You specifically said this was a game mechanic that was not intended by the devs and that it was an exploit. An exploit, as it pertains to a video gaming company, can get you banned. Unless they're incredibly lax or fucking stupid. An exploit in a video game is an exploit - there's no special nickname or synonym. It's an EXPLOIT, which means in just about every sense of the word that the general concept is that it's when a player knowingly uses a flaw in a game to gain an unfair advantage. There's an unspoken rule of thumb which is touted on at least one major MMO company's CSR floor is this: "Once is an exploit, twice is verification, three or more is abuse". If this were an exploit, it's unfathomable that SOE and its PS devs and CSRs were that idiotic as to let it slide for the last seven years.

Now, since you're in the habit of making gross assumptions, let me firstly point out that unless you're riding a secret identity then you're not a developer or a CSR. Ergo, it's not your place to spew drivel that makes claims as to what the developers intended, nor are you permitted to tell everyone else what the CSRs and developers let go. Now secondly, I'll grant you the point that maybe *PERHAPS* a developer did not intend for a Mossie to become a bailure machine when they first implemented the vehicle in the game. But it's definitely NOT an exploit because if it was, the developers would have fixed it in short order. Point of fact, a CSR rarely lets anything go when it comes to cheating. If you get caught, and they can prove it, you're fucked six ways from Sunday. They have this thing called paying customers. There are usually a lot of them. Paying customers get really pissy when there are a lot of cheats and exploits, unless it's a shit game where nobody cares. And considering the sheer amount of people doing it, it's not like there just wasn't anyone from the CSR team watching the umpteen million times it's happened. When subs go down from pissed off players, people lose their jobs. And CSRs might be the first to go, if you believe stories that EA Mythic laid off about 150 CSRs within the first year and a half of WAR being launched.

Man you got issues.... anyway to answer you question about why they let it happen and keep happening, because its not a cheat nor is it a glitch it just was not the original idea other wise we would not have the gal as well as large transport ground vehicles. Its simple it just happen and the devs went oh well what ever and this is SOE its simply all about money unless they are going to sell something and make money they don't put to much effort into fixing things because it does not pay. And as far and the fear of losing planetside subscribers, If you been in the game from beta like I was then you would know that SOE gave up that worry about the second or third year PS was on the market. You have to realize the MMO market is absolutely dominated by orks and dorks and fantasy crap so as far as SOE is concerned they are the one taking the risk making this game and doing us a favor. PlanetSide is a niche market of L33t fps players who are willing to pay a monthly payment, As the demand for FPS in the MMO community is very small you may be surprised but the demand for a MMOFPS in the fps community is also very small for most fps players want fast paced free to play arcade type shooters.

Firefly · 2011-02-17, 08:24 AM

Dude you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about. I can't even be arsed to waste time trying to help you dislodge your head from your ass.

Tikuto · 2011-02-17, 01:19 PM

Next contender.

DviddLeff · 2011-02-17, 02:38 PM

**Attempts to get the thread back on topic**

After staring at the Reaver for the past week as my desktop wallpaper, I am pretty much certain that one player will control the craft and rockets, while the other controls the rotating cannon under the nose.

Basically an attack helicopter.

Firefly · 2011-02-17, 02:46 PM

That's kinda what I am expecting as well, except in reverse to be closer to what an actual helicopter set-up is, which would be the reverse of what you described.