Your problems, abuse and exploit concerns

[Azren]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

thats not the optimal solution, thats the solution you want.

the best solution would be, lets the driver drive and aim in 3rd person. it allows them to have more situational awareness, but it also means still that not everybody is going to be good with a tank. also given that tanks require resources to pull, not everybody is going to want to be driving their own tank, gunning one might be a better options for some players.

3rd person gunning would make this game an arcade, do you want that? Next up would be auto aim maybe? Making driving easy is not what I would want, same with flying. The game needs to require some level of skill to operate the vehicles.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Azren

3rd person gunning would make this game an arcade, do you want that? Next up would be auto aim maybe? Making driving easy is not what I would want, same with flying. The game needs to require some level of skill to operate the vehicles.

PlanetSide.......is an arcade style game...its certainly not realistic.

Go play world of tanks, use only 3rd person view and use auto aim, report back to me on your progress.

[Azren]

Tried that game before, got bored of it fast. No comparison really.

[Tool]

Regarding the concerns for missions, I personally would rather have the system open for players instead of limiting it out of concern for farming. I'm very excited about the prospects of this new system so I welcome the chance to delve into some ideas and potentials.

One possibility to quell the issue of farming is to perhaps have a % based bonus applied to exp gained while on a mission. This bonus could be applied to whatever forms of exp there is going to be. For example combat exp (kills, assists, suppression) or support exp (heals, revives, transports, etc.) Therefore exp would have to gained first and accepting missions provide a tangible benefit.

Along with the above thought, the higher the leadership level of the player posting a mission as well as a derived difficulty level (which could be determined by such things as the amount of enemies in the mission area, any opposing missions players have against the objective, etc.) could determine the bonus % applied to the mission.

As I've stated elsewhere here on the forums, I think it would a very fun ability for players to use the mission system to coordinate their efforts down to relative specifics. In way to allow outfits to truly specialize in an area and use mission requests suited to what they need to complete theirs goals.

With this ability you can give players a real sense of coordination in their respective empire. As well as linking the two major player groups prevalent in planetside, combat and support.

Ill paint a picture as well. Think of an infantry outfit, the train to be an infantry unit and spend their outfit certs to further their effectiveness in infantry combat. With the above idea, the need for members to sacrifice certs in order to provide things like transportation, reconnaissance, or engineer support aren't as necessary as they were in PS1. The mentioned outfit can spend all its resources on being a great infantry fighting force and use the mission system for its suport needs.

This isn't to say generalized outfits will be penalized, because all players can make use of the system.

Ill continue this later perhaps as I'm using my phone and its a bit off topic for this thread.

[ringring]

RE: Missions:
I'd rather missions gave no XP whatsoever. I don't think it is necessary.

Say, a mission is capture a tower. The said tower is defended, the fight itself and the consequent xp from kills will be sufficient reward.
Similarly if a mission is to capture a a particular target within a base, say shield generator.
On the other hand, if a mission is to cature a specific 'hex' which is not defended, the tactical minded people and outfits will do it anyway because is helps towards their overall goal.

The only possible downsides with missions is:
- trolls, putting up missions designed to annoy (yep, difficult to believe),
- 'commanders' putting up missions contradictory to each other, ie the equivalent of counter globalling
- 'commanders' putting up a mission that is strategically wrong (not out of mischief but simply not seeing the right response to a situation).

I'm not so 'stoked' (mot de jour) about missions. I see them as ok for new people as it makes the game more accessible but the long standing organised outfits may well ignore them.

[Hmr85]

Limit the missions to outfit/squad/platoon IMO and get rid of the xp.

[Tool]

Originally Posted by Hmr85

Limit the missions to outfit/squad/platoon IMO and get rid of the xp.

Don't you feel this would in a way be unecessary then, to have missions with such a restriction I mean? As most platoon level groups would communicate directly to achieve their goals.

I think the concept of missions is to allow different groups to coordinate quickly and temporarily to achieve goals. Where-as in ps1, outfits were usually self sufficient or relied on one or few other specific outfits for specific needs.

At least, its how I picture the system to be. Probably wrong of course but speculation is fun.

[nomotog]

Originally Posted by Tool

Don't you feel this would in a way be unecessary then, to have missions with such a restriction I mean? As most platoon level groups would communicate directly to achieve their goals.

I think the concept of missions is to allow different groups to coordinate quickly and temporarily to achieve goals. Where-as in ps1, outfits were usually self sufficient or relied on one or few other specific outfits for specific needs.

At least, its how I picture the system to be. Probably wrong of course but speculation is fun.

That's how I picture it too. Like if you want to launch a massive gal assault you could set up missions to capture and secure all the tech bases on the map. A simple and easy way to get everyone working with you to achieve a goal.

[HitbackTR]

Originally Posted by ringring

RE: Missions:
I'd rather missions gave no XP whatsoever. I don't think it is necessary.

Say, a mission is capture a tower. The said tower is defended, the fight itself and the consequent xp from kills will be sufficient reward.
Similarly if a mission is to capture a a particular target within a base, say shield generator.
On the other hand, if a mission is to cature a specific 'hex' which is not defended, the tactical minded people and outfits will do it anyway because is helps towards their overall goal.

The only possible downsides with missions is:
- trolls, putting up missions designed to annoy (yep, difficult to believe),
- 'commanders' putting up missions contradictory to each other, ie the equivalent of counter globalling
- 'commanders' putting up a mission that is strategically wrong (not out of mischief but simply not seeing the right response to a situation).

I'm not so 'stoked' (mot de jour) about missions. I see them as ok for new people as it makes the game more accessible but the long standing organised outfits may well ignore them.

I agree with this. In Planetside I liked the way you could earn experience from say... operating turrets, equipping different weapons etc while in sanctuary. Otherwise you earned xp only from being effective at putting other people down in the field in combat. That system wasn't broken then, (not in PS's heyday anyway) and it still isn't now and as the saying goes "if it ain't broke don't fix it. I am really not feeling the whole mission system even though the devs are trying to implement it to give depth to the game.

The fact is that the combat in Planetside was always it's own reward and it was ALWAYS why you kept logging in, i.e., to win an objective or mount a successful defense. To me the whole idea of 'missions' comes across as tacky in much the same way as merits did in Planetside. It didn't add to one's gameplay experience even though it was fun earning the merit. Having said that merits didn't drive anyone I knew to keep logging in. It was the gameplay alone, that sense of beating your opponent which really drove you to keep playing, not because it would mean that a decal would be added to your armour.

[Tool]

I do agree on quite a few of your points Hitback however the structure of PS1 made the game feel very individualized regarding the combat regardless of how many were fighting. At least, that's how I felt playing.

I hope that missions can give more sense of empires fighting one another instead of differen outfit who just happen to wear the same colors so at other outfits in a different color.

[Neksar]

Originally Posted by Azren

Related to design decision
Driver guns for main battle tanks

Problem description
Driver guns for main battle tanks makes effective driving near impossible in said vehicles. It reduces the situational awareness of the driver, often resulting in premature destruction of the vehicle. These constant deaths will lower the number of players who are willing to gun for the MBTs resulting in the predominant use of single manned tanks.
MBTs are supposed to be a team vehicle, hence lightnings, ATVs, assault aircafts, ect. were added for solo use.

Optional solutions
Remove the driver's option to use the main gun on any 2+ seater vehicle. The use of a secondary gun would be acceptable.
An other solotion could be to allow drivers to choose if they want to control the main guns or the secondary guns.

I do agree with whomever said this was the solution you preferred, rather than a solution to a problem. I don't like this design decision either, to be honest. I'd prefer it if some sort of certification allowed the driver to transfer control of both weapon systems to the gunner, with the caveat that the gunner have access to only one at a time, with some small damage bonus (though I suppose a small damage bonus wouldn't be noticed on a MBT).

[JDNight]

Originally Posted by HitbackTR

The fact is that the combat in Planetside was always it's own reward and it was ALWAYS why you kept logging in, i.e., to win an objective or mount a successful defense. To me the whole idea of 'missions' comes across as tacky in much the same way as merits did in Planetside. It didn't add to one's gameplay experience even though it was fun earning the merit. Having said that merits didn't drive anyone I knew to keep logging in. It was the gameplay alone, that sense of beating your opponent which really drove you to keep playing, not because it would mean that a decal would be added to your armour.

I agree completely. I played for the combat. I played for the fun of the tactical and strategic decisions I made on a minute to minute basis. I played to help my team take an objective. I played to see my team win! Exp just sort of happened.

Missions are a good idea, but their main function should be to help the platoon, squad, and higher commanders communicate and give direction. They should not be viewed as a primary source of reward. Although a small reward might be in order.

It would be beneficial to use missions to allow experienced players to help and guide newer players. However, there is a difference between using a gun or piece of equipment well, and being an effective guide or trainer.

[Hmr85]

Originally Posted by Tool

Don't you feel this would in a way be unecessary then, to have missions with such a restriction I mean? As most platoon level groups would communicate directly to achieve their goals.

I think the concept of missions is to allow different groups to coordinate quickly and temporarily to achieve goals. Where-as in ps1, outfits were usually self sufficient or relied on one or few other specific outfits for specific needs.

At least, its how I picture the system to be. Probably wrong of course but speculation is fun.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't you feel this would in a way be unecessary then, to have missions with such a restriction I mean? As most platoon level groups would communicate directly to achieve their goals.

No, not really, I can think of a few times when my outfit was running 2 or so platoons that I would of loved to have this option. It gives me the ability to designate multiple mission objections. I can give a primary objective to both platoons of lets say capture the CC. But I can also designate sub missions down to individual platoons/squads. As you noticed from the The9 video the objectives changed as they changed locations inside the base.

Example of this being platoon 1 goes in and their sub. objective is to neutralize the spawn tubes in the north east portion of the facility. So there is their mission.

While my sub objective for platoon 2 is to take out the generator on the south west to open the path for the entrance to the CC. But my overall objective for both at the Very top is capture the CC.I hope this make sense.

Sure we have ventrillo running to communicate. But it helps everybody keep up with the overall objective and progress they are making. This is one of the main reasons I think that missions should be limited to squads/platoons/outfits. A individual player does not need to have the ability to just set random missions up in the game. I might would even go as far as saying just limit it to platoon/outfits. I still standby that they should remove xp for missions. Will have to wait and see.

[Azren]

Originally Posted by Neksar

I do agree with whomever said this was the solution you preferred, rather than a solution to a problem. I don't like this design decision either, to be honest. I'd prefer it if some sort of certification allowed the driver to transfer control of both weapon systems to the gunner, with the caveat that the gunner have access to only one at a time, with some small damage bonus (though I suppose a small damage bonus wouldn't be noticed on a MBT).

It is a solution nevertheless. I may prefer this solution, but so does the majority of the community. Only a small portion is fixed on having a driverMainGunner main battle tank, the others are open for compromises. The option to allow the driver to choose which gun he wants to control would be a very good compromise for example.

Well if it was up to me, I'd just make it PS1 style, but I don't see that happening...

[Tool]

Originally Posted by Hmr85

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, not really, I can think of a few times when my outfit was running 2 or so platoons that I would of loved to have this option. It gives me the ability to designate multiple mission objections. I can give a primary objective to both platoons of lets say capture the CC. But I can also designate sub missions down to individual platoons/squads. As you noticed from the The9 video the objectives changed as they changed locations inside the base.

Example of this being platoon 1 goes in and their sub. objective is to neutralize the spawn tubes in the north east portion of the facility. So there is their mission.

While my sub objective for platoon 2 is to take out the generator on the south west to open the path for the entrance to the CC. But my overall objective for both at the Very top is capture the CC.I hope this make sense.

Sure we have ventrillo running to communicate. But it helps everybody keep up with the overall objective and progress they are making. This is one of the main reasons I think that missions should be limited to squads/platoons/outfits. A individual player does not need to have the ability to just set random missions up in the game. I might would even go as far as saying just limit it to platoon/outfits. I still standby that they should remove xp for missions. Will have to wait and see.

I understand your point and what you say makes me think directly of MAG and it's FRAGO ability of leaders. If you haven't played MAG before I'll explain;

Squad leaders could designate specific targets for their squad to focus on, FRAGO. Nearly anything could be FRAGOed like Gates, Vehicles, Objectives, Assets (artillery, sensors, etc.) It gave a clearly defined goal for the squad and offered bonus exp on top of any gained while killing, healing, repairing, etc. near the FRAGOed target.

When I think of a mission system I picture something a little different, a layered system based on mission type, location, difficutly, etc. A tool that players can use to coordinate efforts and link up quickly and efficiently.

All in all I'm eager to see what the PS2 team has in place for it.