Cockpit View - [Now Forced per Higby]

[Talek Krell]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I don't actually mind the idea of a cockpit. Just like I don't mind having the gun on screen for infantry, even though that restricts view as well. I dislike the bad, overly restrictive designs they universally share.

And if you were campaigning to have better designed cockpits then you wouldn't be running into so much resistance. What they've shown us is likely one of their earliest iterations. "Subject to change" would be an understatement. But you're campaigning to have toggle off cockpits, which effectively defeats the purpose of having the cockpit in the first place.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Because your window to the world is already restricted enough just because its on a monitor.

Why though? What reasoning is the base of this?

Example:
I like cockpit view.<---Cockpit views make flying an aircraft feel more like flying an aircraft, complete with the pros and the cons.<---Cockpit views are immersive.<---I like to feel immersed in the game world.

As you can see I like cockpit views because they make the world more compelling to me. I'm fond of being able to look down and see my feet for the same reason (and in the game).

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

And if you were campaigning to have better designed cockpits then you wouldn't be running into so much resistance.

I pointed out it was a really bad design and wouldn't care so much if it were less restrictive in my very first post in this thread.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I wouldn't mind if it wasn't such a crappy cockpit.

If it didn't block so much, I wouldn't mind having it, and you wouldn't feel disadvantaged leaving it on if there were a toggle.

[Talek Krell]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I pointed out it was a really bad design and wouldn't care so much if it were less restrictive in my very first post in this thread.

Right, but rather than vowing to convince the devs to fix the design you insist that it has to be removable. Which is an issue, because --V

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

If it didn't block so much, I wouldn't mind having it, and you wouldn't feel disadvantaged leaving it on if there were a toggle.

I would feel less disadvantaged, but that's a critical difference. Any given person has that competitive spirit. Any sensible person realizes that "doing your best" means "taking every advantage you can get, regardless of how small it may be". The combination of those two things can and does shoehorn people into cannibalizing their own enjoyment for a slight competitive advantage (see the grass) by making them feel obligated to "do their best" for the sake of their teammates, themselves, and even their enemies. That competitive spirit can be toxic sometimes. If you've any doubt of that just have a look at the elitist vitriol in some of your "allies'" posts in this thread.

Originally Posted by Kran De Loy

Am I getting this wrong or is elfailo, Zulthus and Skittles aggressively agreeing with eachother?

I'd say failo and Skittles are clinging to whatever validation they can find. Are you sure you don't mean Sky rather than Zulthus?

[Fenrod]

Oh. Then just leave Cockpit and HUD. They are both good and some people (including me) like the way it is.

[Tachyr]

All for it being forced

[Bags]

Good post marlorn

[Zulthus]

Hey guys, remember that old argument we always used?

"It's not a remake of the original. It's a new game"


Get used to a damn cockpit view. It's for balancing aircraft. You shouldn't be able to see everything at once. The flying cameras in PS1 allowed for easy infantry farming. Cockpits will decrease that and actually make you think about where you're flying.

The cockpit is a perfect size. Some people will nitpick about anything.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

The flying cameras in PS1 allowed for easy infantry farming.

The complete lack of infantry weapons that were functional as AA allowed for easy infantry farming. Tanks could farm infantry far better than air, but nobody cared because they could fight back reasonably well.

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

The complete lack of infantry weapons that were functional as AA allowed for easy infantry farming. Tanks could farm infantry far better than air, but nobody cared because they could fight back reasonably well.

If there were any weapons effective enough to rival the aircraft, pilots would cry foul and demand a nerf until they're useless anyway. The cockpit is the balancing factor. They can't do much to you, and you can't do much to them. You actually have to risk pointing your nose down now to find someone.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

The complete lack of infantry weapons that were functional as AA allowed for easy infantry farming. Tanks could farm infantry far better than air, but nobody cared because they could fight back reasonably well.

It's not that infantry need AA weapons. Frankly, BF3 has become annoying with a stinger under every rock, even if they can't kill you because they are too weak. Aircraft instead should be prevented from farming infantry in other ways.

For one thing, the fact that aircraft can hover with little maneuverability penalties makes infantry farming easier. If fighter aircraft stalled out and crashed at low speed this wouldn't happen, modern shooters with realistic style aircraft can't loiter like that. Obviously that's NOT going to get changed, but perhaps there is some other way to avoid aircraft being infantry rapists?

Maybe there will be more cover this time around? I just don't think infantry ought to be able to engage air as easily as they can ground vehicles. And I don't even fly, so no, I'm not biased.

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

It's not that infantry need AA weapons. Frankly, BF3 has become annoying with a stinger under every rock, even if they can't kill you because they are too weak. Aircraft instead should be prevented from farming infantry in other ways.

imo, the biggest motivator to limiting aircav hover farms is the risk of getting dropped so hard by AA you would still wonder what happened. It's also partly why lock-on AA was not as great as Flak in PS1. I think aircav should be able to farm if no one brought his own aircav or AA.

The problem with PS Aircav was partly the inadequacy of AA. Without tech benefits, things were terribly painful.

While thinking about BF3 mechanics to evaluate AA mechanics is a good idea, in Planetsided, the number of available air vehicles is as unlimited as available AA guns. I have no idea what the exact end result will be but I can only say that between BF3 and PS, scale changes the dynamics completely.

(Of course, it's not exactly true either because tech benefits or resources are restrictions; on the other hand, those restrictions allow empire strategy comes into play.)

FYI, I am not an aircav guy but I was doing a lot of dedicated hunting with skyguards in PS. Their playstyle needs to be fun as much as our favorite playstyle needs to be. Diversity and viability of playstyles is key for a game like PS (i.e. not infantry centered 100%).

And just to add a comment about Malorn's interventions, I think he makes a great point when he says cockpits are more about game rules than anything else.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Once again, the fact that you're allowed to mouse-look in cockpit view invalidates all arguments made against no cockpit first person view.

No it doesn't - see here:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...&postcount=169

Then the fact that you're allowed to switch to third person invalidates the argument that it would be 'more unfair' towards infantry (as if it's going to be anywhere near fair to begin with). In third person you'll be able to see even more at that location.

From what I can tell most people don't like 3rd person either. Toss it.

[Crator]

I voted no. Why wouldn't the tech exist that allows a pilot to pull his head gear over his head that has a camera feed to the eye goggles? Take the head gear off and you see the cockpit view. Just gives versatility and options to the pilot.

[EVILPIG]

I want to say that things that are designed to kill air will kill air effectively, so infantry farming should not be an issue. However, I will mention that one of my first suggestions back in August was that they remove the ability for aircraft to see infantry on their radar. Such a restriction would not require powerful handheld AA, but that is a whole other topic. Just wanted to throw it into the mix, because if we have forced cockpits and aircraft can't see infantry on radar, you don't even need hand held AA weaponry.

Personally, I like the sound of that.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

I want to say that things that are designed to kill air will kill air effectively, so infantry farming should not be an issue. However, I will mention that one of my first suggestions back in August was that they remove the ability for aircraft to see infantry on their radar. Such a restriction would not require powerful handheld AA, but that is a whole other topic. Just wanted to throw it into the mix, because if we have forced cockpits and aircraft can't see infantry on radar, you don't even need hand held AA weaponry.

Personally, I like the sound of that.

This. I didn't realize aircraft could see infantry on radar but if they can that's got to be the first thing to go. This is not Battlefield, aircraft shouldn't be infantry sniping platforms.