Niche vs customizable vehicle roles.

[Figment]

Whenever we talk about niche vs customizable vehicles, I feel like the designer in this clip talking to a dozen or so "generals" patting each other on the back without having the slightest notion of what consequences their decisions have for the design.


The problem typically is that people who think in "lob everything together!" don't seem to realise that the principal qualities that favour one unit are all too often completely different from qualities that favour another unit.

To niche vehicles the design philosophy "less is more" applies, because less roles means better suited for the job at hand: everything about the unit would be designed around THAT purpose. Less is more means "less kibble that isn't needed is better design".


Most people here seem to take "less is more" as meaning "less UNITS is more". This though means MORE kibble and more uniform design. Meaning all these units or all but one role gives up a lot of proper functionality, or they all get some qualities from other units that destabilizes balancing.


Every time I see unit design being discussed on these forums, I think about role and balancing - meaning direct game play consequences. Most people here just seem to think in texture reduction (which is the main purpose of reducing the amount of units: lower dev work and optimize purchasable customization options per vehicle).

Quite often it's not clear to people here what unit functionality and design properties are suited to a particular role. Sometimes I even wonder if people realise what kind of vehicle it even is.

[ringring]

Most people here seem to take "less is more" as meaning "less UNITS is more". This though means MORE kibble and more uniform design. Meaning all these units or all but one role gives up a lot of proper functionality, or they all get some qualities from other units that destabilizes balancing.

I don't quite get what you're saying tbh.

Put it context of the Ps2 Lightning...
we have the vanilla lightning - deals some armour and infantry damage
we have the AA Lighning - little to no amrour/infantry damage but high damage against Aircraft
The Anti-tank Lightning - Little to no damage abaist Aircraft/infantry but high against armour

How does that customisation fit in with what you're saying?

[Evilmp]

I get what you're saying. It's an interesting thought, great video and something to think about in beta.

[Bruttal]

i loved that video

[Figment]

Originally Posted by ringring

I don't quite get what you're saying tbh.

Put it context of the Ps2 Lightning...
we have the vanilla lightning - deals some armour and infantry damage
we have the AA Lighning - little to no amrour/infantry damage but high damage against Aircraft
The Anti-tank Lightning - Little to no damage abaist Aircraft/infantry but high against armour

How does that customisation fit in with what you're saying?

See, that's the problem, you think in damage dealing.


But you ignore the frame design (hull).

EDIT:
Another thing is visual qualities regarding use. These are called "use cues" in ergonomics design. These are there to indicate how something is used and encourage intuitive use from the first moment you lay eyes on it. If you take PlanetSide 1 and use cues, then those would be both embedded and external.

The embedded use cues are things like a visual spawntube and an equipment terminal visualy built into the AMS design and the difference in stance between undeployed and deployed state. In fact even the visual transition of state 1 (undeployed) to state 2 (deployed) where the equipterms are being lowered is a visual use cue: you know exactly when you can use it when you can't and what it is for.

The external use cues would be the yellow emblems on the ground that indicate you can perform a certain kind of action there. In combat, use cues would be things like tracers, reticules, health bars, shields lighting up due to being hit, the yellow ball in PS1 that registers hits for you, etc: it gives you information on what you do in relation to the "product".

A lot of vehicles in PS2 don't seem to have proper visual use cues, because the basic design (unit profile) between roles does not really change and isn't designed around every single purpose of that unit. This too makes unit identification harder for enemies. At a distance you may see a Lightning because you recognise the hull. But you have no idea what type it is till you get closer, which, with the different skins, can cause a lot of friendly fire. ES units are more than "cool", they're useful friend or foe identification features.

You could make a tank destroyer out of a tank, but if you keep the same basic profile with a turret, it still looks like a tank and it's not very suited to a tank destroyer (whose benefit is usualy a lowered profile and strengthened frontal hull). If you use the same chassis, it's not evident. PS2 does do something like this with subtle changes to the vehicle with armour and mobility sidegrades (see Magrider comparison shots), but it doesn't do so between fundamentally different vehicle roles aside from a slightly different turret or gun. Furthermore, with the same hull, armour values, speed and hitpoints are expected to be in the same domain range. There won't be extremely different qualities to these units.

While if you take the Sunderer and Deliverer, they can have extremely different qualities, despite being in the same unit category. Why? Because the platform itself (the basic frame) is different.

[Xyntech]

The difference from a game like Planetside 2 versus real life is that in PS2, we can have sidegrade modifications that change multiple things. For example, if it's over or underpowered to have the same armor on one vehicle variant versus another, the modification can also boost or decrease the vehicles armor as an additional tradeoff.

If they made a Sunder variant that had no guns, no troop transporting capacity, a cloak bubble and a spawn tube when deployed, and the exact same relative difference in hitpoints as an AMS had compared to a Sunderer in the first game, what exactly would be the difference? The hitbox is about the only thing.

I understand what you are saying, that there is more to consider than just saving development time, but I would argue that the luxury of nanites and gameisms allows us to essentially create two entirely different vehicles off of a single frame.

I think of it more like how the Joint Strike Fighter is, versus the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The vehicles in Planetside 2 aren't meant to do everything at once, just to be able to be modified to serve one role or another. Some of the roles will be able to be done simultaneously, but I certainly don't get the sense that they are trying to make them all fill some of their more extreme roles all at once.

Originally Posted by Figment

See, that's the problem, you think in damage dealing.


But you ignore the frame design (hull).

I think this would be a bigger problem if there were only 2 vehicles in the game. Each empire currently has access to 2 sizes of combat airframe, 1 transport airframe, 2 sizes of tanks, 1 land transport, and one personal land transport. We've already seen designs for a possible additional smaller land transport (Deliverer?), and we may still see buggies at some point. I could also see them doing a smaller air transport vehicle as an alternative option to the Galaxy, perhaps with a cloaking option to reintroduce the Phatasm.

My point being that PS2 isn't too bad off for variety in frame design, and we'll probably fill out more niches shortly after launch. There is just no reason why there would need to be an entirely separate model for a Harasser and a Skygaurd. The only reason there would ever need to be more than one buggy model is for empire specific looks.

I'm not saying it isn't cool to have radically different looking buggies, but as long as it doesn't significantly impact gameplay, I'm okay with the consolidation if it improves development time and lowers costs.

[Figment]

Xyntech, this isn't about real life. It's about use. It's not about lore. Lore is typically bullox anyway to explain stupid stuff away.

There's a HUGE difference between being a good spawnpoint and being a good troop or cargo carrier for instance and putting these on the same frame has nothing to do with good gameplay design, but with cutting costs and textures.

The JSF is also doing too much at once, hence why it is so expensive in design. Being a good bomber, divebomber or a good fighter jet or good stealth jet are all entirely different demands and they often conflict. And then they also want it to be VTOL...

Speaking as an aerospace engineer... It's a nice idea in theory, but far too ambitious, meaning it's going to be a compromise aircraft that's not optimised. It will never beat a Sukhoi SU-37 Super-Flanker in maneuvrability, never beat a lot of other aircraft on speed and the F-117 will always be more stealthy bomber while the F-22 Raptor will be a better stealth dogfighter.

[CutterJohn]

Infantry can change weapons. Vehicles should be able to as well. Whats the difference?

Nobody complains that infantry can fulfill multiple roles. Heck the usual argument is there is not enough customization options for infantry.

[Cuross]

From what I gather it's an issue with information and logistics? I see where you're coming from as far as silhouette and yeah an infiltrator can spot a tank column a mile away but won't be able to tell if they're tank destroyers or packing AA guns and I can see where that might get annoying. While I think it's always safe to assume that they are your direct counter, it would be nice to have that knowledge before you risk yourself trying to take it out.

Now, I'm not sure we'll know exactly the look of the customized pieces of vehicles, but maybe they might just be noticeable enough from a distance to tell if one turret is AA and one is AI. But regarding the video, I think everyone will have customized their vehicle to their likings in general, but everyone will still have access to the other options. So while one might be maxing out AA on their Lightning, they'll still be able to pull AV if they need to, effectively taking away the jack-of-all-trades super-ish fighting vehicle like the video

It would be nice to see more vehicles come out later that fit obvious roles like the Skyguard just so that we'll know exactly what we're up against some of the times, but who knows, maybe spotting will be able to tell us more about our quarry than we think right now.


------Edit:
Ah, saw your edit and now I understand what you mean. Well, I don't think we're creating vehicles that take on too many roles at once. They can just change their weapons like Cutter mentioned. Even if you are specializing in one thing doesn't mean that you don't have the option to choose something else should the situation arise At least until more vehicles are released with updates.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by Figment

Xyntech, this isn't about real life. It's about use. It's not about lore. Lore is typically bullox anyway to explain stupid stuff away.

There's a HUGE difference between being a good spawnpoint and being a good troop or cargo carrier for instance and putting these on the same frame has nothing to do with good gameplay design, but with cutting costs and textures.

The JSF is also doing too much at once, hence why it is so expensive in design.

You tell me not to bring up real life and lore (the nanites thing was meant as a joke, the gameisms part was not), and then you bring up the JSF costing too much. My point with the JSF is that it is meant to be modified to fill different roles at different times, and PS2 looks to be going beyond that level of variation.

There are three major issues I see you raising in this thread.

1) Vehicles doing too much at once.

I think they've got this one covered, and if not, I think we'll be able to work out proper tradeoffs and balancing in beta. There is no reason you can't have a single frame fill totally different roles, but be unable to fill them all at once.

2) Frames being used for more than they can handle.

I think this could possibly be a minor issue until we get one or two more frames, but I don't think the problems will be huge. Due to this being a game, we can have a single frame be radically different in almost every way, without having to worry about real world structural considerations or real world development costs. Unlike the JSF, putting multiple things into a single vehicle saves costs in this situation.

The one thing we can't change is the overall size and major shape of the frame, which I don't think will end up being that big of a deal. I know that Sunderers aren't meant to be spawn points, but in my AMS/Sunderer example from before I really don't think that an AMS would have been that much worse off if it had the slightly larger frame and hitbox of a Sunderer.

3) Visual identification of roles.

This is the biggest and most important point you bring up IMO, and it's one that has concerned me for some time. As a pilot, I can easily see how troublesome it's going to be to wonder whether that Lightning has a regular gun or a Skygaurd gun. Of course, this isn't entirely different from how Infantry is in PS2, or even how Infantry was in the first game. It's actually better than Infantry was in PS1 (more like how infantry will be in PS2), because at least we will know what range of weapons and capabilities each vehicle will have available to it.

None the less, I wouldn't mind seeing more done to distinguish which role a vehicle, or even an infantryman is fulfilling. One thought I have had is if there was something like Advanced Targeting from the first game, but with the option to be able to see what weapons an enemy had on their vehicle/in their loadout as well. I think this would be a fair option, and at least a band aid solution to the problem.

As for having proper visual identifiers for things like deployed equipment terminals and stuff like that, that's a good idea, but something I think would still be possible in the current multi-use frame system. We have seen that vehicles can be much more articulated this time around, and it would be relatively simple to add a small animation of a deploying terminal than it would be to add something complex like vehicle entry animations.

I would definitely like to see more done to increase visual cues of all types, but I'm still convinced that their current multi-use frame design is going to work out okay. Certainly there will be room for improvement, but that will happen over time.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Infantry can change weapons. Vehicles should be able to as well. Whats the difference?

Yeah you're one of the 'generals' and don't really get it. :/

Infantry has to have a human silhouette, but there's a HUGE difference between a MAX and a normal soldier. Because their roles differ. There's a huge visual difference between an infil and a medic, because their roles differ.

They're not all the same design.

INFANTRY =/= INFANTRY, in contrast to what you just claimed that infantry == infantry. You need to teach yourself what differentiation we're talking about here if you want to be contributing to this thread.



The point is, an infil does not look like a MAX, does not function like a MAX, has a completely different role from a MAX and doesn't have the same weaponry as a MAX.

Nobody complains that infantry can fulfill multiple roles. Heck the usual argument is there is not enough customization options for infantry.

Which has more to do with specific types of infantry being a lot closer in practical use than different vehicle types and that it is weird to many that someone can carry something and suddenly can't what you can in a different class. Hence why I prefer to look at classes as suits with different slots. The big difference with PS1 by communicating them as classes is that infantry is felt to be arbitrarily limited. In PS1 limitations were based on suits: inventory and gun slot size. You wern't told that you can't carry something that would fit into your slots.


With regards to infantry, I also wouldn't say nobody complains. A LOT OF PEOPLE complain about the infiltrator and sniper being in the same suit. Me included. I'm an infil, infil is about low damage close quarters combat, agility and quick relocation and stealth, with a focus on melee and sabotage. Snipers are long range combat, being relatively stationary and heavy damage. The only thing they both have is it being favourable to blend in with the background, but beyond that, they have entirely different specific design demands and there was a VERY GOOD REASON the PS1 infil only got a pistol slot.

EDIT: in terms of suits (classes), I'd have added a pilot suit, a naval suit (seal) and a sniper suit with specific functions, perks (advantages) and disadvantages.

[infected]

Originally Posted by Figment

Speaking as an aerospace engineer... It's a nice idea in theory, but far too ambitious, meaning it's going to be a compromise aircraft that's not optimised. It will never beat a Sukhoi SU-37 Super-Flanker in maneuvrability, never beat a lot of other aircraft on speed and the F-117 will always be more stealthy bomber while the F-22 Raptor will be a better stealth dogfighter.

except... none of those aircraft are in this game, so what's your point? planetside aircraft will never beat them... but it will also never face them in this game.

this isn't eve online where there's countless ships to choose from. in this game you need to be able to ID a vehicle and know its capabilities. in eve you don't exactly need to zoom in and check the silhouette of each ship before deciding how you're going to react.

[JHendy]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Infantry can change weapons. Vehicles should be able to as well. Whats the difference?

Nobody complains that infantry can fulfill multiple roles. Heck the usual argument is there is not enough customization options for infantry.

What...? Infantry weapons, roles and capabilities change as you change class.

Vehicle roles and load outs should be as distinct as the difference between each class, that is to say, you hop in a new vehicle, and your capabilities change drastically.

By allowing every vehicle to partake in every activity you're ruining that distinction.

If you think vehicles should be treated in exactly the same way as infantry then you must be in agreement with Figment.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by infected

except... none of those aircraft are in this game, so what's your point? planetside aircraft will never beat them... but it will also never face them in this game.

this isn't eve online where there's countless ships to choose from. in this game you need to be able to ID a vehicle and know its capabilities. in eve you don't exactly need to zoom in and check the silhouette of each ship before deciding how you're going to react.

Infected, please read the thread twenty times over if you need to, because if you don't comprehend role distinction vs embedding everything in one compromise aircraft then you will just fail to make any relevant post on this matter.



Do you really not see the difference between the PS2 Mosquito and the splitting of specific airborn jet roles between Mosquito, Reaver and Wasp as was done in PS1?

Do you really not see how the PS2 Mosquito is what the JSF is to those other real life vehicles listed?



And are you seriously incapable of making and understanding analogies and metaphors "because they're not literally in the game"? When was that the point made!?

Please, don't make me insult your intelligence and just read what the argument and figure out what the intend behind the argument is, instead of not reading half the thread and taking something too literal and out of context and then rambling about not needing to be able to identify, which is actualy a problem identified by pretty much everyone else here...

[Xyntech]

I would just like to point out that an MBT with an AA gunners turret will not be the same as a Lightning with a Skyguard turret. There is role overlap, but they handle the roles differently and one (the Lightning) will be more powerful at AA, while the other (the MBT) will remain more versatile. As long as we know what range of weapons and abilities a vehicle can have, it will be no different than the diversity found in infantry classes.

Snipers and heavy assault guns will both be anti infantry, but will handle it in different ways. Do we really need 30 different infantry classes, just to make sure each one only covers a small niche? I think not. The same goes for vehicles. As long as there are enough classes of vehicle to cover the majorly different frame designs, I think we'll be alright.

But I certainly think the game will still benefit from having a few more vehicle frames added over time as well.