Gameplay: Outfit Air Cruisers Redux - Page 21

Figment · 2014-05-16, 10:00 AM

So you hover this over an enemy base that doesn't have air vehicle access.

What happens?

If there's any chance of a one-sided fight (like say a spawn advantage that cannot be camped but allows players to get into a position to camp from denies the players the ability to push back an enemy out of their perimeter) and as such provides a huge advantage: NO. Never implement it.

Basically, I've never seen any suggestion for any vehicle that's not pure transport which operates more than 4 players that's actually balanced. Let alone if it itself can spawn units of any kind, as this foregoes the concept of attrition.

If for instance you can use this to spawn infantry of any number at flight ceiling where it is largely out of reach of those on the ground, this would not be an useful addition to the game.

If you want to implement such systems and units, you should look at a sort of space sim or map where there are no solid bases and everyone (EVERY-ONE) has access to air units, constantly, without those air pads being camped for instance. Otherwise, you're just further incentizing people to leave from a defensive fight where air control has been lost (and is unlikely to be regained soon, since air groups don't tend to connect to the ground play aside from predatory behaviour and have so much freedom there's hardly ever natural coherence in air groups: it takes severe organisation to keep them somewhat together).

We'd be looking at a space sim then. Which isn't really PlanetSide, is it?

So. How would you integrate this with the game then? I don't see these as viable in the regular world. However, you could have them influence the regular world indirectly, for instance by having them control the atmosphere above flight ceiling, denying drop pod ships from delivering players.

However, at that point you're separating (probably small groups of) people from the main game, like with caves in PS1, so whether that is wanted or not is a different thing entirely.

To summarise, I have very little faith in outfit cruisers. Never have and likely never will.

Baneblade · 2014-05-16, 07:13 PM

One of the things I said about them in PS1 is that they shouldn't be able to Actively respawn while inside an enemy SOI. Something similar would work for PS2.

Figment · 2014-05-19, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

One of the things I said about them in PS1 is that they shouldn't be able to Actively respawn while inside an enemy SOI. Something similar would work for PS2.

Enemy SOI? So it would be allowed to do so over a friendly base under hack?

What SOI in PS2? You mean the entire region?

How are groups of 3 players going to combat these realistically?

If you say "they won't". Then it's impossible to implement because it's overpowering small units in a way that makes them quit, rather than group up. Problem with megalomanial ideas like these (megalomanial in the sense of "HUGE STUFF WOULD BE LIKE AWESOME") is that you assume it only encounters big groups and that to combat it, the enemy just needs to bring more, while completely ignoring how players - especially randoms and arbitrary players - actually think...

Consider this: if people wanted to fight against red alerts that are already present somewhere that already took control of a base, what do they need to do to actually assault it? How much downtime and organisation does that take, while you should also ask yourself "is there something that they'd enjoy more that takes less work?". Because that's what a lot of them will do. Do they have the cohesion to actually work together or do random players just move off on their own if nothing happens for a couple minutes?

Sorry Baneblade, the idea is not thought out at all, because you don't consider at all how it fits into the game and how the players would use and respond to it.

I don't see any vision to your implementation, I just see "wouldn't it be awesome if we had these things". I don't see what need there is in game, how it would benefit the game, nor how it would work logistically in a fun way for both sides in the planetary surface game. You don't consider what players want from the game on a minute to minute basis and how skewed pops should remain fun for both sides. You don't consider that when one side has air dominance, the other side apparently is not allowed to participate competitively in the combat you suggest. Since if you only have ground equipment (and AA MAXes get on timers fast), how the hell are you going to get up there and beat them? It's already impossible to kill a one crew tank on a high ridge with most AV. Have you even considered what this would mean to combat advantages?

And nobody likes firing the same things for hours at the enemy because they got so many hitpoints that by the time that in theory they should be damaged enough, they've long moved away or you're long long dead.

Have you considered what the effect would be when 3 of these would be brought in at the same time? What about if one empire brings 12? 20? And the other can bring just 3 or brings in 1 by 1?

Have you considered that even if you can't spawn at the outfit cruiser itself, you could just fly a Galaxy over it and have people spawn into a Galaxy that hovers above it, meaning that you can thus simply use it as a shield?

In my opinion, it would distract unnecessarily from the regular game, would cause a lot of frustration and logistical nightmares and make more people quit than would come in to combat (with) these.

Baneblade · 2014-05-20, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Enemy SOI? So it would be allowed to do so over a friendly base under hack?

More power to the defenders.

What SOI in PS2? You mean the entire region?

I thought you were more intelligent than that. Do the same thing they did to AMSunderers.

How are groups of 3 players going to combat these realistically?

Why do they need to? What fantastical scenario are you imagining is going to happen?

If you say "they won't". Then it's impossible to implement because it's overpowering small units in a way that makes them quit, rather than group up. Problem with megalomanial ideas like these (megalomanial in the sense of "HUGE STUFF WOULD BE LIKE AWESOME") is that you assume it only encounters big groups and that to combat it, the enemy just needs to bring more, while completely ignoring how players - especially randoms and arbitrary players - actually think...

How is it overpowering? A single liberator is more overpowering.

Sorry Baneblade, the idea is not thought out at all, because you don't consider at all how it fits into the game and how the players would use and respond to it.

It has ten years of thought out behind it, but I'll address your 'concerns'.

I don't see any vision to your implementation, I just see "wouldn't it be awesome if we had these things".

You haven't paid attention.

Since if you only have ground equipment (and AA MAXes get on timers fast), how the hell are you going to get up there and beat them? It's already impossible to kill a one crew tank on a high ridge with most AV. Have you even considered what this would mean to combat advantages?

Because it is there it MUST be destroyed, right? Have you even read the idea? Ground forces can engage OACs, but OACs cannot directly engage them. It is entirely one sided.

And nobody likes firing the same things for hours at the enemy because they got so many hitpoints that by the time that in theory they should be damaged enough, they've long moved away or you're long long dead.

Or you could bring the appropriate tool for the job. It isn't like the damn thing will be doing anything to you, except spawning shit for you to kill.

Have you considered what the effect would be when 3 of these would be brought in at the same time? What about if one empire brings 12? 20? And the other can bring just 3 or brings in 1 by 1?

Yes, I have. My current solution to that potential problem is that each empire will have a population cap. Granted we have zero basis for such an idea and no idea if it will truly work, I'm voyaging into the unknown here.

Have you considered that even if you can't spawn at the outfit cruiser itself, you could just fly a Galaxy over it and have people spawn into a Galaxy that hovers above it, meaning that you can thus simply use it as a shield?

That would be something most of us generally refer to as tactics. I'm against Galaxy spawn points in any case.

In my opinion, it would distract unnecessarily from the regular game, would cause a lot of frustration and logistical nightmares and make more people quit than would come in to combat (with) these.

I appreciate the feedback, thought I'm surprised at how little you know of the idea. It isn't new, I've been evolving it since 2004.

In my opinion, you just don't want to see PlanetSide have a naval aspect that actually matters for those of us who favor that playstyle over all others.

Figment · 2014-05-23, 06:24 AM

I know of the idea since it was proposed on PS1 forums. It was poorly thoughtout then, had no place in the game and it still is now and still has no place in the game.

No, ground forces can't engage it properly. You're imagining things.

Figment · 2014-05-23, 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

More power to the defenders.

You mean, imba-fight by adding more and more diverse threats.

I thought you were more intelligent than that. Do the same thing they did to AMSunderers.

Which was utterly shit.

Why do they need to? What fantastical scenario are you imagining is going to happen?

You either never played the game or you're in a zergfit.

How is it overpowering? A single liberator is more overpowering.

Libs in PS2 are OP. So you need something else that's OP as well and defend it by saying there's something worse out there?

An airborne spawnpoint of any kind that cannot be handled without specialised equipment is simply OP.

It has ten years of thought out behind it, but I'll address your 'concerns'.

No it doesn't. You developing something for PS1 doesn't mean it fits PS2 or can be ported directly. And since it already didn't fit PS1 (don't kid yourself, it fit PS1 as much as the Galaxy Gunship did: not at all), it's even less likely to fit PS2.

You haven't paid attention.

There's no role assigned where one was missing. You just force it in because you like the idea of floating fortresses. That isn't "vision". You haven't defined how it would fit in. You haven't defined how all other forms of units would interact with it. All you have done is created this platform to do something with aircraft, while the rest of the units kinda... look up and maybe pot shot at it, but don't really interact with it at all, aside from being targeted by the units that come out of it.

Because it is there it MUST be destroyed, right? Have you even read the idea? Ground forces can engage OACs, but OACs cannot directly engage them. It is entirely one sided.

I don't think you understand your own idea. Indirect engagement is just as much a form of engagement. You haven't at all thought of combinations of units.

Or you could bring the appropriate tool for the job. It isn't like the damn thing will be doing anything to you, except spawning shit for you to kill.

You mean spawning shit that will camp you so you can't do shit to it.

[quote]Yes, I have. My current solution to that potential problem is that each empire will have a population cap. Granted we have zero basis for such an idea and no idea if it will truly work, I'm voyaging into the unknown here.

That would be something most of us generally refer to as tactics. I'm against Galaxy spawn points in any case.

As am I, but you haven't stated this as a condition.

I appreciate the feedback, thought I'm surprised at how little you know of the idea. It isn't new, I've been evolving it since 2004.

I've been shooting it down for just as long since PlanetSide cannot work with units that are balanced around large groups of people without being balanced around small groups of people as well.

Why do you think a Galaxy Gunship is operated by two people most the time and not a full complement of troops? Why should a GG be allowed to exist to engage small groups that are a natural occurance in game, if it is designed to fight large groups?

Why should it be an "I-win" in certain situations that regularly occur?

You'll come across plenty of players without proper AA capacity. You simply don't add stupendous Aircraft ideas.

In my opinion, you just don't want to see PlanetSide have a naval aspect that actually matters for those of us who favor that playstyle over all others.

This isn't naval warfare. This is pure air warfare.

I welcomed naval warfare, but naval warfare is something water surface based that competes with Magriders, Thunderers, Raiders and Deliverers, etc. but is bound to water or land. Something that is airborne should be relatively weak, since something water or land based is fastly more vulnerable and limited by terrain. The strongest you should have in the air is a troop transport that can be taken out by a mere couple of fighters.

You don't at all consider a lot of other things. You don't think of how hard it already is to deal with a couple threats of various kinds to break out of a siege, even with the distances between bases involved. You provide a really simply way of bringing in more air power to a situation where air domination (once occured) is already hard to break, especially from the ground up.

It's stupid to worsen that situation.

I don't see any reason why you should break logistics like this and overpower existing air dominance more.

If you had vision, you would understand that you would need to offer any player competitive playing power in any situation and not confront them with units they could never manage to take out in groups of more than three players (meaning one player working hard could accomplish it too). You set way too high standards for group organisation than you can expect from randoms. And that is your main design problem. You can't change players to be as you want them to be and you can't blame players for not being that way. You have to design around your average FPS gamer and the natural groups they form when entering the game. Otherwise you only leave room for super-organised and zergfit groups and then you kill the game.

Baneblade · 2014-05-23, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

I know of the idea since it was proposed on PS1 forums. It was poorly thoughtout then, had no place in the game and it still is now and still has no place in the game.

Well I'll have to disagree with you, which only makes sense.

No, ground forces can't engage it properly. You're imagining things.

Define properly? Or are you referring to the OAC not being able to farm ground targets?

Originally Posted by Figment

You either never played the game or you're in a zergfit.

Totally making your argument here chief.

Libs in PS2 are OP. So you need something else that's OP as well and defend it by saying there's something worse out there?

No, but you already know that. But on the off chance you didn't, you aren't qualified to argue about this in the first place.

An airborne spawnpoint of any kind that cannot be handled without specialised equipment is simply OP.

You mean like the Galaxy? I'd have thought you would like the OAC idea tbh, most of it provides for your kind of playstyle.

All you have done is created this platform to do something with aircraft, while the rest of the units kinda... look up and maybe pot shot at it, but don't really interact with it at all, aside from being targeted by the units that come out of it.

I know you are just trolling now, but I'll bite. The platform is intended to be exactly what it is called: Outfit Air Cruiser, both an Outfit Owned Base and a naval form of warfare all rolled into one. Sure it lends itself best to synergy with aircraft, but that is the nature of aircraft. As for taking pot shots at it... well, that reminds me of pretty much anything else that flies, except the rest of the shit that flies is trying to farm you while you take pot shots at it. Sure you might be on the business end of whatever launches from the OAC, but that is only common sense and there is no way around it.

I don't think you understand your own idea. Indirect engagement is just as much a form of engagement. You haven't at all thought of combinations of units.

I have taken all of that into account. All from the perspective of the unit least likely to benefit from such a thing added to this game: The MBT driver.

You mean spawning shit that will camp you so you can't do shit to it.

As opposed to any other kind of camping? I'm beginning to think you are against any kind of spawning outside of warpgates since your argument applies to all of them.

I've been shooting it down for just as long since PlanetSide cannot work with units that are balanced around large groups of people without being balanced around small groups of people as well.

The OACs work fine with small groups, their main purpose is to engage other OACs after all and you only need so many people to make that happen.

Why do you think a Galaxy Gunship is operated by two people most the time and not a full complement of troops? Why should a GG be allowed to exist to engage small groups that are a natural occurance in game, if it is designed to fight large groups?

The GG is entirely irrelevant to this discussion as the two have nothing in common, save being airborne.

You'll come across plenty of players without proper AA capacity. You simply don't add stupendous Aircraft ideas.

This is not an aircraft idea, it just happens to be airborne. You're just arguing to be argumentative. I pwned your 'arguments' in all the previous threads too, why should this one be different?

This isn't naval warfare. This is pure air warfare.

Weren't you just claiming this to be air to ground Zeus throwing lightning at the mere mortals warfare?

I welcomed naval warfare, but naval warfare is something water surface based that competes with Magriders, Thunderers, Raiders and Deliverers, etc. but is bound to water or land.

Why?

Something that is airborne should be relatively weak, since something water or land based is fastly more vulnerable and limited by terrain.

It is relatively weak...

The strongest you should have in the air is a troop transport that can be taken out by a mere couple of fighters.

That's your opinion.

You don't at all consider a lot of other things. You don't think of how hard it already is to deal with a couple threats of various kinds to break out of a siege, even with the distances between bases involved. You provide a really simply way of bringing in more air power to a situation where air domination (once occured) is already hard to break, especially from the ground up.

I'm divided on the whole air domination aspect. I do agree that an OAC will provide easier air superiority over a theater or war... no... guess I don't since OACs can't even engage at normal air to ground altitudes. All an OAC is going to do is watch from a distance and provide mild tactical support for the owning outfit. Hardly the show stopper you believe it to be.

If you had vision, you would understand that you would need to offer any player competitive playing power in any situation and not confront them with units they could never manage to take out in groups of more than three players (meaning one player working hard could accomplish it too). You set way too high standards for group organisation than you can expect from randoms. And that is your main design problem. You can't change players to be as you want them to be and you can't blame players for not being that way. You have to design around your average FPS gamer and the natural groups they form when entering the game. Otherwise you only leave room for super-organised and zergfit groups and then you kill the game.

I do have vision, and it encompasses the entire big picture, not just the 500 m in front of your character.

Bottom line is, you are wrong. Your arguments are based on incorrect information (which might be my fault for not being clear enough), and your opinions reflect a lack of understanding of what this is supposed to be.

What I can't figure out is why you have to embarrass yourself like this with silly arguments not even related to this OAC idea, ad hominems, and strawmen...

I expected better from you, truly. But if you hate the idea, I'll take that as a sign that I'm doing something right from this point forward. Thank you.

Figment · 2014-05-24, 02:25 PM

I don't think you understand the argumentation rather than that it'd be flawed.

You've been looking at this air cruiser thing "from the inside" for a decade, obviously - since it's your idea - you're going to like it and defend it.

However, your vision falls flat by not being connected to the rest of the game. An airbase, even as much as a vehicle creation pad, does not provide "mild support".

They DO NOT work AT ALL with small groups, given what is needed to take one out, or even get up there. You do not at all consider what other units are swarming around it, hampering any attempt to take one out. The level of organisation you require of people is simply too great.

Btw, anything airborne does not provide for "my kind" of playstyle. And I don't recall anyone ever pwning my arguments in any thread about PS design. I do recall things like people yelling the Galaxy as an AMS would be a GREAT idea during closed beta... And this reminds me of the same type of designing as that initial Galaxy idea. You make a shitload of assumptions in an attempt to create a context where this would be great, yet in the actual context, it would fall flat.

I'm usualy surprised people actually need to be explained how an already challenging MMO doesn't need "endbosses" of any kind. That includes mobile bases that negate terrain and therefore are disconnected to the fighting, while providing extra strength to an existing aerial superiority problem.

Baneblade · 2014-05-24, 05:49 PM

I'm just going to say this last piece, I designed this idea to curtail each and every issue you brought up in its implementation. I don't see the point in throwing feces back at you over who can make Galaxys more or less relevant to the thread.

Bottom line and the absolute last thing I have to say to you is: You aren't bringing up anything that wasn't beat into the ground years ago.

Figment · 2014-05-25, 06:57 PM

If that was the case I wouldn't be facepalming when I read your descriptions.

These don't fit in this game as much as chess pieces don't fit in a game of checkers. I haven't seen anything in the descriptions you gave that solved any problems as much as that they added problems, while you haven't even begun to convince me that this is in ANY WAY needed, wanted or beneficial to gameplay, nor that there is even room for it.

There is no direct back and forth combat flow, making this about as useless an idea as teleport rooms in PS2. Your entire argument is based around assumptions and things like "long timer balance".

Units that need to be restricted numerically because they bring a big edge that you can't quickly dismiss do not fit the vision of PlanetSide games. If you compare it to C&C, PlanetSide games work for units of "low tech levels" and starts breaking down when units are introduced that can sustain a lot of fire while either providing firepower or some sort of semi-permanent (logistical) one-sided benefit when the only counter-measure requires a more than significant organised response.

PlanetSide is meant to be played by solo players, small groups and larger groups. Larger groups should not get additional benefits on top of their numerical advantage. This is what this idea does. Regardless if you think you "beat the arguments into the ground years ago". The deal with larger group is that they should be possible to defeat by smaller teams through attrition.

PlanetSide 2 already breaks this premise by having (quickly replaced) unlimited ammo, (fast) unlimited medical support and (fast) unlimited repairing.

Even something as simple as a jetpack already broke a lot of PlanetSide 2's base design. What you're suggesting is going to have such a huge impact, on all sorts of situations that your going to drive players that cannot compete with it (and that doesn't even have to be in direct combat, which you think I've been talking about even though I never even mentioned air to ground firepower - which might happen at high up places anyway). PlanetSide combined arms gameplay already tasks infantry to the extreme in dealing with light and medium vehicles, let alone heavy ones.

Anything that ignores the ground terrain and can contribute from beyond a hill or high altitude, should be treated with a huge amount of scrutiny and distrust. You're extremely fond of your idea, I understand that, but I'm telling you it's a bad idea and will always be a bad idea, because it will affect combat flow and balance in a negative manner, if not break it. No matter how much you nerfed it in your mind.

DviddLeff · 2014-05-27, 03:20 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Anything that ignores the ground terrain and can contribute from beyond a hill or high altitude, should be treated with a huge amount of scrutiny and distrust.

I've seen this argument a lot and I find it fascinating.

Base design is obviously key to the games flow, and their designers will put a lot of thought into how attackers and defenders will battle throughout a facility and it's surroundings, dictating the minute by minute game play each player experiences.

We of course currently see problems with spawn camping, and large forces completely crushing all resistance in a wave as they attack the base, and unless the defenders have equivalent population waiting for the strike they often do not have a chance. The obvious answer to this is to make bases more defensible, yet that makes them too hard for single squads to attack (try hitting a three cap base and you are in for a bad time as a single squad if there is any real defense).

Base designers also have to tailor each base around certain sizes of fight, a base may be good for a squad vs squad fight, but may give an awful experience with platoons fighting over it.

As has been mentioned we have the problem of vehicles either not taking a role (see Esamir) in base fights, or able to camp the spawn room from overlooking hillsides.

On top of all that you have the issue you mentioned of Light Assaults, Galaxy transports and in the future Valkyrie's negating the design of the base by placing infantry in unexpected positions.

However, I cannot believe that on top of everything else, base designers did not think of that potential; many bases now have underground portions where those are not options, while others have all kinds of vertical game play designed inherently in their core.

Giving players that flexibility allows them to be creative tactically, giving them options to avoid the meat grinder choke points if they can get in there and hold buildings, or the high ground.

Figment · 2014-05-27, 04:41 PM

Bases shouldn't have more than one control point. :/

It's one of the reasons PS2 is unviable for defense. The other is that the control points are often in the area first lost to attackers. Defenders in PS2 always fight uphill unless they're numerically superior (which should never be expected). The shorter logistics for defenders (spawn nearby) should be how they can win.

But PS2 has removed most forms of attrition from the assaulting force.

This outfit cruiser idea removes even more attrition from the assaulting force, while making it hard if not impossible for groups (especially small groups) without air dominance to really strike back, instead, it increases the already existing air dominance.

Just for comparison, remember the green crystals in the caves and the lack of Flak AA for NC and VS? It resulted in a complete aerial domination by the TR. Air units require sustained fire to kill, but air units have the capacity to use the terrain to become invulnerable for a period of time, much easier than they can be chased or engaged by ground forces.

This whole outfit cruiser concept screams "for aircav outfits and zergfits only". I really don't see why these two groups need their dominance further strengthened.

Baneblade · 2014-05-27, 08:53 PM

What if the concept of landing an aircraft on one was scrubbed entirely? Make them entirely enclosed to all but infantry access (and ground vehicles?). You can still use aircraft to assault one, but it is no longer a flying base for them.

The spawn feature is not overpowered, because it is outfit based and doesn't allow deployment to the ground until deployed. The deployment mechanism is also easy to camp. Light Assaults might be able to survive jumping off the airships... might.

DviddLeff · 2014-05-28, 05:20 AM

With my version which differs from Baneblade's in a number of ways, I think that entering the craft as infantry is vital - I am going for a replica of the titan mode in BF2142 as it was simply fantastic.

I would also expect to see along with or before the Navy was introduced a number of ways to board it apart from vehicles, namely an equivalent of a Router and a jump pad equipped Sunderer. To help destroy the thing through weight of fire, perhaps dedicated Sunderer or MBT variants could be designed, with sky lance weapons similar to this artillery piece I designed.

If we take a page directly from how BF2142 did it, we could even have missile launchers at each facility, that when a titan came into range started firing on it automatically. This could discourage titans from camping enemy territories, making them more of a support craft as perhaps they should be.

Figment · 2014-05-28, 05:44 AM

Well the thing with a huge amount of firepower is that players would not have time - and would get bored of - firing at the same huge target all the time and see their efforts not pay off. And I mean, these things would have to last to do their job of a "mobile support base" in the first place.

So automated defenses might be an idea, but that would require them to get close (and such defenses active - I would wager spec ops could take these out or a base hack or something would).

I haven't played through the Titanmode in BF2142, but from what I understood that game was played more in stages of combat per map? You'll have to provide a scenario here if you could. Either way, I'm not sure if that works if the map isn't designed around that.

As for AA Sundies... Eh, it's an option. But I'd rather see AA platforms on a dedicated two crew vehicle. (My idea for AA would be a halftrack with quad machine gun, Patriot missiles (akin to Sparrow from PS1) and Starfire missiles. And of course a Skyguard flak variant too.

But a dedicated cannon or SCUD launcher type thing could be done I suppose (though I doubt many people would want to pull such a dedicated unit unless it's REALLY lucrative to or they (grudgingly?) have to - also doubt it would last long in a battlefield like PS2). This is one of the things I miss in Baneblade's design though: dedicated countermeasures.