Contestable open terrain and vehicles vs. infantry - Page 2

Bags · 2011-07-12, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by kaffis

Like I said, infantry will never be dead. However, I should point out that the infantry-only battle islands weren't exactly a resounding success... having designated maps that favor one or the other doesn't guarantee that the playerbase will like them and provide a fight there.

My question was more, would it be reasonable and fun to give engineers the option to deploy deployable cover to supplement the natural cover in areas that don't have them, or to construct "base defenses" as it were (like the guns on the walls that never really did enough damage in PS1) for open terrain, since there will be open terrain being fought over?

I imagine engineers will get some fun toys as Matt said being an engineer will be really fun.

Oh, and the entire maps won't be one style, IIRC.

Grimster · 2011-07-12, 02:09 AM

I wonder how switching gear will work compared to the original.

Because I drive tanks a lot because I enjoy it. But sometimes when your empire have managed to secure the CY I switch to grunt gear at nearest AMS to be able to participate on foot when my tank simply wont fit in. I wonder how this will work in PS2 if we will have the same scenery change and if we will be able to quickly swap gear?

Bags · 2011-07-12, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by Grimster

I wonder how switching gear will work compared to the original.

Because I drive tanks a lot because I enjoy it. But sometimes when your empire have managed to secure the CY I switch to grunt gear at nearest AMS to be able to participate on foot when my tank simply wont fit in. I wonder how this will work in PS2 if we will have the same scenery change and if we will be able to quickly swap gear?

You go to an equipment terminal and change loadouts apparently.

CutterJohn · 2011-07-12, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by kaffis

My question was more, would it be reasonable and fun to give engineers the option to deploy deployable cover to supplement the natural cover in areas that don't have them, or to construct "base defenses" as it were (like the guns on the walls that never really did enough damage in PS1) for open terrain, since there will be open terrain being fought over?

Can the tanks blow the trees down when there is fighting in a dense jungle?

Heaven · 2011-07-12, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by DeeTwoEh

I hope these areas don't have specific rules to them...Like you HAVE to use ground vehicles. Even if the area is only captureable with tanks I still want to be able to go on ground with my Lancer and wreak havoc. I also some areas don't allow certain vehicles.

It would suck traveling across regions in your mossie and then suddenly it's a non aircraft region and you're forced to either fly around or stop and get out.

I agree that would truly suck big time, i hope they don't have area specific fighting etc... tanks v tanks, air v air, troop v troop as i would like to kick some vehicle ass with my phoenix

kaffis · 2011-07-12, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Can the tanks blow the trees down when there is fighting in a dense jungle?

Well, Matt and Smed were dodging the cement tree question, and the PhysiX rep was talking about destructible terrain as one of the potential offerings that could be integrated into the new engine. So, I'm not sure this is a definitive argument, yet.

Originally Posted by Heaven

I agree that would truly suck big time, i hope they don't have area specific fighting etc... tanks v tanks, air v air, troop v troop as i would like to kick some vehicle ass with my phoenix

This is kind of what I'm getting at. I appreciated combined arms battles a lot in PS, especially the rare ones that formed in the open. They tended to be rare for a few reasons, some of which PS2 seems to want to tear down (few reasons to fight in a remote location (bridges were the primary exception in PS1), so PS2 adds resources to control even in remote, open areas), and others of which still concern me and could still prove roadblocks to combined arms conflicts -- things like areas offering too much of an advantage, or an insurmountable or unmitigateable advantage to one variety of combat or another.

I worry that open areas will be too custom-tailored to vehicles for infantry to stand a chance because they lack cover or heavy emplacements. I worry that mountainous terrain will be too custom-tailored for air conflicts because the slopes will be literally un-navigable to other means of transport, even ATVs or on foot. I worry that the urban combat areas will be too narrow for vehicles to pass into, literally precluding them from entering the fray even cautiously and with reduced maneuverability.

What I guess I don't want to see are areas where, thanks to the ability to focus and specialize my character and outfit, I feel like I shouldn't even bother fighting, even if they prove to have critical strategic value.

Tacked on to those fears, as well, is an opportunity I see for engineers to provide *manned* defenses, instead of strictly automated ones like autoturrets and mines. I'd love the ability to be able to reinforce a position in such a way that it leverages and multiplies my squad's manpower, rather than simply setting up defenses that play themselves. It's my biggest gripe with specializing as an engineer in Planetside. There's no reason "deployable" or "support" should *always* mean "do things for me."

WarChimp130 · 2011-07-12, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by kaffis

Like I said, infantry will never be dead. However, I should point out that the infantry-only battle islands weren't exactly a resounding success... having designated maps that favor one or the other doesn't guarantee that the playerbase will like them and provide a fight there.

My hope isn't that they make specific continents which favor a particular element(vehicles, infantry, air or whatever) but that certain Hexes on a map favor it. Hopefully you could have a few hexes of open plains which favor armor surrounded by a couple with forests or mountains that might limit them and force them into a different path. It'd add a definite empire wide strategic element to battles by having different units moving on different objectives. You could have an armor route surrounded on both sides by forests, and in order for them to proceed forward safely without Infantry in the woods tearing them up it would be smart for another Infantry unit to seize them also.

Or something like that, that makes cooperation key between all different types of units. And just because it might "favor" one type, it doesn't mean a group of smart Infantry couldn't use smaller vehicles and and AV weapons to hold off some armor or a mixed group might be able to use the surrounding environments to their advantages.

kaffis · 2011-07-12, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by WarChimp130

Or something like that, that makes cooperation key between all different types of units. And just because it might "favor" one type, it doesn't mean a group of smart Infantry couldn't use smaller vehicles and and AV weapons to hold off some armor or a mixed group might be able to use the surrounding environments to their advantages.

Maybe. It's hard to say, because we don't know what some of the terms the devs were tossing around really equate to. When Matt says something about "the grasslands map" -- is that a hex, or a continent? I'd kind of assumed the continent, but if he instead means a hex, then that might not be so bad, as you point out.

As for smart infantry and smaller vehicles, I think that kind of thing may hinge on how the skill trees are set up, and how much breadth you can accomplish. If the cert trees allow you to pursue more breadth (faster) than I'm imagining, again, not as much an issue. Or, similarly, if they don't allow for much breadth, but are structured so that things like ATVs or maybe deliverers are sprinkled into the infantry skill tree, again, that might work out "okay."

Hamma · 2011-07-12, 07:46 PM

The intention this time around is to have a variety of different capturables. Terrain that can be captured by vehicles, hillsides that can be captured by infantry, and hilltops that require air support to capture, things like this.

Bags · 2011-07-12, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Hamma

The intention this time around is to have a variety of different capturables. Terrain that can be captured by vehicles, hillsides that can be captured by infantry, and hilltops that require air support to capture, things like this.

Volw · 2011-07-12, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by Hamma

The intention this time around is to have a variety of different capturables. Terrain that can be captured by vehicles, hillsides that can be captured by infantry, and hilltops that require air support to capture, things like this.

It should also slow zergs down as Base 1 -> 3-4 capturable locations -> Base 2 is slightly slower than the current Base 1 -> Base 2.

Depends on the density really. Wouldn't mind if they used same distance between bases as now, but added extra capturable points along the way.

Gwartham · 2011-07-12, 08:06 PM

As long as the game doesn't turn into what it is now, where vehicles are mostly garbage because AV weaponry a grunt carries can rip you to shreads.

If your in open enviroments as a grunt and some tanks come along, you should be toast.

Bags · 2011-07-12, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Gwartham

As long as the game doesn't turn into what it is now, where vehicles are mostly garbage because AV weaponry a grunt carries can rip you to shreads.

If your in open enviroments as a grunt and some tanks come along, you should be toast.

wut. Last time I gunned a tank I went like 16 / 2 or something. Shit's easy.

**Malorn** · 2011-07-12, 08:17 PM

This is one of the details I really liked. I enjoyed those Cyssor battles between Nzame and Bomazi - there were always open tank battles in the plain there and of course the bridge fight.

Being able to capture that plain with tanks would only encourage more tank battles out away from bases, and if there's good resources to claim there would be ample motivation to do it. End result = more tank battles.

The same goes for the aircraft one. By having some terrain only accessible by aircraft we'd see some interesting battles in the mountains with infantry (who got transported up there) and aircraft trying to hold the terrain. Dogfighting would gravitate to those areas and it would give those who enjoy that playstyle a way to turn those dogfighting skills into direct empire advantage.

I think they could even go there with the boat talk also...watery/swampy areas would obviously favor boats and we could see some cool gunboat/naval battles.

Rbstr · 2011-07-12, 09:03 PM

I don't know where the idea that you'll be forced into a tank or plane comes from.

[just like everyone else is saying]
It may be that some places make it impossible to get a tank into because of the obstacles or constant weather effects make piloting all but impossible, or the tank-accessible roads are simply death traps because of terrain or it's a huge steppe-like landscape and infantry are mercilessly slaughtered by anything that hovers rolls or flys. Or the whole damn thing is a swamp with tree cover so only boats get used.
Not: This be tank level, you fight in tank or not at all.