Ground vehicle driving

[IMMentat]

I am no longer enjoying figment jumping at peoples throat every 3rd post.

I feel that it is clear he just wants a graphical and (maybe) netcode update to PS1, not a modern game based off the same setting.
If it comes complete with 3rd person cornercamping troopers, heavily armoured air that can rain fury from above and vehicles that can hide behind an impervious rock in order to 3PV artillery snipe other ground targets. His vision will be complete.

If multiboxing can remain easily exploitable due to the vehicle physics behaving in a way similar to a floating camera in the average spectator mode. Then bonus points will be awarded.

May as well close this thread, Figment can't be persuaded from anything but his own position and we can't prove the viability of the 1 man 1 gun mechanics of planetside2 until TB gives us more of his newbishly controlled (see the lib vid, I loled) footage, or more teaser video's and alpha/beta data becomes available.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by captainkapautz

Do units behind you count as not see or do you propose a minimum range where they'll be automatically detected, think 50(?)m and closer in WoT?

Well in PS1 you had a difference in a person getting on radar due to walking or running and sensor shield. That could influence it too.


It's possible to make vision behind you be more about hearing range and peripheral vision range so there could be a bit of a blindspot where a careful assassin can try to sneak up by walking slowly, unless of course friendly or spotted/marked by friendlies.

That I wouldn't quite mind as it would take a bit of low grade skill to not get spotted till it's too late either.

Turretrotationalspeed wouldn't be much of an issue, if you had a "1"PV camera independant of the actual turret like in WoT.
I did rather prefer the "zoomed in far enough to almost not seeing/not seeing the tank" camera angle in WoT.

If so, yes, it could make the turret rotation speed independent from it. But, it would still potentially cause the motion sickness due to being bound to the frame of reference of the vehicle (the frame of reference bounces and rotates), rather than the 'world'. Especially since you'll not usualy have to aim where you drive. :/

The independent camera in WoT is 3rd person though. In cockpit mode I would definitely not mind an independent third person (hell, that could even be restricted to realistic angles). In that case, third person could also be "fixed" forward with just pitch angle control and the rotational freedom until a view would be effectively blocked. The problem as I see it though still lies in gunning and driving. :/

I'm not sure if Sobekeus suggestion is very user friendly or too convoluted for a game.

Either way, you could give different kinds of third person to different users of the same unit.

P.S.: Thanks for actually keeping the discussion rather civil, I know I come across as thickheaded and confrontational, I am capable to listen to and agree with a very well thought arguement.
I just dislike "No, it's gotta be like this, otherwise it's bullshit." arguements, though that not directed at you specifically.

No problem, I've got similar personality quirks. Very fast to agitate when someone "just doesn't see the obvious". I tend to have a very broad analysis and it's hard to communicate the entire vision I got on the game as a whole at times. When I suggest something, it's usualy in relation to a string of other ideas as well.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by IMMentat

I am no longer enjoying figment jumping at peoples throat every 3rd post.

I feel that it is clear he just wants a graphical and (maybe) netcode update to PS1, not a modern game based off the same setting.
If it comes complete with 3rd person cornercamping troopers, heavily armoured air that can rain fury from above and vehicles that can hide behind an impervious rock in order to 3PV artillery snipe other ground targets. His vision will be complete.

Wow, way to miss the point. You do realise that the spotting system proposed is very different from PS1 as under PS1 spotting rules, everyone was rendered for everyone at all times? Meaning you could third person camp, on your own? That's impossible in what I suggest!

I've just posted a way how corner camping is avoided unless you've been spotted anyway (meaning you can prevent getting corner camped and ambushed by paying attention to your environment).

Also... artillery, didn't I say in the artillery thread it didn't quite fit the game? Hmmm... Curious that.

You know me so well IMMentat. Not. Maybe if you actually cared to read a post now and then instead of making a stereotype out of everyone that doesn't agree with you as a PS1 fanboy?

If multiboxing can remain easily exploitable due to the vehicle physics behaving in a way similar to a floating camera in the average spectator mode. Then bonus points will be awarded.

Yeah... Cause I'm not actually the first on the entire forums to warn about the creation of units that dual boxing players can exploit excessively (in particular in relation to a Galaxy Gunship).

May as well close this thread, Figment can't be persuaded from anything but his own position

Maybe if someone used a good argument earlier instead of just repeating their position without really backing it up or explaining why? The latest posts are beginning to look like something you can get somewhere with in a debate.

[captainkapautz]

Originally Posted by Figment

Well in PS1 you had a difference in a person getting on radar due to walking or running and sensor shield. That could influence it too.


It's possible to make vision behind you be more about hearing range and peripheral vision range so there could be a bit of a blindspot where a careful assassin can try to sneak up by walking slowly, unless of course friendly or spotted/marked by friendlies.

That I wouldn't quite mind as it would take a bit of low grade skill to not get spotted till it's too late either.

I'd be more then okay with that, though I do think that units I aim at shouldn't automatically be broadcasted to my friendlies, but still require a buttonpress "to relay enemy positions", that way you could have sidegrades that automatically transmit, i.e. spotting scopes for snipers.

It would also remove the reason why 3PV is gone from infantry atm, so pretty much anyone could have it again.
Hell, you could even make 3PV "completely" playable and turn PS2 from FPS into TPS, if you want to.
It would be completely up to personal preference.

[IMMentat]

All the MBT in PS1 could classify as artillery at mid-range (the magrider was much less powerful but the tight CoF and rapid bullet velocity&refire helped).

With the Lib vid from TB, 3PV may not even be needed, a ground pulse radar option for tankers will probably be available ( I assume similar to the audio sensor in PS1). Between that and a well made minimap (for seeing sructures/obstacles) navigation and 2D awareness/spotting should be acceptable as long as the turret HUD shows the direction the hull is facing.
Thats 2 "if" statements but better than things stood a day ago.

[Rozonus]

Originally Posted by Figment

Again, you're using rather bad logic. The first thing you learn about ergonomics for mass consumption/production products in Industrial Design Engineering is that you want as many people as possible to be able to use your product and thus adapt your product to them, not them to your product.

You assume that the people voting in this thread represent the entire amount PS1 gamers? Out of 2 large gaming communities that I'm part of, I only know of one player who wants 3PV in PS2. So to me, your ergonomics lesson shows that the majority of people are happy with 1PV.

Oh and the games I've played that use vehicles frequently in multiplayer are the range of Battlefield games. Just because those games had 3PV doesn't mean I used it! If I remember correctly the 3PV was much harder to use for aiming so I always stuck to 1PV, as did my friends.

Regarding your statement about assuming a PS2 tank is not going to have the 2nd seat filled, perhaps the whole point is that if that seat is empty, the tank is supposed to be at a disadvantage? In Battlefield games if a friend of mine wants to use a tank I'll happily jump into the 2nd seat to use the mounted machine gun and provide overwatch for him, checking the opposite direction that the turret is facing to make sure no one is flanking us etc. We just wouldn't use tanks if there wasn't someone to use the 2nd seat because of the limitations, but thats the price to pay for using a killy death machine.

You need to give gamers some credit for once! You seem to think that everyone in 1PV FPSs drives around crashing into everything while puking up, but in my experience that doesn't happen. Squashing friendlies happens, but that's a bad case of DERP on the foot soldier's side rather that a viewing issue.

[SKYeXile]

just sticking to first person and let the driver aim like in world of tanks FFS. they can have a full 360 view around their tank and move that around asmuch as they like and the turret moves at a base speed. I think there should be 3rd person, but the tears in this thread are overwhelming.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Rozonus

You assume that the people voting in this thread represent the entire amount PS1 gamers? Out of 2 large gaming communities that I'm part of, I only know of one player who wants 3PV in PS2. So to me, your ergonomics lesson shows that the majority of people are happy with 1PV.

Only one? You're not part of the actual PlanetSide Universe community then? You assume you actually KNOW people's opinions because you got some people here or there you might know and may not even have discussed it with?

Look at the poll, read the thread, look at the amount of people in favour that you are ignoring purposefully. Why do you want to argue with numbers that are not in your favour by making them up.

On top of that, you don't grasp what designing for masses means because it does not fit your goal, nice.

Oh and the games I've played that use vehicles frequently in multiplayer are the range of Battlefield games. Just because those games had 3PV doesn't mean I used it! If I remember correctly the 3PV was much harder to use for aiming so I always stuck to 1PV, as did my friends.

So the "exclusive FPS tank games" you've played are games with third person in it.

Nice...

And as you may have noticed, nobody in this thread is argueing for 3rd person for the use of aiming... In fact, it has been pointed out many times before that aiming is best done in 1st person.

What is the point you're trying to make? Mine? Thanks, but I can do that better than you.

Regarding your statement about assuming a PS2 tank is not going to have the 2nd seat filled, perhaps the whole point is that if that seat is empty, the tank is supposed to be at a disadvantage? In Battlefield games if a friend of mine wants to use a tank I'll happily jump into the 2nd seat to use the mounted machine gun and provide overwatch for him, checking the opposite direction that the turret is facing to make sure no one is flanking us etc. We just wouldn't use tanks if there wasn't someone to use the 2nd seat because of the limitations, but thats the price to pay for using a killy death machine.

Yeah and again there you go with the self-centered design mentality... You also nicely omit that in Battlefield, you don't have more tanks to use at the same time since if you had two tanks, you'd have both overwatch and two huge guns...

Which in PS2 means: Lightning and MBT solo or two solo MBTs. Gunner position is pretty useless, ironically especially if tanks die this quick to solo infantry... Best have another tank there or you lose both people in one blow...

You need to give gamers some credit for once! You seem to think that everyone in 1PV FPSs drives around crashing into everything while puking up, but in my experience that doesn't happen. Squashing friendlies happens, but that's a bad case of DERP on the foot soldier's side rather that a viewing issue.

Do they crash into everything? Yes, unless 3rd person is available, even the best players will regularly crash into objects. And even then they will now and then run into something, but not as often. All those games you mentioned have people DRIVE in third person and SHOOT in first person.

Always nice though that you blame others if YOU drive over them and refering to how YOU never experienced this. Again, two self-centered design arguments... You just don't get it, do you?

You're not the universe of gaming experience.

You're a sample. What works for you may not work for other people. Deal with it.

[Sledgecrushr]

This is probably the only way to get great visibility while using a tank. Hopefully this can be incorporated into PS2 after launch.

[Rozonus]

OK I'm done with this. There's not even any point in correcting the mistakes you've made while assuming what I meant.

You can go cry some more while I enjoy PS2 with whatever SOE decide to do with it. You'll probably try to make a witty remark about this post but I won't read it, so have fun with that.

[Serpent]

Perhaps having a 3rd seat could be optional to have someone spot people? The problem would be snipers and protection.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Rozonus

OK I'm done with this. There's not even any point in correcting the mistakes you've made while assuming what I meant.

Aw. it's always someone else making the mistake, isn't it? Like driving over someone else, clearly the person getting in your way is ALWAYS at fault. ALWAYS, because you ALWAYS pay such great attention to the road while in first person view...

Funny, I never had issues with driving over someone... Oh hey, I used third person for driving. Hey that's nice, why didn't anyone suggest you could use third person to avoid that before?

You can go cry some more while I enjoy PS2 with whatever SOE decide to do with it. You'll probably try to make a witty remark about this post but I won't read it, so have fun with that.

Ah, the classic ad-hominem-and-run-away-crying-don't-dare-reply-to-me-cause-I-told-you-you-would-try-to-do-so-cop-out-catch-22-in-a-last-ditch-attempt-to-come-over-as-more-mature-and-morally-"win"-without-actually-having-an-argument-exit-post.


So much easier than actually debating and having to make a point, bit cliché though.


Stand up for your opinion, for crying out loud. If you fail to communicate your point, then maybe it's your fault (too). You blame me for not understanding you (or deriving something else than you). Meanwhile you blame others for when you drive over them in first person, while refusing to use third person.

I'm not sure why you want to sound like those irresponsible people that spam grenades down a stairwell and blame their 500 grief points on other people "running into their spam" even though they're the one taking the risks to fire near friendlies that those friendlies can't see coming... being in first person view with their backs to them... Hmm... Weird that.



But hey "nanananana I can't hear you", running away and not reading this works as well I guess.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by IMMentat

All the MBT in PS1 could classify as artillery at mid-range (the magrider was much less powerful but the tight CoF and rapid bullet velocity&refire helped).

I'd say the Marauder mortar and Galaxy Gunship could count as artillery due to the steep arc, but MBTs? Not at all.

With the Lib vid from TB, 3PV may not even be needed, ...

Yeeeeaaahh... I don't see how he could have avoided flying into those buildings and bridge either using third person rather than first person view.

Funny, I concluded the exact opposite from you from the same vid. :/

...a ground pulse radar option for tankers will probably be available ( I assume similar to the audio sensor in PS1). Between that and a well made minimap (for seeing sructures/obstacles) navigation and 2D awareness/spotting should be acceptable as long as the turret HUD shows the direction the hull is facing.
Thats 2 "if" statements but better than things stood a day ago.

Must say it's interesting that the radar will be split between ground and vehicle targets. Though that also means that for detecting one type of unit, you will always be dependent on "manual", visual spotting.

The mini map suggestion, though always advisable to check it, may be a little bit presumptious though.

The problem with a minimap and obstacles is that a 2D map doesn't indicate height well and outlines don't carry as much depth perception and distance/size information for driving/flying. Map zoom may interfere with that too (I'd imagine a lot of people will want to zoom out as far as possible to see as many red dots as possible, making it impossible to use accurately for driving). Nor is it really practical to watch both the minimap and aim for small targets at distance at once. Minimaps are more of a quick first-glance-check for marked targets if at high speed and only at very low speed and with little to no other preoccupations a tool for maneuvring. A 2D mini map is not quite a TomTom. (Like I would not advise anyone to drive a passenger car on just the onboard navigation either).

On top of that, especially if the mini map does not turn with the orientation of the vehicle, it's very difficult for some people to quickly determine how the vehicle is oriented on the map. And if it does, where for instance "north" is. i know, not a big problem for me and a lot of others, but we're not the only ones here. :/ Mapreading is unfortunately not the most developed skill amongst people (in WoT, you see tons of dots of friendlies and enemies on it and the majority of people still seem to ignore it to the point of frustration for those with higher winrates).

So I'm not saying it's impossible to maneuvre based on the minimap, I simply don't think it's a practical solution for the majority of people. :/

[Baneblade]

TPV was rarely useful in PS1 when flying. I used it mainly to watch my Reaver to make sure I looked cool.

On the ground I found that most of the time, TPV didn't help, unless you needed to see over obstacles. I drove in FPV often, because it added more challenge.

[captainkapautz]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

I used it mainly to watch my Reaver to make sure I looked cool.

Best arguement for 3PV in the whole thread.