Will vehicles only have a first person view? - Page 3

EASyEightyEight · 2011-12-13, 07:53 PM

Rear view cameras on ground vehicles... and smarter infantry that know to keep away from large rolling hulks of metal that can't see them.

Aircraft should get an actual radar system that can pick up other aircraft around them. That should be leagues better than 3rd person which... frankly, if they're that close to you, it's amazing they haven't hosed you yet. I'm hoping we won't see repeats of the circle-around-each-other "dogfighting" we saw in PS1 reiterated in PS2 since there will be full on physics this time around anyway.

Actually, since players can do loops this time around, a 3rd person camera would have to be loose to not be easy to aim with. It certainly can't work like it did in PS1 (always level,) that's for sure. Ground vehicles maybe, they're not designed to flip over on demand without the aid of high-yield explosives or a cliff face.

Erendil · 2011-12-13, 09:34 PM

What do you mean by "loose?"

Baneblade · 2011-12-13, 09:56 PM

TPV is what separates people who are good at VehicleSide and those who should put their asses in the passenger seat.

I drive my Vanguard in FPV nearly 100% of the time.

CutterJohn · 2011-12-13, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

TPV is what separates people who are good at VehicleSide and those who should put their asses in the passenger seat.

I drive my Vanguard in FPV nearly 100% of the time.

Magriders have a locked in forward view because of the gun. They don't get 180 like the rest of the vehicles.

3pv gives you a bit of extra view around your vehicle so you can do such crazy things as not hit friendly cloakers running in front of you, or not stop dead because you grazed an invincible sapling.

Plus, with the technology of the day in ps, there is absolutely no reason you couldn't have a 360 camera installed somewhere.

Zulthus · 2011-12-13, 10:21 PM

It's the cloaker's fault he didn't look both ways before crossing the road. After all, he's invisible.

360 cam is fine, but not the kind that is looking down at your vehicle and spins around. It should be sort of like a submarine. You can see around you by turning the handle, but you don't have a magical flying camera showing you everything you shouldn't physically be able to see.

Erendil · 2011-12-14, 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by Traak

It was unbalanced, and will remain so, because it is and advantage, in PS2, over infantry who do not have it, and should not have it.

I think rearview cameras would be better.

This is faulty logic. Please read my post again at the top of the previous page (post #16). Look at all of the advantages infantry have over vehicles, things that vehicles don't have. Do you think any of those should be removed because it's "an advantage" over vehicles? Or are you suggesting that the presence of 3rdPV for vehicles would somehow tip the scales overall in favour of vehicles making them OP'd, and that its removal would be just what it needs to suddenly make infantry vs vehicles balanced?

If you're going to use game balance as justification for 3rdPV's removal from vehicles you have to look at how it affects infantry vs vehicles overall, and not just under a microscope in piecemeal fashion.

Giving vehicles 3rdPV is not going to make them OP'd compared to infantry overall. Not even close. Is it and advantage? Sure. Is it fun to use? Hell yeah!

But the tactical advantage that it gives over infantry is minor when looking at the overall picture. Aspects like vehicle armour, top speed, cannon range/accuracy/damage output, etc have way more impact on balance than 3rdPV will probably ever have.

Originally Posted by Zulthus

It's the cloaker's fault he didn't look both ways before crossing the road. After all, he's invisible.

360 cam is fine, but not the kind that is looking down at your vehicle and spins around. It should be sort of like a submarine. You can see around you by turning the handle, but you don't have a magical flying camera showing you everything you shouldn't physically be able to see.

So you're okay with infantry having magical suits that allows light to bend around or pass through them rendering them invisible but yet somehow still allows them to see even though light shouldn't be able to reach their eyes? Or how about things like rebirthing, medkits that instantly heal and med tools that resurrect, the ability to decon in a spawn tube and reappear somewhere else, ammo that magically fills up a weapon on reload without us having to keep track of separate clips, etc, etc?

There are many different mechanics present in the game that we all just suspend our disbelief for and casually accept in the name of better gameplay. Why not 3rdPV for vehicles as well?

In PS2 we're dealing with technology that is several hundred years more advanced than our own. Whether it's nanotechnology, a cloaked flying camera, or using photon entanglement interferometry to remotely detect photons moving through a fixed point in space-time (that link is a fascinating read btw

), 3rdPV would seem to me to be child's play compared to some of the game mechanics we accept offhand without question. And given that 3rdPV's potential for exploitation/abuse is minimal, it's not unbalancing or OP'd overall by a long shot, and it greatly increases the fun factor for a lot of people I don't see what the problem is.

Or are you concerned about it breaking your sense of immersion in the game? I know for example that seeing people use Quake-style bunny-hopping or jump scoping would break the immersion for me enough to detract from my enjoyment since a lot of people would be doing it. ADADA strafing in PS1 (at least the speed at which it could be done) was like that for me for a long time as well. But I have a hard time imagining that 3rdPV would break your immersion so much for you to want it removed since you can only see it directly being used when you do it yourself.

So seriously, why are you picking on poor 3rdPV and denouncing it in the name of realism?

Coreldan · 2011-12-14, 07:06 AM

My thought on this is that as long as vehicles can't aim while in 3rd person mode, it's OK. I'm not sure if it should be fixed like PS1 had or should it be free spin if you go into 3rd person mode.

But overall I'm ok with vehicle 3rd person view as long as it can't effectively be used while in combat, so it would only be to maneuver. If you wanted to shoot at something, you'd need to go back to FPS.

FastAndFree · 2011-12-14, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

My thought on this is that as long as vehicles can't aim while in 3rd person mode, it's OK. I'm not sure if it should be fixed like PS1 had or should it be free spin if you go into 3rd person mode.

But overall I'm ok with vehicle 3rd person view as long as it can't effectively be used while in combat, so it would only be to maneuver. If you wanted to shoot at something, you'd need to go back to FPS.

Except it can be used in combat - lots of pilots "abuse" 3pv to get a slightly better view when flying tight circles

Or to spot cloakers around your vehicle easier

Neither of those "tricks" require you to have a crosshair

Traak · 2011-12-14, 08:09 AM

Yeah. If the tanks want protection, they can work in a group with other tanks. How's THAT for teamwork? You know, the same thing they tell me when I note how cowardly it is to only attack unarmed AMS's and ANT's.

There. Back at you. Want to know what is near your tank? Ask someone in a nearby tank. Teamwork, like YOU recommend, back in your face. How do you like it now?

CutterJohn · 2011-12-14, 08:26 AM

Oh, and infantry don't have to deal with terrain damage, and can instantly stop/accelerate/reverse direction/etc.

Thats why 3rd person is useful for vehicles, because it makes it far easier to judge distances.

Zulthus · 2011-12-14, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Erendil

So seriously, why are you picking on poor 3rdPV and denouncing it in the name of realism?

I don't like it

CutterJohn · 2011-12-14, 09:52 AM

Others do, and it doesn't give much of an advantage for vehicles. Just a bit better view of the terrain immediately around the vehicle.

Xyntech · 2011-12-14, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Others do, and it doesn't give much of an advantage for vehicles. Just a bit better view of the terrain immediately around the vehicle.

Yeah. I like flying mostly first person in Planetside. I do use third person in dogfights (which may be less needed in PS2), but I never feel like I'm at a complete disadvantage if I don't.

But flying is generally a very smooth experience, without as much in the way of obstacles, tree dodging aside. If anything deserves third person, it's land vehicles for sure. If anything needs to not have third person, it's infantry. Aircraft occupy a middle ground between the two.

CutterJohn · 2011-12-14, 03:03 PM

Yeah, infantry gain large advantages from it because of the whole lack of physics thing, where they can pop up or out of cover instantly. A tank could use 3rd person a bit to see from behind cover, but they'll still take a few seconds to accelerate and get out of there. Its even less useful for aircraft.

Xyntech · 2011-12-14, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Yeah, infantry gain large advantages from it because of the whole lack of physics thing, where they can pop up or out of cover instantly. A tank could use 3rd person a bit to see from behind cover, but they'll still take a few seconds to accelerate and get out of there. Its even less useful for aircraft.

Not to mention the whole thing that has been mentioned already about how vehicles tend to die when they stop moving.

In indoor environments, sitting still was fine for infantry, especially since third person had the added advantage of showing any cloakers if they tried to sneak too close behind you.

A vehicle could absolutely find a spot where they could use 3rd person to set up an ambush. But the fact that outdoor environments provide a lot less cover (especially since a rock only hides you from one direction, leaving you exposed from every other angle), as well as the fact that sitting around in one spot is just begging to get spammed by an aircraft, means that the ability for a vehicle to ambush would be severely offset by it's disadvantages.