Will they add naval units in future of ps2? - Page 2

Karrade · 2012-06-30, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

"It doesn't sound like Planetside" is an unfounded argument. PS1 not having it doesn't mean it doesn't fit.

This is pretty much it, the game is so limited to growth otherwise. I've seen that said over and over in discussions. It is as bad as saying/responding - 'it does sound like planetside' The discussion would get nowhere.

Everything is perspective but unless someone has actual presentable reasons, of which they very well may, then it is a fiction.

I can think of a million things that sound like planetside P, S, purple/red/green. Smurfs - Incoming Galaxies! More seriously, fun, large teams, teamwork, action, surprise. - All mine though, not presentable or practical reasons.

I can think of a lot of nice additions to the game world (from one perspective, mine) - speedy boats, heavy boats, transport boats. Aquatic maps for a whole new flavor of game, which makes the boats the tanks for a change of pace, while still keeping the same kind of set up.

Whether it sounds like planetside or not doesn't matter. Whether its a good feature or not and why matters. ('Matters' - Becomes material)

Kezz · 2012-07-01, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by IgloGlass

Also, Higby and team, we want swimming!

Floatation aids would have to be a "customisation" slot, and require certing for...

Edit: and then I thought, "If you don't have the floatation aids, you could just walk across the bottom, with the sealed suit's short term air supply." But tech as advanced as is available in the game would be able to have usable gill modules. So who's for undersea capture points and an entire new range of weapons that are effective underwater. It could be the "Caves" of PS2...

Figment · 2012-07-01, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by DownloadFailed

That'd be amazing to see. However, can't the same effect already be achieved by orbital strikes? Orbiting ships are pretty much the carriers/destroyers of the sea except they're in space. I think naval battles would be freakin' amazing, don't get me wrong, I just don't see what big ships out at sea can do what big ships in space can't.

Please... PLEASE consider the FIGHTING BACK PERSPECTIVE.

It's a game, space combat firing down at the earth is not fair or fun to whoever is down there.

Artillery is already stretching it (see hatred for Flail), artillery at sea or even worse, in space is far harder to combat because it's far harder to reach.

Battleships, in fact anything over the size of small destroyers (like cruisers and carriers) are way out of line for the sake of gameplay balance.

Stardouser · 2012-07-01, 08:18 AM

People tend to hate anything they can't duel with, especially if they can't duel with it as infantry. But balancing vehicles based on ability to be soloed by infantry waters down the game. Strategic aspects need to be embraced too; if you're being attacked by a strategic asset like artillery or battleships, then go pull the appropriate vehicles to respond.

Now, to be clear, naval units should not have unlimited range(nor should land based artillery), due to the smallness of the continents they should only be able to fire up to 2 km inland. But in the event that people's blind hate of artillery style weapons wins out, that doesn't mean we can't have battleships - just make their weapons have a flat-ish trajectory so they can't be used as long range artillery- they'd only be able to shoot what they can see from the coastline. The same goes for space, just don't have orbital strikes.

And to the other side, who expects that naval ships MUST be used as artillery or they are useless, no. First, oceans can provide resources too; and secondly, even if a flat firing trajectory prevents you from firing any further inland than what you can actually see, you can still be useful there, too.

Blue Sam · 2012-07-01, 01:58 PM

Check the information thread at the top. there's nothing specific, but one of the Q&As (the GoogleDocs one) mentions that "ships are cool" in response to this exact question.

Doxy · 2012-07-01, 02:39 PM

Would be cool to have naval units ingame, but i doubt it will happen any time soon.

Ratstomper · 2012-07-01, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by DownloadFailed

That'd be amazing to see. However, can't the same effect already be achieved by orbital strikes? Orbiting ships are pretty much the carriers/destroyers of the sea except they're in space. I think naval battles would be freakin' amazing, don't get me wrong, I just don't see what big ships out at sea can do what big ships in space can't.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, my friend. OSes have to be equipped and will be on timers depending on what type you have. I was thinking naval bombardments being more like the PS1 flail; something that can be sustained and has to be destroyed to take care of it. The offset is that since it's a water-based unit, you cant just camp it out in a fortified base where noone can touch it. It has to be out on the open ocean where it will require some babysitting...

Littleman · 2012-07-01, 09:10 PM

In all honesty, I think taking the fight to space where we already have multiple bodies around Auraxis, one of them being a freaking gas giant, is the way to go. Treating it similar to how Dust 512 and EVE online react to each other may also be the best way to go, only keep to the core aspect of Planetside: large scale combat.

I know outfits would love to have a place to call home, and being able to purchase a boardable frigate/cruiser to join the fleet in epic zero-g combat would fit the bill nicely.

Electrofreak · 2012-07-01, 11:06 PM

PlanetSide was, at one point, a very balanced game with a healthy population of players. Then an expansion came out called "Core Combat" where people were suddenly allowed to pilot giant mechs called BFRs (BattleFrame Robotics, but even the Devs admitted it stood for Big Fuckin' Robots). The only way to get certified to use one of these robots was to go down into a set of caves that seldom saw much combat after the first couple weeks where everyone rushed to get their BFRs.

Suddenly PlanetSide became MechWarriorSide and it required some pretty drastic nerfing for gameplay to return to any semblance of normalcy. Unfortunately, a lot of vets ended their subscriptions (myself included) in the fallout that occurred during this time.

The addition of a naval combat mechanic has the potential to do the same for PlanetSide 2. Now, PlanetSide had amphibious transports for all factions and the Vanu had their hover vehicles, and that allowed for some interesting aquatic combat. Beyond that, I'm not sure how much place true naval combat has in PlanetSide, as the focus is on holding bases and territories, not oceans.

The reason the caves in PlanetSide never saw much use was simply because they weren't very smoothly connected with the rest of the gameplay. Sure, capturing a cave would produce some benefits aboveground, but the amount of troops that would need to commit to capturing a cave from an enemy far exceeded the benefit of the bonuses the cave would provide to the remaining troops aboveground.

And then consider games like Star Wars Galaxies, that saw a significant upset to the flow of its gameplay with the addition of fighter combat. When I left SWG, everyone was becoming a pilot (in part because the new combat was so fun) or a Jedi (which had been introduced via a long quest chain) and the game didn't feel the same any longer.

If naval combat can be seamlessly integrated with the rest of PS in some way, I would support it provided it doesn't tip the scales of combat so drastically like BFRs did. And if it isn't implemented seamlessly, it can cause either everyone to ignore it (as people did with the caves in Core Combat) or to flock to it (as happened in SWG with Pilots and Jedi) leaving other parts of the game to grow stagnant.

So understand that as a PS1 vet I'm wary of things like naval warfare being added to the game only because I've been burned before when something that sounded awesome in theory ended up damaging some of the game's fundamentals.

FONKY · 2012-07-02, 12:52 AM

Could possibly be a future installment as they may create a map that consists of lets say 60% water, then a strong naval force will be needed.

Dougnifico · 2012-07-02, 04:08 AM

Naval battles could be amazing. Larger ships would be crewed, smaller one man ships could be present. You could have island hopping campaigns, shipyards and subpens as new bases, and black ops divers placing C4 on hulls. It could be cool to be able to go between continents via water and open up new attack directions. Plus, no FPS has ever truly gone full spectrum with land, sea, air, and space. I think everyone should be open to such ideas.

VaderShake · 2012-07-02, 10:20 AM

For naval battles to work they would have to have weapons with limited range or take significant team play to make them work. Kind of like the battleships in Battlefield 1942 or those made for the DC mod with manual Tomahawk missles. I would see naval battles working muh more like BF1942 mixed with an aspect of pirating.

Maybe the bases are giant battle crusiers much like the Titans in Battlefield-2142 that have to have their defenses worn down until you can get inside and take them over.

It would be cool seeing a naval bombardment of an island fortress and troops are landed and launched with amphibous craft like a futuristic Omaha beach landing.

If the SOE crew did a massive WW2 game mirroring PS2 it would be awesome I think.

Figment · 2012-07-02, 03:22 PM

See the problem with wanting to have the biggest things is simply that the map would have to be designed for it.

Large naval units require large maneuvring space. On top of that, naval units with a large potential populace and being in direct open water, would require large amounts of health. Meaning it's easy to abuse with just two players. Probably costly, but easy to abuse.

Next to that, you couldn't do all that much with it aside from blocking a bridge. Staying in the same area too long makes things boring for both the person on the water and the person being blocked.

Having smaller units (1-4 players per unit) makes everything far more dynamic, more cost-effective, allows for use in much shallower water and more limited space, such as inner-lakes (meaning the map can be a lot smaller too which aids game play performance) and most importantly, is easier to balance.

So no, it's not because it's "not PlanetSide 1/2", it's pure and simple game play reasons.

Zalmoxis · 2012-07-02, 03:45 PM

Frankly I think that adding naval combat is just a waste of time, and that it could be spent designing better stuff. Why? Because there, as an infrantry, you are useless. Even more than that, you are just in the way. Naval combat would be just vehicles fighting vehicles and that would end up boring. Land and air combat is fair because everybody is useful for something.

At most I would agree with adding an amphibious vehicle and just transportation boats with a few guns for self defense. It shouldn't be more than this.

OR naval combat would be useful if the continents would be linked together by sea, meaning you could travel from one to another using naval vehicles because then they would be used to hunt down/protect incoming enemy support/allies. This can probably be done in a sort of barrier gate or something.

Baneblade · 2012-07-02, 03:56 PM

I have long been of the opinion that water or space naval combat would take too much from the core PlanetSide game. So the only logical compromise are airships designed to compliment both the air and ground game without dominating it.

I don't believe anyone has had an idea that both fits PS and minimizes changes to it as mine. I won't link it, but it is easy to find in the Idea Vault.

Water Navies have too little to do and too little places to do it and ultimately just don't mesh well with PS. Space... even more so without a massive expansion that proves the Auraxian MultiVerse Theory true (that multiple Auraxis (servers) exist and can fight each other in space... but then what about planetary invasion?

You get my point. Airships are the most doable. Bar none.