Please remove Vehicle seat swapping.

[Corpse]

I take it that the people against seat-swapping feel that it doesn't take any skill to do so effectively? I mean, generally this is the reason that these kind of discussions take place.

Disclaimer beforehand, I haven't played PS1 myself. If you feel that because of this my input has no value whatsoever, I recommend you go play some more games and/or open yourself up to some other opinions.

My view on the issue of this particular discussion:

From what I've seen from the latest footage, where the guy switches from the pilot seat of the liberator to the bomber seat, it very much looked like the plane dropped almost instantly to the ground. There is a good reason why the guy crashed even after quickly switching back to the pilot seat.
Wouldn't you agree that it would take quite some skill to pull this off effectively? And thus making it rather nonviable for most of the players?
As someone earlier in this thread pointed out, pulling off this kind of stuff successfully is rather satisfying, and to me that's a rather good reason to keep playing PS2.

Ground vehicles might not crash down, but when the driver switches seats he gives up 2 rather important things:

1. His main firepower
2. All of his mobility

What does he give this stuff up for? A secondary weapon that does indeed allow him to deal with enemies he can't really engage from the driver seat (think AA), in the end is going to have less firepower than what he had in the other seat.

What the swapping gives you is options. People playing games like options.
I'm seeing a lot of PS1 players that apparently liked not having these options in PS1.
But there are more people around, including me, that simply can not understand why you'd want to limit yourself like this.
It may force teamplay, but it's rather arbitrary for most people.
"Why am I not allowed to switch seats in the vehicle? It's not like it has that big of an impact on the game. Every other game allows you to do it, why not this game? This is just ridiculous, what a roundabout way of doing something so trivial. This makes no sense."
^this is what I see most people thinking when they find out it isn't in the game.
Hell, it's what I'm thinking right now. What is the big fuss about?
The fact that it was part of PS1 doesn't mean it has to be present in #2.

It's a bit silly really and I'm genuinely surprised there is a discussion about this.
In every other game that involves multi-seat vehicles seat swapping is completely fine. And the argument that this is because all those other games are "session based" instead of persistent like PS2 and that because of this the seat swapping is perfectly fine in those games, but not in PS2, isn't even a valid argument, it's utter bogus.
Give me a solid link between the two first and then I might consider my opinion on this one...


TL;DR (this seems to be the proper annotation for an ending summary on the internet nowadays)
Seat swapping brings more options. Who in their right mind would want to limit someones options? And it's not like these options don't have their own massive drawbacks. Why all the hate for seat swapping?

[EisenKreutzer]

Originally Posted by Corpse

The fact that it was part of PS1 doesn't mean it has to be present in #2.

This is, honestly, the most vital part of your post IMO.

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by NCLynx

1.5 second delay to change seats while taking no damage. Taking damage resets the 1.5 second delay.

That would just be frustrating... I'd simply make the delay a tad longer along with a visible/audible hint that will inform other players that the tank owner is switching to his gunner spot.

More about the topic (and slightly off-topic):
I haven't seen this mentionned much but actually, anything that can tell which positions of the vehicle are being manned (advanced targeting was useful for that in PS1) would be nice.
e.g:
empty tank: no sound
driver: engine sounds
gunner: turret sounds
entering/exiting vehicle: sound+timer
switching seat: sound+timer

Knowing if the guy is still camping the door or if he is repositioning is important. I sometimes got out of the driver seat in PS1 just so the engines would stop making noise and improve the odds of ambushing other players.

I've had odds where thinking a tank was heavily damaged or had no-gunners changed my behavior (i.e. opportunity target). Being able to switch seats from inside the vehicle is already a buff in PS2. In PS1, you could shoot a driver trying to switch to his gunner seat if he was not already in position. And if he was in a bad position, it was risky for him to get out of the tank to reach the driver seat.

Would I still choose to attack a gunner-less vehicle in PS2 if I had a damaged vehicle myself ? Most likely not (because driver=gunner) and still likely not if it was driver/gunner because of switching seats.

At this point, a terrible idea to add would be repairing from inside vehicles. Drivers already do not appear too vulnerable to cloakers/snipers/ATVs/other small caliber threats when repairing:
- the repairing is kind of fast
- they can instantly jump in their armor (from any side) and obliterate the threat

Basically, one of the most likely choices vs. a driver repairing seems to be dealing with the tank (e.g. C4) instead of the player. At least, in PS1, the drivers were sometimes forced away from the entry points. They also had to unholster their equipped weapon before the vehicle enter animation would start. It gave a chance to a cloaker to assassinate the driver or gunner with his gun. And then, seat switching with the cloaker still around was also dangerous because he knew where you would get out and when (and there was a time-requirement to equip your gun). In PS2, you apparently can enter from any side and switch instantly between seats to choose on which side to get out.

What's the point if there is instant entry ? What's the point if there is instant-seat-switching-from-inside-the-tank ?

Sorry for the long post and thank you for reading. These were just thoughts to further why timing/delays/entry points/seat swapping have an impact on gameplay.

[fvdham]

Originally Posted by Corpse

Ground vehicles might not crash down, but when the driver switches seats he gives up 2 rather important things:

1. His main firepower
2. All of his mobility

What does he give this stuff up for? A secondary weapon that does indeed allow him to deal with enemies he can't really engage from the driver seat (think AA), in the end is going to have less firepower than what he had in the other seat.

What the swapping gives you is options. People playing games like options.
I'm seeing a lot of PS1 players that apparently liked not having these options in PS1.
But there are more people around, including me, that simply can not understand why you'd want to limit yourself like this.

The subject is called "no seat swapping", but that is not really the topic,
since there was seat swapping in PlanetSide 1.

The topic really is: "no seat swapping
without having to exit the vehicle and enter it again using another door".

In PlanetSide 1 there was a penalty to seat swapping:

for the solo player who was driving a multi-crew vehicle.
He was exposed for a while to say a cloaked guy with a pistol
who was standing next to his vehicle, while he was changing seats
and there was the time delay because of the animation
of climbing out, the walking around to the other door and the
animation of climbing into the vehicle.

Originally Posted by Corpse

What the swapping gives you is options. People playing games like options.
I'm seeing a lot of PS1 players that apparently liked not having these options in PS1.
But there are more people around, including me, that simply can not understand why you'd want to limit yourself like this.

So these options were already in PlanetSide 1.
What the devs has done is remove the risk and the time delay of seat swapping.
Making things easier for solo players who drive multi-crew vehicles.
Devs making PlanetSide more solo side and less team side.

Which is odd since there already is a single player tank called the Lightning.

I drive the Lightning 99% of the time, yet I am against SoloSide and against EasyWaySide.

[EisenKreutzer]

Originally Posted by fvdham

What the devs has done is remove the risk and the time delay of seat swapping.
Making things easier for solo players who drive multi-crew vehicles.
Devs making PlanetSide more solo side and less team side.

This is just flat out wrong. And honestly, I am getting a little bit tired of seeing the never ending stream of people who write about how SOE is "dumbing down the game," how Planetside 2 is turning into "SoloSide," how rampaging hordes of solo players will drive around in Liberators and MBTs alone and dominate everyone because the game rewards "Ramboing," and a ton of other ridiculous notions that are floating around here.

First off, while inventing funny little words like SoloSide and Ramboing does create a team atmosphere among those who share these opinions, it does absolutely nothing for the community as a whole.

The game will not totally lack teamplay without these features.
The game will not be flooded with 12-year-old Call of Duty players because you can instantly swap seats, or have the option of driving alone in a main battle tank.
The game will not be better with all these restricting, cumbersome and frankly archaic features.

These features, or rather the lack of them, are a result of the design philosophy behind Planetside 2. PS2 is a different game from the original Planetside, and though it shares many features with it's predecessor, it is built on a fundamentally diffrent platform.

PS1 was a war simulator with FPS elements. PS2 will be an FPS with warsim elements.

It's that simple.

[Vanath]

Drivers/pilots can't swap seats if they are moving/in the air. Everyone else moves to their seat instantly but has a delay on being able to use the new position if applicable. This allows people that want to swap seats to do so fairly quickly but still limits swapping between weapons.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by BlueSkies

Filthy seat swapping bastard, look at how OP he is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3xUxSfqAO8#t=1m34s

That's a hummer, its designed like that. It's the equivalent of a buggy.

[ThermalReaper]

Well don't remove them, just don't make them instant. 3-7 second delay would be nice.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

The OP will never address this fact.

I have addressed it a number of times.

Its the difference between a game design that places emphasis "Playing alone, together" VS. Team based with the added bonus of persistent. One is built around the disposable experience and shallow rewards ( Not meant in a derogatory way ) with no larger impact because it focuses on a single battle, not a content crossing war with persistence. In one design, reliance on others is removed, because its seen as a hindrance due to the short playtime window of a match. Session based design allows for players exiting vehicles at 10,000 feet to shoot a bazooka, because it does not matter when the match ends, and it can be quite fun. But the map has reset. They allow for instant switching because and instant entry because they are not focused on players playing together to bring firepower. They feature designs where in players playing alone together can achieve goals like capturing points simply by being in the same area, planed or not. We know this as "The zerg". One of the largest design pots for a session based shooter, is anything that keeps from constantly firing is bad, you must be engaged at all points, at all times, constantly. Hence systems like instant squad spawning and tiny death penalties. You do not even have to re-climb that hill if you fail.

I personally like COD and BF series, but I recognize that they are a different design, with different goals. Those two games are the largest influence on Planetside 2 development. Many systems do not belong in a team based, Persistent, design.

Not where team work, connection to the world and its objects should be priority. More "Worldly" aspects if you will. Less "Gamey" aspects.

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

Do people really want all these things? Do you really want a slow, pondering, cumbersome game of minute tactics and grueling detail, where absolutely every choice has grave, potentially game-ruining consequences?

This is hyperbole, and why its so hard to post on this site. No, I do not want what you describe. However your concept of the passage of time and its speed my differ from mine it seems.

There is zero reason those items can not be included in a measured way. It does not mean the game will slow to a snails pace, unless your idea of a snails pace is anything slower than a meth addict. They can be added in a measured, considerate way that adds to the experience, impacts the pace slightly.

I personally see the removal of such things as an overreaction for the pursuit of "Faster". Pendulum has swung to far.

[fishirboy]

^^^^^He proves the point better but i show you why

Well as I read the about fan boys of BF3 talking about being able to just go in with your one man army get the tanks down switch to your light guns and kill the 5 or so men around you as well as switching to your AA gun on your tank and killing the aircraft coming towards you is Ridiculousness, first you can see what seat of the vehicle your getting into. Second no you should not always be able to just change seats on the fly, it makes TEAMWORK (you know the whole point of having 2k players on the map deal) go down to nothing but you and your engineer just cleaning off the blood on your tank. The game should be based around team work and the next video is to prove a point no a realism point but a point to show that if this was a world that it could happen no tel-porting from gunner of a tank to the main cannon in less then a second.



You cant get this coordination in a game were your a one man army and BF3 should not rub off on PlanetSide 2 to much or very little.

Please tell me you guys out there that say quick swapping is actually possible and really, because your able to move around your vehicle fast means its fair?

[Kran De Loy]

Hot swapping while inside the vehicle is perfectly fine. There is no need to limit people for it in anyway that I can think of other then the possibility of a delay for getting into or out of the pilot seat of an aircraft. Something small like 1 or 1.5 second at most.

Hot swapping between any other seat is just not a problem.

[Jonny]

The way I see it at the moment is, hotswapping as they have it now, but make sure they add in that delay for entering/exiting a vehicle with those animations everyone wants.

Sound good?

[EisenKreutzer]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

I personally like COD and BF series, but I recognize that they are a different design, with different goals. Those two games are the largest influence on Planetside 2 development. Many systems do not belong in a team based, Persistent, design.

My emphasis.

Sorry for chopping up your post like this. I did actually read the whole body of the post, but this sums up your point IMO.

First off, there can be real and meaningful teamplay in both Call of Duty and Battlefield. I have some experience with organised team play in BF3, and it is definately not based around the idea of a "disposable experience" where nobody cares about long term impact of any decition.
On the contrary, teamwork in these games is all about coordination, communication and hrasp of game mechanics.

Sure, a typical match ends after roughly 30 minutes when one side completes their objectives, but the battlefield is a fluid, shifting enviromnent with constantly changing priorities and tactical decitions.

I would also like to contest your point about wether these systems belong in Planetside 2.
As I have been saying across multiple threads, Planetside 2 is going to be a very different game compared to the original Planetside. The developers have shifted the focus away from war simulation and towards the modern FPS genre.
With that choice come some tropes of the FPS genre, and they are tropes because they have a purpose. A purpose which, I might add, goes beyond just catering to a "disposable experience."

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

This is hyperbole, and why its so hard to post on this site. No, I do not want what you describe. However your concept of the passage of time and its speed my differ from mine it seems.

Again, my emphasis.

So, when I do it, it's hyperbole, but when you and the other proponents of these alterations to the game do it, it's perfectly acceptable?

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

I have addressed it a number of times.

Its the difference between a game design that places emphasis "Playing alone, together" VS. Team based with the added bonus of persistent. One is built around the disposable experience and shallow rewards ( Not meant in a derogatory way ) with no larger impact because it focuses on a single battle, not a content crossing war with persistence. In one design, reliance on others is removed, because its seen as a hindrance due to the short playtime window of a match. Session based design allows for players exiting vehicles at 10,000 feet to shoot a bazooka, because it does not matter when the match ends, and it can be quite fun. But the map has reset. They allow for instant switching because and instant entry because they are not focused on players playing together to bring firepower. They feature designs where in players playing alone together can achieve goals like capturing points simply by being in the same area, planed or not. We know this as "The zerg". One of the largest design pots for a session based shooter, is anything that keeps from constantly firing is bad, you must be engaged at all points, at all times, constantly. Hence systems like instant squad spawning and tiny death penalties. You do not even have to re-climb that hill if you fail.

I personally like COD and BF series, but I recognize that they are a different design, with different goals. Those two games are the largest influence on Planetside 2 development. Many systems do not belong in a team based, Persistent, design.

Not where team work, connection to the world and its objects should be priority.



This is hyperbole, and why its so hard to post on this site. No, I do not want what you describe. However your concept of the passage of time and its speed my differ from mine it seems.

There is zero reason those items can not be included in a measured way. It does not mean the game will slow to a snails pace, unless your idea of a snails pace is anything slower than a meth addict. They can be added in a measured, considerate way that adds to the experience, impacts the pace slightly.

I personally see the removal of such things as an overreaction for the pursuit of "Faster". Pendulum has swung to far.

Great effort, but this post is mostly misdirection.

Tell me which FPS's from the first generation weren't session based with disposable experiences that had persistent and achievable goals?

How about the fact that players working together in any shooter from the dawn of the genre will always have an advantage over those who aren't. If you're 'playing alone, together' you are missing the point of multiplayer games. Friends. Play with them.

Was Planetside your first shooter? Serious question.

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

This is just flat out wrong. And honestly, I am getting a little bit tired of seeing [...] elements. PS2 will be an FPS with warsim elements.

It's that simple.

I am quite certain most of us realize that PS2 is a different game. As a PS1 vet, I am actually quite happy that SOE stuck with the Planetside IP and had the balls to stick to the risky MMOFPS genre and create PS2 (it could definitely have been less original).

It may appear to you that we want "PS1 Redux" but what we simply want is a successful Planetside game that involves depth and offers a diverse set of playstyles for all kinds of players.

I personally love that the infantry shooting part was updated but we want to make sure that what made Planetside (logistics, strategy) retains importance vs. the purely tactical aspect of aiming&firing.

PS1 players had a chance to experience another set of vehicle gameplay mechanics than the Battlefield standard. I do not think anyone tries to say "it's from PS1 so it must be good" just like you are not saying "it's from Battlefield so it must be good".

What really matters is the impacts of gameplay choices made by devs.


What I see is that to disable a tank in PS1, you could:
- jam it [easy]
- blow it [easy]
-force a retreat for repairs (finding a safe spot+ non-negligible time to repair) [easy]
- kill the pilot or gunner [hard]
- hack+deconstruct/die gunning the vehicle [suicidal]

In PS2, it seems you are currently limited to:
- blow it [easy]
- force a retreat for repairs (finding a safe spot) [easy]


In terms of depth and variety in gameplay, something is lost in translation and it feels like devs are forcing hard on the resource drain by favoring vehicle destruction (see how long a PS2 vehicle lasts).

Do I realize that PS2 is a different game than PS1 ?

Definitely.

Is vehicle related gameplay better than PS1 ?

Not sure.

I like how a lot of things were improved:
- very fast vehicles spawn.
- new prowler/lightning looks fun.
- empire specific aircav is a nice idea.
- I love the cockpits
- I love the physics and gravity feel
- I like the new Sunderer design (the PS1 sundie was a failure except for EMP)
- I love the customization ideas
- Aircav looks awesome in action and the new lib too

I dislike how some things were implemented:
- I'm waiting to see the results of driver=gunner. At least, it brings equivalent power to a ground vehicle driver than aircav did to a pilot.
- I strongly believe instant entry/exit is a terrible idea
- I strongly believe instant seat switching is a terrible idea

I believe they are a terrible idea mainly because I feel the amount of benefits they bring is disproportionate when you consider the low risk they involve (and not because they are different than PS1).


I think you are right saying that transposing exactly the PS1 vehicle mechanics to PS2 is a terrible idea. I also think you are wrong saying everything instant is a good idea. As mentionned earlier, a middle ground could be a decent solution.