Key Parts of PS1 Vehicle Combat Missing from PS2

[Malorn]

Lots of various discussion on this topic ranging from the role of buggies to the fixed mag main gun. I wanted to bring it up a level and look at the larger picture of vehicle balance.

In PS1 we had a variety of vehicles and a paper-rock-scissors balancing mechanism to them. We also had a "1+1=3" principle where multi-manned vehicles had a lot more power than single-manned vehicles.

From what w know of PS2, a lot of vehicle consolidation has occurred. While there remains a diverse set of aircraft - Mosquito, Reaver, Galaxy, and Liberator (not confirmed, but Higby did mention it). However, ground vehicles seem overly consolidated into just a few - ATV, APC (Sunderer), and MBT. These ground vehicles generally coincide with the Battlefield Games where you have solo/quick transportation with the ATV, a "medium" assault vehicle with the APC, and the Tanks. The tanks also rolled up the other more specialized roles which buggies previously held, such as mortar and AA.

While I want to embrace the new changes, my gut tells me something isn't right. Two of the core principles which I believe was vital to making Planetside great are being kicked to the curb with the current ground vehicle changes. First, the paper-rock-scissors balancing is being canned with a one-size-fits-all tank and no buggies, and second the 1+1=3 principle seems to be in grave danger.

My fear here is that the single-man tanks will be prevalent, with primarily AA as a secondary weapon which some will use when necessary, but mostly it'll just sit there. From a population perspective, now everyone can pull a tank, and they don't need a gunner to be effective with it. Since there's really few other vehicle choices that's what they will do and the majority of tanks will be single-manned except where AA is needed. Since there are few choices any vehicle timers on tanks will be fairly short, likely 5 minutes max, but probably less than that.

Additionally, the class system means you won't have 2/3 of the population with AV weaponry, which implies that AV weaponry must be much more effective against vehicles in order to keep up with the increased population of tanks, or their armor is simply less. So then we'll end up similar to BF style AV where 3-4 hits will kill a tank. In other words, with have a 2-man Lightning. This increases the pace of the game but it also means there is no true "armor" for infantry to push with.

In PS1 where tanks required a 2-man investment, tech, and an agile driver to be functional and had 5-10 minute vehicle timers you could justify the high armor of the tank and its killing power. This made tanks the primary territory-takers, but other options existed, such as buggies or the lightning or a deli. Moreover, tanks had a built-in weakness to aircraft which can be easily mitigated in PS2 with a secondary gun. In PS1 we could have strong coordinated force effectiveness as a team with a few tanks and a few buggies, maybe a deli or a couple aircraft. The strongest force was a mixed force of tanks, skyguards/buggies, supporting infantry, and aircraft. In PS2 its just going to be a blob of tanks, many of which don't even need to be fully manned. And those tanks will die much easier by comparison because they must in order to maintain some sense of balance.

I greatly enjoyed vehicle combat in PS and along with the persistent world it was one of those things that set it apart from other games. I had a tank that could take a beating and make a difference. I had a team that could adjust to enemy tactics and counter them with the appropriate vehicles and weapons and I had a diverse set of vehicles with which to enjoy.

The result of all this I believe will be bland gameplay, where sheer numbers always prevail and a team cannot do much to react and no strong counters exist.

---

I would much prefer a more rich set of ground vehicles where Buggies have a place as a light support skirmisher (ideally with a rather beefy gun), capable of supporting infantry when tank presence is light and making a difference, as well as transporting heavy infantry.

I would much prefer an experience where the paper-rock-scissors principle was clearly present and strong counters exist so smaller forces can adapt and destroy larger ones and the coordination and organization of combined-arms forces is rewarded with effectiveness and strength.

And I would much prefer a strong, powerful tank with thick armor that requires teamwork to fully operate. And that tank makes a significant difference on the battle. I spent a lot of time driving a Vanguard in PS1, and it was rewarding, in spite of not having a gun myself. Being able to run over infantry foolish enough to be in the open, coordinating with my gunner to take out targets, and making a big impact in the local engagement was highly rewarding. I don't think I'm going to get that in PS2 based on the information presented.

[Goku]

Good post Malorn as always. I agreed with every bit. Too much is being cut out on top of a need for only solo vehicles.

[nomotog]

Your reaching too far. Your post is based on conjecture and guesses that you then full up with even more guessing.

[FIREk]

It's what we do - we fuel our discussions with scraps of information, then, as more information gets released, we use that instead. There's nothing wrong with what-if-ing and some, like me, actually like it.

Malorn, I agree with everything you wrote, especially the need for diversity, but I disagree on one point.

While you appreciated the protection tanks guaranteed in PS1, I think they were way too tough, and don't want that to happen in PS2. This was because of how widespread AV weapons were in PS1, of course, but it meant that driving one required no real skill.
Making tanks more vulnerable, and have weak points, forces the driver to think about more than how much hit points he's got left and where the nearest hill is.
I think adding skill to game mechanics is alsays a good thing - this is what is happening to air vehicles in PS2, for instance.

I will be a tank/MAX buster in PS2. Since my class will be geared towards this very task, I want to make a difference. With cunning, timing, good aim and use of terrain etc, I should be able to take down a tank on my own.

That being said, I would prefer PS2 tanks to be tougher than in BFBC2, but require 2 people to work. Secondary gun for tank drivers, dammit!

[Hamma]

Originally Posted by nomotog

Your reaching too far. Your post is based on conjecture and guesses that you then full up with even more guessing.

This is a discussion forum to discuss ideas, please contribute to posts constructively or don't bother posting.

[SgtMAD]

no, Malorn is not reaching too far, he is pretty much correct in his analysis,making tanks a one man veh is a huge mistake that strike directly at the principal of teamwork that made PS different than every other FPS.

and the idea that buggies aren't in the game is just stupid.

the idea that F2P isn't going to make PS2 as bad as when we had free trials and you couldn't play an hour without getting fooked over by some hacker.

after seeing a lot of the crazy conjecture that is flying around on these forums,Malorn has hit a core valid point that concerns all of us,SOE is headed down the wrong track and that is going to affect how long PS2 lasts

[Senyu]

I am hoping their will be a larger variety of ground vehicles with their weakness's so they have their places and counter. With that I think resources should be considered as they are implied they are required to purchases everything. So given tanks cost rescources and your battleing them, they may be a limited amount of vehicle selections (hope not) but I think would be balanced out by being fewer in numbers due to cost

[FIREk]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

making tanks a one man veh is a huge mistake that strike directly at the principal of teamwork that made PS different than every other FPS.

The teamwork/balance aspect of one-man tanks is the most serious problem, because this will be countered by their relatively weak armor (like tanks in BFBC2). Indeed, his alone endangers tanks, because it would be much better if they were tougher, but required two people to operate.

The big problem is that tanks will be, as Malorn coined it, one-size-fits-all vehicles. With AA at their fingertips, the current information suggests that we will end up with varied aircraft in the air, and just blobs of tanks on the ground. Unless we find out that buggies will be in the game, and that tank-mounted AA will be mediocre at best.

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

and the idea that buggies aren't in the game is just stupid.

Luckily, we don't know for sure that they won't be in. At least not yet. :<

[FIREk]

Originally Posted by Senyu

So given tanks cost rescources

Tanks will be free - this had been confirmed by the devs on at least two occasions. It is the upgrades/sidegrades that will cost you.

[Logit]

More and more as I read about the sequel I wish they would have just done the graphics revamp of the original game.

[SgtMAD]

Originally Posted by Logit

More and more as I read about the sequel I wish they would have just done the graphics revamp of the original game.

I think this would have been preferable to the BF clone we are going to be seeing

[Talek Krell]

Malorn, you've very nicely echoed and summarised my own concerns lately. It's true that we lack the complete picture but what we've got so far is worrisome.

[Malorn]

The tanks that have no weaknesses is something that bothers me the most. There's no diversity, no combined-arms rewards, and it'll just be a big blob of tanks with no natural enemy. The various types of secondary weapons means that in sufficient quantity tanks have no tradeoffs because you can cover all your basis with a few different configurations and just roll around with a bunch of tanks killing aircraft, ground, infantry - everything. The only way to counter it would be to have more tanks.

That seems an awful lot like the BFR problem where the only effective counter to several BFRs was to bring more BFRs yourself. In fact, the tanks have configurable weapon systems just like the BFRS, complete with driver and gunner customizable options. I'm getting the feeling that they basically just took BFRs, got rid of the shields and put them on a normal tank chassis. That might get rid of the shield problem and the jumping problem but it doesn't get rid of the no-hard-counter problem and teamwork-is-optional problem.


More on the secondary guns...

If the secondary gun isn't good enough then nobody will use it other than as air defense. I still have a hard time imagining how 2 fully manned tanks with AA secondary guns are going to fare against 4 gunner-less tanks. That's double the hit points and double the firepower. Even if the secondary gunner gun was on-par with the main gun in terms of AV capabilities you're still down half the hitpoints of the single-manned tanks, which means you still lose quite horribly. They would have to make the secondary gun significantly more powerful than the main gun. That being the case - why call it a main gun at all? Unless that secondary gun is on the order of 1.5x more effective or more it will always be preferable to have single-manned tanks unless you require the AA capabilities.

PS1 had the vehicle concepts mostly on-target. Multi-manned powerhouses, single-man vehicles were significantly weaker, each vehicle had tradeoffs. Combined arms ruled, no one vehicle to rule them all (until BFRs...).

[FIREk]

Logit and HtSgtMAD: We'll have to wait for the beta to figure out whether the new direction is good or not, but I'm sure about one thing.
If PS2 was a PS1 revamp, I don't see my friends wanting to play it, ever. It's just too slow, and all the gameplay mechanics are unbearably primitive by today's standards.
PS2 won't be a BF clone (and deep down I'm sure you realize this), but even if it were, it would have a LOT more appeal to non-fanbois than just a PS1 graphics+netcode revamp.

[SgtMAD]

Originally Posted by FIREk

Logit and HtSgtMAD: We'll have to wait for the beta to figure out whether the new direction is good or not, but I'm sure about one thing.
If PS2 was a PS1 revamp, I don't see my friends wanting to play it, ever. It's just too slow, and all the gameplay mechanics are unbearably primitive by today's standards.
PS2 won't be a BF clone (and deep down I'm sure you realize this), but even if it were, it would have a LOT more appeal to non-fanbois than just a PS1 graphics+netcode revamp.

what more do they have to "lift" before you realize this is going to be a clone,its all they talk about,the class system, the driver gunning,umlocks,the locked down inventories,spawn on teammates,hell the only idea they haven't stolen is the box art but then again its still early on in process

everything about PS1 is pretty much gone, a couple of cont/base names don't make it planetside

and its goddamn hilarious to hear all this talk about PS being too damn slow,I can remember when this game was fast as hell and guess what,the forum whiners got it nerfed right out of existence,surgile was too tough for players back then so SOE turned it into rexo side.