PlanetSide Next Galaxy - Page 17

Firefly · 2011-02-11, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

Weeell, sometimes what you need is a Lode bomb dropping Party Bus Payloads.

I know. Back in the day, BWC used to practice this technique of flying a Lodestar, laden with a full Deliverer, at wave-top level and hot-dropping it in the water and then amphibiously assaulting a base.

Hamma · 2011-02-11, 10:51 PM

So APB had voice activation like that as someone mentioned. Now, it was somewhat interesting but I dont think it fits in PS. It certainly had downsides, like when I heard the guy acting like a gangster setting up his character.. and a dad explaining to his son (kid had to have been 8 or younger) the best way to gang bang.

It had it's upside when Jen and I were owning this chick doing a mission and everytime we killed her she would swear and wonder how the fuck we killed her

Again it's neat, but I dont think it helps immersion at all it's just.. odd.

And back on the Galaxy discussion - that would be interesting if the Galaxy doubled as a Lodestar this time around.

otomotopia · 2011-02-12, 12:10 AM

I'd be all for local squad/platoon/outfit chat. Just not public.

Livefire · 2011-02-15, 06:41 AM

Can you please make the galaxy have a front that looks like a c-130 or c-5 cargo. Being it is a cargo air craft it just does not look right having that small single cockpit. It should have a wide cockpit that fits like 2 pilots side by side and have a 3rd or 4th behind them say the player that runs the countermeasures. So you have the pilot/captain in on the front left (like real planes), front gunner/co pilot siting on the right side operating the gun under the front nose of the plane. And a 3rd cockpit guy sits behind him on the right and operates the rear gun. Then maybe a forth that just sits for the ride i.e a commander position and allows the player to simply ride and type to his people and look at his maps and menus during travel time. Also ALL vehicles including atv/motorcycles should be able to fit at least 2 people, this encourages people to work together and cuts down on player who don't have any v certs or just dont have there vehicles at the time to have to ground zerg it to bases and objectives causing the player to get irritated and not like the game because of its slow speed and lack of vehicles player positions. Simply design the vehicles more around the real designs as a base point, there is reason why real vehicles are designed the way they are and we can take advantage of that in the game just like we do in real life.

CutterJohn · 2011-02-15, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by Livefire

Can you please make the galaxy have a front that looks like a c-130 or c-5 cargo.

That would unnecessarily complicate the animations for getting in. Plus PS vehicles are tiny compared to their RL counterparts. The seating arrangements wouldn't work all that well.

Plus.. Its already modeled. Good luck getting it to change.

Firefly · 2011-02-15, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Livefire

Can you please make the galaxy have a front that looks like a c-130 or c-5 cargo. Being it is a cargo air craft it just does not look right having that small single cockpit. It should have a wide cockpit that fits like 2 pilots side by side and have a 3rd or 4th behind them say the player that runs the countermeasures. So you have the pilot/captain in on the front left (like real planes), front gunner/co pilot siting on the right side operating the gun under the front nose of the plane. And a 3rd cockpit guy sits behind him on the right and operates the rear gun. Then maybe a forth that just sits for the ride i.e a commander position and allows the player to simply ride and type to his people and look at his maps and menus during travel time. Also ALL vehicles including atv/motorcycles should be able to fit at least 2 people, this encourages people to work together and cuts down on player who don't have any v certs or just dont have there vehicles at the time to have to ground zerg it to bases and objectives causing the player to get irritated and not like the game because of its slow speed and lack of vehicles player positions. Simply design the vehicles more around the real designs as a base point, there is reason why real vehicles are designed the way they are and we can take advantage of that in the game just like we do in real life.

Seriously, guy. Real life does not apply to video games. It's over a thousand years into the future. Spaceships, wormholes, laz0r guns (pew-pew), nanites...

Also, I hate to break it to you, but C130s and C5s do not have guns. Stop watching GI Joe.

Moneypennie · 2011-02-15, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by EmyLightsaber

Although you may have not been, I still miss my own time with Band of Bros.

Nemesis 0rion was the outfit leader till the day it was messed up by a couple of other outfit mates that used Nem's account info to global things that should not be repeated in pleasant conversation.

But enough of that...

Band of Bros was simply the best at what could be had in Planetside. Maybe Nem will see this post and come back for Planetside Next?

Only time will tell.

Good news everyone! Rumor has it that NemesisOrion is following psn news closely and is planning on using the new galaxy to pivotally kick everyones asses... again.

Good to see you Emy

I SandRock · 2011-02-16, 05:04 AM

Originally Posted by Hamma

So APB had voice activation like that as someone mentioned. Now, it was somewhat interesting but I dont think it fits in PS. It certainly had downsides, like when I heard the guy acting like a gangster setting up his character.. and a dad explaining to his son (kid had to have been 8 or younger) the best way to gang bang.

It had it's upside when Jen and I were owning this chick doing a mission and everytime we killed her she would swear and wonder how the fuck we killed her

Again it's neat, but I dont think it helps immersion at all it's just.. odd.

And back on the Galaxy discussion - that would be interesting if the Galaxy doubled as a Lodestar this time around.

Yeh you're right. In APB voice-chat was either: Some random dude talking to his family not realizing his mic was one
OR: Swearing cause they lost
OR: Me on a french server taunting the frenchies when i busted em "Tu est arresté! MON DIEU MON DIEU SACRE BLEU!" it worked quite well

In the end if voice chat in-game isn't made as convenient to use and of the same quality as teamspeak/ventrilo there is not much point to it since most people will use these commercial options anyway. Waste of bandwidth/development time

Livefire · 2011-02-16, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by Firefly

Seriously, guy. Real life does not apply to video games. It's over a thousand years into the future. Spaceships, wormholes, laz0r guns (pew-pew), nanites...

Also, I hate to break it to you, but C130s and C5s do not have guns. Stop watching GI Joe.

First of all it would not complicate animations it would add dynamics and realism which is always a good thing even in a sci fi , and second c-130 no guns or other countermeasures wow you have no military experience at all its called a AC-130 gun ship and it is covered in guns and other advanced forms of electronic counter measures. If you want futuristic then give me a v-22/c-130 gunship /cargo plane. Every modern military commander will tell you that is the future just look at the V-44 project it was the cover for a 2000 addition of popular mechanics.

2000 Popular Mechanics
http://books.google.com/books?id=yLR...hanics&f=false

Firefly · 2011-02-16, 09:24 AM

OHHHHHHHHHHHH BOY am I gonna fucking enjoy this.

Originally Posted by Livefire

First of all it would not complicate animations it would add dynamics and realism which is always a good thing even in a sci fi

I never said jack or shit about animations. Stick to the fucking topic at hand, Einstein.

Originally Posted by Livefire

and second c-130 no guns or other countermeasures

I never said anything about countermeasures. I said the C130 and the C5 do not have guns.

Originally Posted by Livefire

wow you have no military experience at all

Hi. Son I'm gonna let you in on a little fact that just about everyone else here knows. I spent ten years in the US Army and another year as a private contractor. In that time, I rode on C5s, C17s, and C130s. Now, like I said above, I never once mentioned anything about countermeasures. As a matter of fact, the C130 has a set of flares. My strongest memory of this particular fact was flying into Sarajevo when you were probably about eleven years old, and the crew chief made a big show of explaining why he was removing the big red ribbon and cotter pin against the bulkhead at the front of the cargo area where we all sat, explaining that if we were targeted by SAMs that pulling this pin meant the flares were active. So, care to reassess the situation a little, sparky? You just stepped into a big pile of stupid and it's seeping into your Crocs.

Originally Posted by Livefire

its called a AC-130 gun ship and it is covered in guns and other advanced forms of electronic counter measures.

The AC130 and the C130 are two separate aircrafts. The "A" in AC130 is what differentiates between a gunship and a C130 cargo aircraft. Normally I wouldn't quibble, but this is what you specifically said:

that looks like a c-130 or c-5 cargo. Being it is a cargo air craft

So, at first I was tempted to intuit that you actually meant the AC-130 but then you went and mouth-breathed, and tacked on the "cargo" and "cargo aircraft". Now since you presumed to lecture me on various military points, let me clue you in a little bit. Just about NO ONE in the military that I've ever met uses the term "C130" or "C130 cargo" to refer to an AC130 gunship. Why? Because as I said before, they are two separate aircraft with two very separate roles. One is unarmed and usually carries CARGO. Or people. Or people and cargo. Usually as in, on occasion it's been used to drop daisy-cutters, etc. The other is very well-armed and carries exactly two things: crew and bullets. It is not a cargo aircraft.

Have a nice day.

Grimster · 2011-02-16, 09:31 AM

LOL don't piss off Firefly he will bite your head off and spit it back out.

Jonny · 2011-02-16, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Livefire

Every modern military commander will tell you that is the future just look at the V-44 project it was the cover for a 2000 addition of popular mechanics.

Look up the term "science fiction".

Why do some people think that knowing anything about the military has anything to do with a science fiction game.

GAME.

Livefire · 2011-02-16, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Firefly

OHHHHHHHHHHHH BOY am I gonna fucking enjoy this.

I never said jack or shit about animations. Stick to the fucking topic at hand, Einstein.

I never said anything about countermeasures. I said the C130 and the C5 do not have guns.

Hi. Son I'm gonna let you in on a little fact that just about everyone else here knows. I spent ten years in the US Army and another year as a private contractor. In that time, I rode on C5s, C17s, and C130s. Now, like I said above, I never once mentioned anything about countermeasures. As a matter of fact, the C130 has a set of flares. My strongest memory of this particular fact was flying into Sarajevo when you were probably about eleven years old, and the crew chief made a big show of explaining why he was removing the big red ribbon and cotter pin against the bulkhead at the front of the cargo area where we all sat, explaining that if we were targeted by SAMs that pulling this pin meant the flares were active. So, care to reassess the situation a little, sparky? You just stepped into a big pile of stupid and it's seeping into your Crocs.

The AC130 and the C130 are two separate aircrafts. The "A" in AC130 is what differentiates between a gunship and a C130 cargo aircraft. Normally I wouldn't quibble, but this is what you specifically said:

So, at first I was tempted to intuit that you actually meant the AC-130 but then you went and mouth-breathed, and tacked on the "cargo" and "cargo aircraft". Now since you presumed to lecture me on various military points, let me clue you in a little bit. Just about NO ONE in the military that I've ever met uses the term "C130" or "C130 cargo" to refer to an AC130 gunship. Why? Because as I said before, they are two separate aircraft with two very separate roles. One is unarmed and usually carries CARGO. Or people. Or people and cargo. Usually as in, on occasion it's been u sed to drop daisy-cutters, etc. The other is very well-armed and carries exactly two things: crew and bullets. It is not a cargo aircraft.

Have a nice day.

You really missed my point, I was not saying the AC-130 was the same for the A means attack and gives it a different role then the troop transport what I was saying is being this is a video game and there for not restricted by the things reality is and also suppose to be like 1000 years in the future or something, there is no reason it can't look better and out perform a modern aircraft in every way. And the quick comment on animation was for the guys post above you.

Originally Posted by Jonny

Look up the term "science fiction".

Why do some people think that knowing anything about the military has anything to do with a science fiction game.

GAME.

Science fiction is often future fact, watch a 1960's episode of star trek and then
understand that is in year 2200s. Look around you we are right on track.

Firefly · 2011-02-16, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Livefire

You really missed my point, I was not saying the AC-130 was the same for the A means attack and gives it a different role then the troop transport what I was saying is being this is a video game and there for not restricted by the things reality is and also suppose to be like 1000 years in the future or something, there is no reason it can't look better and out perform a modern aircraft in every way. And the quick comment on animation was for the guys post above you.

The next time you want to make a point, I suggest making your point succinctly and clearly, and without statements which are erroneous.

Jonny · 2011-02-16, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Livefire

Science fiction is often future fact, watch a 1960's episode of star trek and then
understand that is in year 2200s. Look around you we are right on track.

1. I'd rather not watch an episode of star trek, ever.

2. We're right on track to screw up the only planet we have thanks to man made climate change. So long for those future dreams unless we start looking after our Gaia.