Naval Combat Confirmed?

[NCLynx]

At least they're editing them out quickly before a huge amount of people see it. I'd rather see things gone (that aren't needed at launch) that only PSU know about than see a ton of people POed and calling SoE liars saying they won't play the game, mobs in the street, riots outside their HQ. You know that kinda stuff.

Kind of reminds me of the WoW WotLK boxart, they advertised planes in that new PvP continent and a whole bunch of other stuff on that little inside panel that never showed up in the game.

[duck]

I'd only be interested in naval battle if the bases in a particular continent are island themselves.
Otherwise small boats, jetskis, etc would be rather unpopular in regular continents because they are easily targeted and destroyed by other vehicles (i.e. reavers). This is exactly what you see in BF3. No one uses a boat because they get blown up by helis fast

[HELLFISH88]

Originally Posted by duck

I'd only be interested in naval battle if the bases in a particular continent are island themselves.
Otherwise small boats, jetskis, etc would be rather unpopular in regular continents because they are easily targeted and destroyed by other vehicles (i.e. reavers). This is exactly what you see in BF3. No one uses a boat because they get blown up by helis fast

I would think aerial attack would be their only weakness but you cannot discount Sea vehicle's "Speed tank". A larger PT boat may be easier to strafe then a Jetski (Assuming you can get past it's weapons) but outside that I don't see any terribly unbalancing threat. I would imagine a continent such as Hossin would suit aquatics well. The Lush swamps could even provide cover from those pesky reavers ;D BF3 Boats have problems because it is a severely limited Map and they have no where to hide or maneuver.

These vehicles are more relevant now because we will not only be contesting facilities but remote wilderness as well. Quick aquatic vehicles can move infantry units or special forces around quickly and stealthy to infiltrate or flank enemy lines. The PT boats could provide fire support in a location or circumstance where one couldn't readily call upon it from either Armor or Air support. These vehicles are not suppose to be blatant game changers. They simply Add Depth and diversity to Auraxis. More Toys to play with. More Tools to master. Larger vessels such as legitimate Warships would of course be a utterly different story. I would imagine A Capital Class ship such as a Battleship or Carrier would constitute a base itself and therefore be an exception. Fuck that would be awesome. Fuck.

























































































Fuck.

[foam]

Battleship
Carrier
Destroyer
Cruiser
Frigate

Offshore artillery support anyone?

[robocpf1]

Still hoping for offshore Oil Rig area reachable only by water.

[foam]

Originally Posted by robocpf1

Still hoping for offshore Oil Rig area reachable only by water.

Just curious, did you get that Idea from my thread?

[Traak]

I would pay 500 bucks for an Iowa.

I want to paint the name on the place it's usually painted.

I want 16" guns. Each capable of being manned individually, with 25km range (real ones could do 57 miles)

If I was rich enough, I would BUILD an Iowa-class, just to prove the relevance of the battleship in modern warfare, and load it to the gills with weapons good from six feet to 2000 miles.

Armor? It would take a nuke to kill it.

[LongBow]

Naval combat was an original design goal, its been something players have been asking for.

I guess that little spiel was just a copy paste from an old design doc or press release ...

[Galapogos]

I too would love to see expansive naval combat, ranging from pt boats to aircraft carriers, however I think ships much larger than pt boats would likely be difficult to design functionally.

The first thing is the sheer scale of even a frigate, and if ships were not even close to the proper scale It take away a lot of the awesomeness in my opinion. Granted, I don't know a whole lot about game development, but I am pretty sure having a player controlled vehicle with too many polys makes the game lag city, if it doesn't crash it.

The other big issue that I see is that I have never seen a game in which players can move freely on or in a vehicle. When you stand on a vanguard and it starts moving it slides out from under you. I assume this is because it doesn't take in to account the friction between it and the player standing on it. I think it would be pretty disappointing to be locked into a seat if I was on a large ship, and that would also eliminate the possibility of boarding enemy ships.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Galapogos

The other big issue that I see is that I have never seen a game in which players can move freely on or in a vehicle.

PlanetSide for one.

[Baneblade]

I dont want battleships in PS, which has always been what people were most against my ideas for... they never actually read the idea, just trolled it. I'll work up a PS2 version soon.

[Galapogos]

I imagine if warships of any kind are put in the game it will be a bit after launch. The devs said they don't want indirect warfare such as artillery, so thus large warships would only be useful for deployment and refueling. However, having large scale naval battles including aircraft sounds fascinating if done right, but any game that could pull this off (obviously not including RTS games) would be monumental for this alone, and ps2 has enough to prove already.

[Traak]

Originally Posted by Galapogos

The first thing is the sheer scale of even a frigate, and if ships were not even close to the proper scale It take away a lot of the awesomeness in my opinion. Granted, I don't know a whole lot about game development, but I am pretty sure having a player controlled vehicle with too many polys makes the game lag city, if it doesn't crash it.

Why? The bases have lots of polygons. They render just fine. So do the dozens of trees, rocks, warpgates, etc.

Just like you moving through the terrain requires your computer to keep re-drawing your screen based on what it sees, a moving ship would be re-drawn. I don't see it being that much of a problem.

Also, the polygons on a battleship or carrier could be truly enormous, as in, one huge polygon can do almost the entire flight deck, for example.

I want to see naval combat where the navy can generate its own fog, and planes would almost have to run into a ship to find it. We don't need Reavers downing capital ships with a single rocket volley from ten miles. Yeah, already got the Reaver OP OD OMG in PS1.

As you said, with a navy, the scale of combat would have to be truly vast. Flying 100 yards from one carrier to attack another would be stupid.

[Galapogos]

The thing is bases and such are buildings, are fixed, they don't change position.
I have brought up the idea of player controlled warships on other forums before, and I was told that vehicles with over a certain amount of polygons create performance issues, but like I said I don't know much about the limitations of game engines.

[Traak]

Originally Posted by Galapogos

The thing is bases and such are buildings, are fixed, they don't change position.
I have brought up the idea of player controlled warships on other forums before, and I was told that vehicles with over a certain amount of polygons create performance issues, but like I said I don't know much about the limitations of game engines.

I don't see why that would be the case. I will explain my reasoning:

Whether something is a soldier, ship, or plane, your computer will receive at least three things from Sony:
A) Position
B) Orientation
C) Velocity vector

Covering that point in space with a set of polygons and textures will take a given amount of computing power. I don't see why you moving in relation to a base, or a ship moving in relation to you, is different, from the standpoint of computing power, because the computer has to re-draw it on the fly.

Perhaps someone who actually works in this industry, directly, with moving shapes, can tell us.