Suicide Bombers....Make the explosions somewhat big - Page 2

Warborn · 2012-03-13, 05:19 AM

Suicide bombing seems like a pretty brainless way to get easy kills. I mean, that's why it's so popular with the untrained masses, right? I'm not sure the game should go out of its way to encourage that. It's the same deal as mowing infantry with vehicles in general. Low-skill ways of attacking ought to have similarly low payoffs.

Cosmical · 2012-03-13, 05:19 AM

Battlefield this works because anti tank mines, general bullet fire, and any anti vehicle fire make jeeps a sitting duck, and youre taking a risk doing the tactic, its essentially the back stab for tanks.

If ATV's die from one tank shell, i say go for it. However depressing a strategy this might be, dont forget once you get off your ATV youre out in the open presumably in an enemy area, and death is probably assured.

Maybe to limit it, have some kindof extended time delay on the respawn of your ATV if you blow it up yourself. Could justify it as an automated system put in by Nanite Systems to punish careless users.

Kipper · 2012-03-13, 05:57 AM

The tactic should be valid but as someone else points out, it should not at all be rewarding. I want to see people getting good kills on other people, not queues to spawn a C4 plane and drive it into the enemy walls.

It's the kind of thing that will make infantry approaching an enemy base just stand there and think "WTF?" while their air cover repeatedly slams into the ground around the control consoles.

Gandhi · 2012-03-13, 07:12 AM

I wonder if it's possible for other people to put C4 on a vehicle too. Imagine getting a whole squad to cover an ATV in C4...

Figment · 2012-03-13, 08:24 AM

I can see it now, a Galaxy with 50 sticky bombs on it dropping on a defensive position >.>

Fenrys · 2012-03-13, 08:41 AM

Between resource cost for vehicles and boomers, respawn timers, low ttk (getting mowed down if you just jump out and charge a choke point), and flight time from one base to the next, I don't think it will be a problem.

It would get expensive to keep repeating.
It would be slower than staying alive.
You would not often reach a knot of opponents on foot.
It will take a few minutes to respawn away from the fight, pull a new aircraft, and fly over to the fighting.

Stardouser · 2012-03-13, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Kipper

The tactic should be valid but as someone else points out, it should not at all be rewarding. I want to see people getting good kills on other people, not queues to spawn a C4 plane and drive it into the enemy walls.

It's the kind of thing that will make infantry approaching an enemy base just stand there and think "WTF?" while their air cover repeatedly slams into the ground around the control consoles.

Are aircraft in PS2 really going to be so weak and useless( or alternatively, difficult to use properly) that they would be worth using this way? I don't see why they couldn't just make it so that you can't stick C4 on aircraft, only light ground vehicles...

Goku · 2012-03-13, 10:40 AM

Gal bombs>All

Hopefully this makes a return in the second.

CutterJohn · 2012-03-13, 11:05 AM

Just make sure the C4 goes boom nicely with any splash damage, and it will be pretty self balancing. A high damage, high risk attack.

Someone mentioned cloaking vehicles. An issue, but the cloak flickering if things were attached would make work.

Worse comes to worse they nerf the hell out of it due to it sucking. No worries.

Warborn · 2012-03-13, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Fenrys

Between resource cost for vehicles

I haven't seen this confirmed anywhere, and the vehicle acquisition screen seen during the GDC video didn't even have a spot on the UI for any sort of cost listing. I don't believe vehicles actually cost resources to acquire.

Eyeklops · 2012-03-13, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Warborn

I haven't seen this confirmed anywhere, and the vehicle acquisition screen seen during the GDC video didn't even have a spot on the UI for any sort of cost listing. I don't believe vehicles actually cost resources to acquire.

I agree. I have not seen any info that pulling vehicles will cost resources. But Matt has stated multiple times grenades will cost something, and I think that c4 was included in the interview where he mentions putting it on a max.

EVILPIG · 2012-03-13, 11:48 AM

The explosions in PS1 were a lot bigger, but were nerfed due to first, the ANT bomb and then kamikaze pilots.

Strapping boomers to a player was asked for, but declined due to what was happening in the Middle east and how much closer we were to the pain of 9/11.

Both of these issues will be greatly affected by base design. Whether they belong in the game or not, I would say two things:

1. We have are much more desensitized to the concept of suicide bombing now, so I don't know if it would be such an issue to be considered.

2. As I argued then and still believe now, it makes perfect sense that on Auraxis, where no one should fear death due to respawn, such tactics would be used.

The question is simply whether it is balanced and if it is socially acceptable?

EVILPIG · 2012-03-13, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Warborn

I haven't seen this confirmed anywhere, and the vehicle acquisition screen seen during the GDC video didn't even have a spot on the UI for any sort of cost listing. I don't believe vehicles actually cost resources to acquire.

Don't take anything from the video beyond that it was mostly an introduction to the scale of the game. It's an early Alpha which did not include spawn timers, Drop pods for "spawn on squad leader", ammo limits or even limits on where Higby could spawn. His health, armor, damage and RoF all could have been turned up to showcase the combat. Higby did not want the demo to be him respawning over and over.

In short, very few game mechanics were in the demo. Limitations on acquiring vehicles certainly were not.