Rethinking the Drivers and Planetside Vehicles as a whole

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

Instantly no. two second wait, yes. How many times do you hear people screaming " WE NEED A GUNNER "

Now it would require limitations to ground vehicles only.. but hell... in terms of "realism" I've driven hummers and it is fairly easy to jump in the turret.. and that is with gear on....

So yes.... I think we should be able to switch seats on ground vehicles.

So get out of the vehicle, go around, and get in the gunner seat. Don't be lazy.

[BorisBlade]

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

Instantly no. two second wait, yes. How many times do you hear people screaming " WE NEED A GUNNER "

Now it would require limitations to ground vehicles only.. but hell... in terms of "realism" I've driven hummers and it is fairly easy to jump in the turret.. and that is with gear on....

So yes.... I think we should be able to switch seats on ground vehicles.

You can already do that, stop, get out, then get in the right seat. No switchin while moving. No one in a real humvee is gonna jump out of the driver seat while its movin and switch over to the gunner slot, no one, cause you'll crash. Plus even if you stop and switch it takes a crap ton longer than 2 seconds to do so. If you want to make it take 15-20+ seconds to switch which is about as fast as you could possibly hope, then go for it. The rest of us will get a gunner, or stop, get out and switch. Keep your lazy design, terribad, instant slot switchin from BF out of PS.

[Chaff]

sheeeesh

Why do guys have to flame-out so much over someone elses "ideas" or opinions ? Some cats need to get their Manginas waxed 'round here.
Yeah. The original theme of PS Cooperative team-oriented play is someting I'd like to see continued - pretty much a universal mindset for any PS1 vet.

Having said that - a little solo/specialization should be there as well. Sometimes your squaddies may not be on .... and the random one you joined may simply rub you the wrong way. Somtimes I soloed becasue I didn't want some jagg-waggon telling me what to do on ts ..... a CR5 or CR-Zero ..... sometimes the cat leading a squad was not worth the XP. Sometimes, it was me just being anti-social, or wanting to work on something on my own without a squad feeling I was letting it down by free lancing for a while.

I didn't get much out of the original post - except the guy did put some thought into his ideas. I appreciate the effort. No need to torch him - or plie on his previous ideas either.

I liked gunning in the Skyguard. Not enough guys certed them or pulled them to help protect friendly forces from enemy air. They were a fragile vehicle, but they need that balance becasue enemy air could not like fying in on one (or 2 or 3).

I like the idea of a Lightning with an AA turret. Instead of new vehicles, I'd prefer to see more customizations as people specialize deeper into their respective cert trees.

The AA on a tank should never be lilttle more than a deterrent to enemy air. I'd like to see more options for either the main or secondary guns on every vehicle in PS1 that carries over to PS2. As always, reasonable in-game balance and vulnerability to countermeasures needs to be part of any weapon/weapons system.

I'd like better anti-air on the LIB - a Top and Belly turret - that turns 360 degrees. If manned and gunned properly - and with a competent pilot - it could fend off two Reavers ..... or, at the least make it very dicey for them to get thru the Libs defenses.

I'm for change. Change some of the old stuff, and add some new. As long as it keeps the game fun, challenging, and deters repetitive (boring) gameplay - I'm for it.

Anyone who would claim that PS1 did not get monotonous or boring (after a while) .... well, I don't know what to say to those folks. For me, it got too repetitive, predictable, and almost pointless after a while. There have to be ways to help make gameplay stay a little more fresh.

I like hearing ideas with passion and creativity behind them - even if I ultimately think it's counter productive to the game. Sometimes, it seems like guys fail to remember they're not the DEV's either. None of us own this game. All of us do LOVE it. I'm tired of the speculation and yanking-off about any number of the endless possibilites. The game is approaching completion.

I'm ready to play.

[waldizzo]

Drivers drive. Gunners gun. If driving is not engaging enough for someone then they should not certify it.

In Planetside, a gun is not required in order for a player to be "engaged."

[NCLynx]

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

People are afraid of change.

And countless hordes soloing more than they already do in the first game.

[waldizzo]

but I want to be able to drive and shoot a prowler at the same time and then repair it and then heal myself!!!!!!!!!! change!!!!!!!!

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by NCLynx

And countless hordes soloing more than they already do in the first game.

Stand back and look at the game. The reason you didn't see a lot of vehicles was because driving is boring.

Originally Posted by waldizzo

Drivers drive. Gunners gun. If driving is not engaging enough for someone then they should not certify it.

Probably one of the better arguments against what I proposed. The system is designed to be boring so powerful vehicles aren't pulled much. It's worked very well in the game to balance grunt and vehicle combat outdoors.

Originally Posted by waldizzo

but I want to be able to drive and shoot a prowler at the same time and then repair it and then heal myself!!!!!!!!!! change!!!!!!!!

Not what I suggested. Troll elsewhere.

[Talek Krell]

Originally Posted by Chaff

Having said that - a little solo/specialization should be there as well.

Wanting to operate solo is perfectly reasonable, and there are a number of vehicles and equipment loadouts designed for that purpose. Wanting all vehicles to be solo operable so that they better fit your own play style is not, and Sirisian has long been making it clear, in this thread and others, that that is what he wants.

Originally Posted by Chaff

Some cats need to get their Manginas waxed 'round here.

Are you posting this from the 80's?

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

Instantly no. two second wait, yes. How many times do you hear people screaming " WE NEED A GUNNER "
Now it would require limitations to ground vehicles only.. but hell... in terms of "realism" I've driven hummers and it is fairly easy to jump in the turret.. and that is with gear on....

You've successfully avoided most of the issues that come up with seat switching in, say, Battlefield and that's good. But you're still trying to make a multi person vehicle into a single person vehicle. There are already lightnings. If you pull an MBT and leave base without a gunner, there's no reason you shouldn't suffer in measure with your impatience.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Stand back and look at the game. The reason you didn't see a lot of vehicles was because driving is boring.

I saw lots of vehicles, and I thoroughly enjoy driving. Not everything needs a gun.

[nathanebht]

I prefer being able to quickly switch seats (as in the BF series). But it is no big deal. Really enjoy driving a Lightning.

It is significant that some PS1 vehicles required teamwork. Remember it being quite enjoyable if I lucked into a good MBT gunner.

[Headrattle]

Sirisian: I remember you posting something similar before. Again, we say no.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Stand back and look at the game. The reason you didn't see a lot of vehicles was because driving is boring.

It isn't boring for drivers. Good drivers are sought after, and pampered. It is actually harder to find a good driver then a good gunner. We drivers love to drive. It is obvious that you do not love to drive. You want to gun. Then gun. Stop trying to change something that works.

Probably one of the better arguments against what I proposed. The system is designed to be boring so powerful vehicles aren't pulled much. It's worked very well in the game to balance grunt and vehicle combat outdoors.

Close. The vehicles are powerful because they require teamwork. This is why the BFRs are hated so much. High soloing ability, less teamwork. yes, you could have a gunner, but you didn't need one to do very well in a vehicle that was very tough (especially at first.)

Skeeters and Reavers can be solo, because, while they have lots of firepower, they are fragile and require a lot of certs. For example. This should carry on to the next game. Small aircraft and vehicles can be solo, as long as their ability or survivability is low. However, when you get into the tougher more powerful vehicles, they need to be team based. Why?

Because if they aren't few people would pick the less powerful weapons.
If they aren't infantry have a much lower survival rate.
If they aren't the game gets too many powerful tanks and not enough of anything else.

Like I said, if you think that driving is boring. Don't drive. I am ok with giving the driver a small gun, but in my experience with PS1, if I see a Magrider with the driver gun going off a lot it means one thing... Crappy driver. If the driver is more interested in getting personal kills rather then staying alive helping the empire and giving the team kills you have a crappy driver.

This is a team game. You would reward team play whenever you can. One of the ways you can do that is if you allow high powered vehicles to be accessed as long as there is teamplay.

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Stand back and look at the game. The reason you didn't see a lot of vehicles was because driving is boring.

This is your opinion; not a fact. Driving was very fun in PS1 especially when you had a good gunner(s). I can see you don't want or like to drive, you want to gun. That's perfectly fine. Don't change driving, because it's perfect how it is. Many others feel this way.

I didn't see alot of vehicles? There were so many I didn't know who to shoot at back in the day.

[Graywolves]

Honestly the only reason I don't pull a Raider or Bus anymore is because we're either using galaxies or there's no one to gun it.

So I guess gunning is boring? Informal Fallacy?

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Graywolves

Honestly the only reason I don't pull a Raider or Bus anymore is because we're either using galaxies or there's no one to gun it.

So I guess gunning is boring? Informal Fallacy?

I want to say that's more of a population thing, but I'm honestly not sure. I remember when I used to be in an outfit back in the good days and we'd pull an Aurora over and over. Then again that was just a 3 person vehicle. Sometimes it makes more sense with 2 people to just to pull a tank.

The key will probably to vary their usefulness. Maneuverability was a big thing that differentiated vehicles. You had things like the buggies that could zip around the map. That's kind of why I suggested the changes to the tank. I imagine it having slower acceleration and turning radius in order to compensate for a larger main cannon.

Also how would you guys feel if the main gun on the tank rotated slower? Like not painfully slow, but just to the point if a vehicle went flying past a tank it can't whip around and hit it?

Basically I'm more for heavy hitting where each shell counts. Limiting the tank to like 40 shells for instance might be interesting. I think limited ammunition isn't something the game really tried yet and could be something that sets vehicles apart. This could also be applicable for say AI rockets on the tank I proposed. Making each battery fire of the rockets amazing, but more of a "do I want to use 20 of my rockets or switch to single fire since I only have 200 of them".

[Chaff]

I think the MBT in PS are pretty damn good as is. When any other vehicle happens on one unexpectedly - your ass should pucker - if the main gunner sucks - consider yourself lucky.

That's how a tank should be on the battlefield.

I like the ammo loadouts where they are.