Thoughts on the homogenezation of vehicles

[Atheosim]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

PS1 Launch vehicles that are "missing" entirely:
AMS
Ant
Deliverer
Harasser
3x Empire Buggies
Mosquito
reaver (the original forms of both of those, that is)

PS2 launch vehicles that weren't in PS1 launch
Liberator
3x Empire aircraft

So, we lost empire buggies, got empire aircraft. Lost one class of aircraft (I'd venture to say the mossy in its original form hasn't been replaced, but the reaver has), but gained bomber/gunship class.
Then we lost the AMS and ant, rendered redundant or unnecessary. And the harasser.

The only thing I find deficient is the Deliverer and/or the harasser/buggy type vehicle. I think a lighter weight infantry transport/fighting vehicle would be nice to have.

Otherwise, customisation replacing things like the skyguard isn't a big deal at all. Surely an anti-air lightning won't be much different from a PS2-adapted skyguard in application. Plus the skyguard wasn't a launch vehicle. Ps1 added many vehicles over its run, you can't really compare PS2 launch vehicle counts with the vehicle count built up over a couple years.

1. Customization allows you to spec your ESAirCav to fill the roll of a Wasp, Mozzie, or Reaver. You've seen the GDC vids right? Higby only uses rockets. What air vehicle in PS1 had rockets again?

2. There are plans to include a resource management vehicle (ANT) in the future, and the rendered redundancies I think a perfectly fine reason to scrap a vehicle or two.

3. I agree, buggies would definitely be somewhat of a game changer, vehicle wise. Throwing in another plane of functionality to the fight adds more challenge and diversity.

[Rbstr]

Yeah, I'm not complaining about anything but one being lost up there, read thoroughly. ("The only thing I find deficient....").
As far as aircraft replacement: The ES planes replace the old reaver for sure, as I noted. They may, infact, replace the mossy entirely with proper customization, but we haven't seen that yet, the differences may not be as extreme as mossy/reaver originally was. Wasp wasn't around at launch, it's excluded from my comparison.

[sylphaen]

I do not like homogenez... geneiza... geneneiz....

I do not like it because I like seeing diversity in artwork design. Customization is cool but completely different vehicles is better.

If the same artwork is used for 2 vehicle roles which are completely different, it's more of a development shortcut than anything else.

What is the need for buggies if the tanks could be customized to act like buggies ? ---> boooooring.


And T-Ray's team is so awesome, it would be a pity if they did not make more vehicles.

[Lonehunter]

I like it a lot. What I'm really hoping for is changing out Vehicle attachments/perks in someway without having to pull a whole new vehicle.

[SgtMAD]

you would think that needing to "spend" resources to pull vehs would make buggies an even larger part of PS2 due to the expected lower cost of light buggies/deli's vs the cost of pulling a tank.

but instead, light vehs are left out at release with the promise to add them at a later date.

[texico]

Originally Posted by sylphaen

I do not like homogenez... geneiza... geneneiz....

I do not like it because I like seeing diversity in artwork design. Customization is cool but completely different vehicles is better.

If the same artwork is used for 2 vehicle roles which are completely different, it's more of a development shortcut than anything else.

What is the need for buggies if the tanks could be customized to act like buggies ? ---> boooooring.


And T-Ray's team is so awesome, it would be a pity if they did not make more vehicles.

This is basically how I feel. There's not as much design to enjoy once vehicles are being merged. You get less variation in artwork design that's nice to look at and keeps things diverse, and it the "theory" behind the vehicle's design in relation to its role gets weaker.

For example, the AMS looked like it was BUILT to lug around these complicated pieces of technology (spawn tubes), and felt very much like a typical support vehicle that's absolutely not supposed to be involved in combat due to its delicate equipment. The Galaxy-AMS... doesn't make sense in this same kind of way. Why, when it acts as a dropship under heavy fire from AA, is it carrying complicated, delicate spawn equipment? And why, when deployed, does it have 10 passenger seats?

As you said, with the same logic you could allow people to spec a tank to do everything a buggy would do, therefore you don't have to add buggies.







However, I can accept it from a technical viewpoint, but ultimately it's a drawback, even if it yields more benefit (less lag/more players).

[Unforgiven]

personally, i dislike it, i remember a while back in development they said the whole reason for this kind of "fixed inventory" instead of the open one we had in PS1 was because they wanted you to see someone and know exactly what they were capable of doing to you.

with these vehicles homoginized, i see a vanguard for instance, and i have no idea what it can do to me... defeats the purpose IMO.

[megamold]

well higby has said multiple times that they will be adding more vehicles as the game goes on.
maybe the plan is to add vehicles that handle certain roles better, or in a different way.

of the top of my head
they add in a skyguard type vehicle, but add a sort of multiple locking mechanism enabling the skyguard to lock to multiple aircraft, and make it able to fire multiple rockets.
this would ofcoarse make it a expensive vehicle, but make it a much bigger deterent for aircraft.

this might not be a perfect idea but you get where i'm going with this

[Whalenator]

Agreeing with the sentiments put forth by Warborn, I feel that the camaraderie of combat vehicles presented in Planetside 1 was excessive to say the least. Don't mispercieve my intentions, however, for I feel a variety of vehicle choices is essential to any would-be-successful online massive multiplayer first person shooter.

Also it's alpha you dipshits.
How many times do we have to explain this?

a-l-p-h-a. Alpha. Before beta.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

you would think that needing to "spend" resources to pull vehs would make buggies an even larger part of PS2 due to the expected lower cost of light buggies/deli's vs the cost of pulling a tank.

but instead, light vehs are left out at release with the promise to add them at a later date.

I assume this is part of a priority system for their implementations. Someone decided that having empire specific tanks was more important than buggies for launch. So instead of putting buggies in first then releasing tanks afterwards they went with tanks first. So we'll get buggies like a month after release or something. Probably not a big deal. (If they don't add them during beta).

Originally Posted by texico

For example, the AMS looked like it was BUILT to lug around these complicated pieces of technology (spawn tubes), and felt very much like a typical support vehicle that's absolutely not supposed to be involved in combat due to its delicate equipment. The Galaxy-AMS... doesn't make sense in this same kind of way. Why, when it acts as a dropship under heavy fire from AA, is it carrying complicated, delicate spawn equipment? And why, when deployed, does it have 10 passenger seats?

It's multi-purpose. Someone that pulled an AMS and specialized in it pulled and deployed it then did nothing afterwards. The Galaxy is simply in the direction of giving a person more choices. They can use their vehicle for dropping a squad on a location or defending the air with AA. They essentially took two vehicles with an objectively low amount of gameplay and merged them to add more incentive to having one.

Originally Posted by texico

As you said, with the same logic you could allow people to spec a tank to do everything a buggy would do, therefore you don't have to add buggies.

Depends on what weapons a buggy has and its general maneuverability. Comparing it to a tank is about as useful as comparing it to a Sunderer which has multiple people in it with a driver. Why have buggies at all when the Sunderer exists? Maybe some players like the weapons available on a buggy or the faster speeds and better handling and prefer that over more defense.

I've never really understood the people that complain about role overlap. Just because a tank has a machine gun on the top as its AI gun doesn't mean a buggy can't have a pack of rockets on the top as its AI weapon fitting into a totally different area of gameplay for players. I'm picturing a buggy as hard to hit generally by a tank's main cannon capable of racing to the front lines quickly with like 3 people compared to a tanks slower approach that leaves them more open to dumb-fire AV rockets. Remember hitting a buggy with a Decimator?

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

i see a vanguard for instance, and i have no idea what it can do to me... defeats the purpose IMO.

It will shoot you with either the primary or secondary weapon.

The primary weapon is a 150mm single barrel cannon. There are 3 choices for the secondary weapon: AA, AV, AI. It is likely they will be visibly distinct.

Now you know what it can do to you.

It is better to have fewer and more robust vehicles to play with than a large selection of shallow single role vehicles. A perfect example of this is the new lightning, its versatility will create so many chances for better... deeper game play than if it were split apart and made into 3 single role vehicles.

With empire specific buggies confirmed for post launch, the only vehicles we are missing are the harasser and the deliverer/variants. The other vehicles missing from Planetside 2 have had their functionary merged with appropriate PS2 vehicles which (assuming awesome) will do them a whole lot better.

[Erendil]

I love it for a lot of reasons, many of which have already been mentioned here:

• It greatly reduces the issue of vehicle obsolescence either through role overlap or from the introduce of a new vehicle that is superior in enough ways that an already-existing vehicle no longer gets used
• fewer models that each fulfill a greater number of roles has the presumed benefit of more customization available on the vehicles that are included so they can fulfill those roles, which could mean that you can tailor a vehicle more precisely to your own individual playstyle
• more vehicle models carry with it a greater number of "package deal" changes to it from other existing vehicles, some of what you may not want aqnd that customization may not be able to compensate for
• less Dev time used on making vehicle models so they can concentrate on enriching other areas of the game
• Smaller in-game memory and other resource footprint
• PS1's separate support vehicles now have decent combat ability as well (although I think they should put a cloaking respawn on the bangbus and Vehicle rearm/repair on the Gal, not the other way around)
• You don't know exactly what an enemy vehicle is capable of unless you look closely, which leads to more novelty in encountering enemy vehicles and forces you to really pay attention to what they're doing, not just what they look like, thus rewarding attention to detail and the ability to rapidly process tactical data of the current battlefield and adapt to it.
• If a new radical vehicle feature/role/weapon/ or other sidegrade is desired by the playerbase but not already in-game, it's much faster and easier for the Devs to add it as a current vehicle customization than have to create a whole new vehicle for it

However, I do think they initially went a tiny bit overboard on the consolidation, namely by not including ES Buggies (which they've said they'll be introducing later), Wraith (although they are working to get a cloak for the Flash), or the phantasm.

And I hope the various weapon upgrades are recognizable audially as well as visually. If there's a MBT cruising around with dual-AV I should be able to identify this based on sound alone - at least if the gunner is AI, AV, or AA.

[Traak]

Originally Posted by Death2All

For example, a Vanguard equip with AA guns now fills the void for a Skyguard.

AA vehicle with tank armor. What is there not to love?

[Atheosim]

Originally Posted by Traak

AA vehicle with tank armor. What is there not to love?

I'm sure it'll be balanced accordingly. For instance, it's been stated to my recollection that the Lightning will have the most powerful AA in the game. So you either get durability or firepower.

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by Traak

AA vehicle with tank armor. What is there not to love?

Sounds great. Maybe an ES fighter won't be able to solo AA vehicles without breaking a sweat this time around.