Some Thoughts on MBT's from a Veteran Tanker

[JesNC]

Originally Posted by infected

many of us just wish ps2 would take bf3 modern game ballistics, physics and features and make it into 2000 player maps. bf3 has proper weapon ballistics, feedback, and audio. bf3 vehicles have proper movement, cockpit gui's, 3rd person view, etc, etc.

Well, I'm glad I'm not one of your 'many' players. Whenever I play/look at BF3 I see dolphin-diving, C4-spamming, quick-scoping, bazooking, LMG-spamming egomaniacs. It's quite comical, really.
If that's the definition of proper gameplay in a AAA team-based shooter, I'll just play pong again, thanks.

And I don't know how this got into a Magrider debate.


PS: What's with the PC Gamer tag, anyway?

[infected]

Originally Posted by JesNC

Well, I'm glad I'm not one of your 'many' players. Whenever I play/look at BF3 I see dolphin-diving, C4-spamming, quick-scoping, bazooking, LMG-spamming egomaniacs. It's quite comical, really.
If that's the definition of proper gameplay in a AAA team-based shooter, I'll just play pong again, thanks.

And I don't know how this got into a Magrider debate.


PS: What's with the PC Gamer tag, anyway?

the thing about bf3, none of those things you listed are a problem for a veteran fps gamer. you can still take a standard m16 and wipe the floor with noobs who try that stuff.

can i see your battlelog?

and, title is MBT's from veteran tanker. i'm on topic. open your mind.

[JesNC]

You're not on topic, you're rambling, sorry. "Port BF3 to 2000k player maps" added nothing to the discussion at hand.

And I didn't mean to thread on your veteran FPS-gamer epeen, but I still find the BF-series gameplay comical, even hilarious at times.

[FuzzyandBlue]

Originally Posted by infected

i'm not a fan of the way soe is holding on to this concept that each faction has some trade-off with vehicles. bottom line is they are all gimped in one way or another, making none of them desirable and ultimately making the game less desirable as a result.

soe should just stick to aesthetic and cosmetic (and lore) differences between factions.

every weapon in the game has random cone of fire calculated in to remove any appeal for skill-based fps gamers.

planetside 2 is failing on a lot of levels in comparison and not living up to the promise of being a modern AAA shooter. and that's just the underlying stuff. i'm not even going to bring up the issues with choice of map/base design, and how all of this broken stuff ruins the flow of the game.

Asymmetrical Balance can add a lot of depth and complexity to the game. It also means that fighting the different factions pose a unique challenge. A great example of asymmetrical balancing is Starcraft 2(an RTS I know). Each of the factions has unique strengths and weaknesses which affect the way they interact with each other. What works good in Terran v Protoss will not always work in Terran v Zerg. This helps keep the game fresh and exciting for a longer period of time.

BF3 has a semi random CoF which also kills that game for many "skill based gamers".

If anything is horrible broken when beta rolls around I'm sure it will get fixed. So I wouldn't worry to much about balance issues when the game is still in alpha.

I would like it if you would type out a well thought out thread as to why the map and base design and all the other things you mentioned ruin the flow of the game.

[Gugabalog]

Originally Posted by FuzzyandBlue

Asymmetrical Balance can add a lot of depth and complexity to the game. It also means that fighting the different factions pose a unique challenge. A great example of asymmetrical balancing is Starcraft 2(an RTS I know). Each of the factions has unique strengths and weaknesses which affect the way they interact with each other. What works good in Terran v Protoss will not always work in Terran v Zerg. This helps keep the game fresh and exciting for a longer period of time.

BF3 has a semi random CoF which also kills that game for many "skill based gamers".

If anything is horrible broken when beta rolls around I'm sure it will get fixed. So I wouldn't worry to much about balance issues when the game is still in alpha.

I would like it if you would type out a well thought out thread as to why the map and base design and all the other things you mentioned ruin the flow of the game.

Hopefully more forum goers than just him read your explanation of assymettrical balance.

[infected]

other games, you can switch sides between matches. your rank/rating doesn't reset for each faction. zerg/protoss, american/russian.... in this game, your character progression and stuff you buy in shops just discourages you from playing more than one faction. the opposite is true too. this game boasts you can just switch roles mid battle to counter what the enemy is doing, but if you can't go to the terminal and pull out those other vehicles to counter, then the game fails in that philosophy.

what would be balanced is if all factions had access to all vehicles, and each individual decided which one they wanted to use. something even bf3 does with class starter infantry weapons once you've unlocked every gun for a class.

the fact is, if that were possible in ps2, to fly every jet and drive every tank, you would see certain air and ground vehicles would prove more dominant - exposing the truth that one will inevitably be better and thus popular among everyone, which is fine and expected.

but the problem with the current restrictions is that we are just stuck with the ones soe assigns to our faction.

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by infected

other games, you can switch sides between matches. your rank/rating doesn't reset for each faction. zerg/protoss, american/russian.... in this game, your character progression and stuff you buy in shops just discourages you from playing more than one faction. the opposite is true too. this game boasts you can just switch roles mid battle to counter what the enemy is doing, but if you can't go to the terminal and pull out those other vehicles to counter, then the game fails in that philosophy.

what would be balanced is if all factions had access to all vehicles, and each individual decided which one they wanted to use. something even bf3 does with class starter infantry weapons once you've unlocked every gun for a class.

the fact is, if that were possible in ps2, to fly every jet and drive every tank, you would see certain air and ground vehicles would prove more dominant - exposing the truth that one will inevitably be better and thus popular among everyone, which is fine and expected.

but the problem with the current restrictions is that we are just stuck with the ones soe assigns to our faction.

Wow you really are in the wrong forums buddy.

Picking a faction is about loyalty to said faction, not about figuring out who's the winning side and then playing with them. It's a persistent world which means there is no "between battles".

And btw, it doesn't take playing every faction, driving every vehicle, and flying every aircraft to figure out which one dominates where. It takes perception and observation, that's all.

So far your 0 for however many random topics you've raised in the last 3 posts in this thread for good points. Mind sticking with the actual subject? You could start by reading the OP's post and sharing an opinion that is somewhere within a 30 kilometer radius of said post?

[AzureWatcher]

Magrider sniped my post. Its corpse now needs to be deleted.

[Gugabalog]

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks he's off his rocker.

[Serotriptomine]

I'm fine with the way the turret is locked, you just need to make sure the rotation of the MBT is adequate enough to compete with speedy targets.

The only disadvantage I see the Magrider having with its Main Cannon is it cannot effectively target Air. That's my only concern, when any of the other tanks can target Air just fine.

If you tweak the Mag so it's turret can go 90 degrees then it just looks like an artillery piece, you know?

Bf2142 did the hovertank just fine imo, although I never tried to shoot at air targets.

[NoDachi]

Originally Posted by Serotriptomine

I'm fine with the way the turret is locked, you just need to make sure the rotation of the MBT is adequate enough to compete with speedy targets.

The only disadvantage I see the Magrider having with its Main Cannon is it cannot effectively target Air. That's my only concern, when any of the other tanks can target Air just fine.

If you tweak the Mag so it's turret can go 90 degrees then it just looks like an artillery piece, you know?

Bf2142 did the hovertank just fine imo, although I never tried to shoot at air targets.

Well if the magrider can turn as fast as a turret, and that it has good depression, coupled with the fastest, and flattest shell then it'll probably be even better than the other empires.

[Serotriptomine]

I'm sure it's something that will be balanced.