Please remove Vehicle seat swapping.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

Sorry for reducing your post to one sentence.

This is where we differ. You see, when I hear "teamplay is fascilitated, but not required," my immediate conclusion is that this is good game design.

It is, for a session based shooter.

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Aurmanite, I will respond to you if you actually read someones post, take the time to understand what they are saying, and not just use that time to come up with your next aggressive attack. Until then, see you on the battlefield.

Bloodworth, I'm sorry that I harp on you as much as I do. But since you say a lot of stupid shit, it has to be done.

You make all these threads complaining about about every single new feature we see, and you expect people to accept your opinion as evidence that these new features aren't good. When you're confronted with reason and well supported arguments, you change the subject or out right ignore the post.

"This feature isn't like a war game, take it out."
"People play alone, together, that is not like a war game, take it out."
These are not well reasoned or properly supported points and quite often these are the only posts you make in your negative threads.

Lastly, Planetside was not everything you build it up to be. It wasn't this grand tactical strategy game where everything everyone did was coordinated and significant. A fuckload of the 500ish people on a map were playing alone, together. No matter how strategic you wanted to be, you only had the option to pour into a tower or base trying to win a slow battle of attrition in order to capture it...and move on to the next one.

[EisenKreutzer]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

It is, for a session based shooter.

No, it is good game design period. Artificially constraining players is never a good thing, no matter the game. Within the constraints of the genre, there should never be systems that so agressively push players in one direction. Because players will rebel against these constraints, and the game will end up only catering to a very specific subset of the playerbase who want one specific experience and nothing else.

I do not want Planetside 2 turning into ArmA, and I will fight to stop that happening.

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

No, it is good game design period. Artificially constraining players is never a good thing, no matter the game. Within the constraints of the genre, there should never be systems that so agressively push players in one direction. Because players will rebel against these constraints, and the game will end up only catering to a very specific subset of the playerbase who want one specific experience and nothing else.

I do not want Planetside 2 turning into ArmA, and I will fight to stop that happening.

Teamwork was facilitated but not required in the original.

There were plenty of lonewolf pilots, snipers, soldiers, and cloakers that were extremely effective at killing people, creating havoc, and enjoying the game their way.

[Klockan]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Pace. Connection to the world. Ownership. Connection to that equipment. Rebuking of the idea its disposable. Removal of the idea that its just another armor pool you are temporarily wearing. Lots of this is not a quantifiable except in feel and use cases. But its important.

How would seat swapping give people the idea that it is disposable, and how would removing seat swapping also remove the thought that it is disposable? You pay a lot for the vehicles so of course they aren't disposable. Since the vehicle isn't disposable you want to keep it alive as long as possible and the best way to do that is to fill all the positions. The difference is that if one of the zerglings manning your vehicle decides to bail on you and go do his own thing elsewhere (He don't care about it, hes just there for the kills) you aren't completely screwed since you can at least substitute his role to a degree with yourself or the other passengers filling in.

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

It is, for a session based shooter.

Session based shooters will lack sense of ownership, teamplay and social behavior almost no matter how you build them while persistent world games will have all of those almost no matter how you build them. There are no reasons why session based games would require wastly different mechanics than persistent world games, except that in any persistent games there needs to be long term goals.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

No, it is good game design period. Artificially constraining players is never a good thing, no matter the game. Within the constraints of the genre, there should never be systems that so agressively push players in one direction. Because players will rebel against these constraints, and the game will end up only catering to a very specific subset of the playerbase who want one specific experience and nothing else.

I do not want Planetside 2 turning into ArmA, and I will fight to stop that happening.

I do not want ArmA either. I all ready own it You are also going right back in to Hyperbole territory. I'm not speaking in black and white terms, well reasoned implementation is all that is required. Like I said, its a case of the pendulum going to far in the search for speed. There is more than "Completely casual" and "Mill sim" in the world. Proclamations of doom on either side help no one.

Also, good game design period? Um...

http://amnesiagame.com

[fvdham]

Originally Posted by Klockan

The difference is that if one of the zerglings manning your vehicle decides to bail on you and go do his own thing elsewhere (He don't care about it, hes just there for the kills) you aren't completely screwed since you can at least substitute his role to a degree with yourself or the other passengers filling in.

If the gunner bails you get another gunner. Enough players.

In PlanetSide 1 the passengers could become gunner. You would stop the car.
The passenger would exit from the passenger door and enter the car using the gunner door.

[demonicale]

Seat swapping must stay, when i play BF3 it's great to swap to a diffrent gun if my gunner has bailed and ran off crying

[EisenKreutzer]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

I do not want ArmA either. I all ready own it You are also going right back in to Hyperbole territory. I'm not speaking in black and white terms, well reasoned implementation is all that is required. Like I said, its a case of the pendulum going to far in the search for speed. There is more than "Completely casual" and "Mill sim" in the world. Proclamations of doom on either side help no one.

Also, good game design period? Um...

http://amnesiagame.com

Definitions of hyperbole aside, it's much more enjoyable when you aknowledge my points instead of traipsing around them.

I do agree that it is a spectrum between "Completely Casual" and "Military Sim," and that the various debates about features in PS2 fall on one end or another. The middle ground is rarely brought up, and I'm pleased that you do.

I disagree with you on where on the spectrum the game lies at present, and how far in the other direction your (and others) suggestions would take the game, but that is more a matter of opinion than anything else.

As far as Amnesia is concerned, it is hardly a game at all. It is an experiment in conveying experiences, comparable with Dear Esther and similiar games. That said, the game is fundamentally built around the idea of exploration, and uses few constraints to encourage the player to explore and advance. As such, it is a rather poor example in support of your position.

[Klockan]

Originally Posted by fvdham

If the gunner bails you get another gunner. Enough players.

There aren't always time to do that, sometimes you need one now and not later.

Originally Posted by fvdham

In PlanetSide 1 the passengers could become gunner. You would stop the car.
The passenger would exit from the passenger door and enter the car using the gunner door.

But you can't do that while under fire.

But the essence of the issue is that vehicles lose less from being undermanned with hot swapping implemented. This works great to encourage teamplay with randoms since then you can allow people in your tank that you don't trust, they might bail on you but even if they do that role can still be semi covered while a bailing tailgunner on a liberator means that you are dead otherwise. Then if you meet someone who stays with you a bit longer you might team up and friend each other which could develop to a lasting friendship. Teamplay is still encouraged, just in slightly different ways. Sure it costs less to go out alone but it also costs less to go with players you don't already know. This is an mmo, the purpose isn't to just play with the same people all the time but to learn to know new people.

[fvdham]

Originally Posted by demonicale

Seat swapping must stay, when i play BF3 it's great to swap to a diffrent gun if my gunner has bailed and ran off crying

Yeah, but the topic is not really about seat swapping, which already is in PlanetSide 1.

The topic is about whether seat swapping should be instant
and whether you should have to leave the car from one door
and enter using a different door as it was in PlanetSide 1.

[ArcGuard]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

It is, for a session based shooter.

I thought we were past this already


Everyone saying seat swapping causes overpowering is thinking about combat in a vacuum. If someone seat swaps, he loses his ability to do the previous ability. So yes. In a one on one fight, seat swapping is overpowered (against also stationary targets).

HOWEVER, one fully manned vehicle is more powerful than one non-fully manned vehicle. If a liberator gets attacked by infantry and aircraft simultaneously (which is likely to be the case), a non-fully manned liberator can only combat one of the two threats, where a fully manned can combat both simultaneously.

[basti]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

Teamwork was facilitated but not required in the original.

There were plenty of lonewolf pilots, snipers, soldiers, and cloakers that were extremely effective at killing people, creating havoc, and enjoying the game their way.

Mind if you actually PLAY planetside?

There were almost no lone wolf guys. It was mostly a small group of people doing stuff together, but a single lone wolf did almost nothing, ever.


And to get to the original point: Seat swapping needs to be removed, at least in its current form. In the leaked Tech test Video, the guy actually swapped form his Lib Pilot seat to the Gunner, fired a bunch of shots, and swapped back. He also was gunning for a lib for quite some time, swapping between the gunner seats as he needed.
That obviously cant stay that way.

[MrBloodworth]

I was not going to bring up the leaked Tech test Video.

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by ArcGuard

I thought we were past this already


Everyone saying seat swapping causes overpowering is thinking about combat in a vacuum. If someone seat swaps, he loses his ability to do the previous ability. So yes. In a one on one fight, seat swapping is overpowered (against also stationary targets).

HOWEVER, one fully manned vehicle is more powerful than one non-fully manned vehicle. If a liberator gets attacked by infantry and aircraft simultaneously (which is likely to be the case), a non-fully manned liberator can only combat one of the two threats, where a fully manned can combat both simultaneously.

Exactly. Not only would your 2 man Liberator lose situational awareness, but the ability to have two independent roles active at the same time.

People are thinking too small. They picture a tank with AA and seat swap and believe they will be this glorious one man army. Anyone who has played Planetside knows that a lot happens in a short amount of time. One player will not be able to successfully handle 2 roles.