Gameplay: Outfit Air Cruisers Redux - Page 3

nomotog · 2012-05-24, 10:11 PM

You can't really avoid them becoming the new BFR. Even your altitude restriction dosen't stop that. You just have the advantage of BFRs being able to be balanced with the new resource system. Bringing out a OAC cost resources that could have been spent on tanks, planes or sniper rifles. You even have a maintenance cost. These things could get quite expensive real fast.

Baneblade · 2012-05-24, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by nomotog

You can't really avoid them becoming the new BFR. Even your altitude restriction dosen't stop that. You just have the advantage of BFRs being able to be balanced with the new resource system.

How do you figure?

Bringing out a OAC cost resources that could have been spent on tanks, planes or sniper rifles. You even have a maintenance cost. These things could get quite expensive real fast.

They are supposed to be expensive, they aren't GGs.

Sirisian · 2012-05-24, 10:28 PM

Not really a fan of these kind of ideas. The concept of highly priced/delayed vehicle that is only really pulled by outfits and difficult to destroy seems outside of casual combat. Really any vehicles in the game should focus on something that can be pulled quickly without resources or long time delays to justify extreme rarity or power. Outfit bases where engineers can call in small pieces of a base like walls and be deconstructed quickly are more along the lines of something an outfit should have.

Really what you're suggesting of high in the air "bases" is more why I suggested to arclegger and other developers to implement large static floating island bases connected with bridges over Indar to give the game a 3 dimensional feeling separate from the terrain without limiting the use of land vehicles. Really a flying ship that might be assaulted or attacked by air vehicles is leaving people that specialized in land vehicles completely out of that gameplay. (Unless they are low enough and then I think it would just promote boring gameplay of AA wasting their time filling it with AA rounds).

nomotog · 2012-05-24, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

How do you figure?

They are supposed to be expensive, they aren't GGs.

I guess there are two points I made. The first is how restricting OAC to air dosen't stop them from being BFRs. They are still overpowered white elephants with the ability to smash through the opposition. Restricting them to air combat dosen't change that anymore then restricting them to only walking on grass. Where they show up, they are the BFRs.

That would be bad, except my second point is that BFRs have the ability to be balanced. One of the problems with BFRs (or what I can get from reading peoples problems with them) is that they didn't cost anything. OACs do cost you. If you spend your money on a OAC, you can't spend it on that shiny fleet of battle tanks. That keeps them balanced. (I think)

Baneblade · 2012-05-25, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Really a flying ship that might be assaulted or attacked by air vehicles is leaving people that specialized in land vehicles completely out of that gameplay.

Any kind of naval aspect to the game would end up that way. But those who specialize in naval warfare won't be much use eating dirt either... so the balance is there.

Originally Posted by nomotog

I guess there are two points I made. The first is how restricting OAC to air dosen't stop them from being BFRs. They are still overpowered white elephants with the ability to smash through the opposition. Restricting them to air combat dosen't change that anymore then restricting them to only walking on grass. Where they show up, they are the BFRs.

Except they aren't, they won't singlehandedly dominate air combat either, having some point defense guns doesn't change that.

VelRa · 2012-05-25, 11:49 AM

What I would like to know is how they are manned/defended and how are they destroyed.

My vision of attacking one would be as follows: four stealthers enter the ship from four different access points, remaining undetected and scouting the current defenses as well as the loadout. They plant a virus which reduces the effectiveness of the ship's hardpoints and make their way to a shield core where the shields are powered. While the enemy is distracted defending the shield core, two galaxies land on the two airpads on each side of the ship, and the full-scale attack begins. Both teams bring in air vehicles to defend, while in the battle below AA focuses on several weak spots in the air cruiser's defense. The cruiser is destroyed if either its hull suffers too much damage or its internal drive core is destroyed.

And to defend, it would look something like this: A vigilant crew mans the hardpoints and participates in the air battle nearby. It spots incoming stealthers and moves quickly to shut them down. A warning is sent out, and people know to spawn in the cruiser to defend. When the Galaxies arrive, they are overwhelmed.

It might look something like this or somewhere in between the two.

Baneblade · 2012-05-25, 01:45 PM

That is the general concept.

Sirisian · 2012-05-25, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

Any kind of naval aspect to the game would end up that way. But those who specialize in naval warfare won't be much use eating dirt either... so the balance is there.

That doesn't really balance things or make much of any sense. Not sure why you brought up naval combat, an idea that would just hurt the game. Basically ideas that separate combat from the ground, air, infantry system won't work well. You need balance where all the vehicle types and infantry are intertwined in the combat. Maybe it could work, but I'm not a fan of such a concept so I'll leave it at that.

berzerkerking · 2012-05-29, 04:22 AM

/Bump http://http://youtu.be/JigO8JKv2Mg

Jinxsey · 2012-05-29, 08:31 AM

BF2142 did this with it's Titan matches.

These vehicles are game changers, they become the focus, instead of a facet of gameplay. The ability to drop troops on the battlefield en-mass from a protected and defendable position is incredable, the titan matches had cappable bases but they were largely ignored during the beta because capping them didn't help you kill the titan.

In late beta the bases had guided missile silo's added to them, now capping bases directly did damage to the enemy air-ship. Suddenly capping the bases was worthwhile, but no one realy bothered still. Then airships got shield that preventing troops from landing untill they had been destroyed, and only the ground launches missile could kill the shields, and now we "needed" to cap bases.

The point, is that these titans went from "a cool new vehicle with spawn capabilities" to something so utterly all encompassing that the game ceased to be about the ground war at all. The game designers had to put in half-dozzen new eliments to make the ground war relevant at all because killing the air-ships was so key, and ground vehicles couldn't do that.

Planetside 2 needs more depth than a BF2142 titan match, they were fun but they were only one of many game modes, and they got repetative fast. Boarding actions always more or less ended the same way and all of those awesome tanks and mechs on the ground just got forgotten about.

Garem · 2012-05-29, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Jinxsey

BF2142 did this with it's Titan matches.

[see above]

All quite true, and a good summation of the good and bad things from 2142. However, the similarities between the games (2142 and PS2-with-Airships) are largely the superficial ones: futuristic quasi-dystopia FPS with vehicles including a large floating ship.

Scope changes everything.

In 2142, there was never a time you were in the middle of a Titan game mode and thought, "Man, there are just TOO many players attacking the Titan, I'd be spending my time better patrolling bases 1, 3, and 4 in my hovertank." It just didn't happen- there weren't enough players.

If you wanted to drive tanks, that's all well and good, but there's no real purpose after a certain stage in the Titan game. So you're out of luck or have to wait out until the next round begins.

Planetside 2 won't have that problem; there are no rounds. Your tank will just have a new objective in the distance or protecting the base you just took from the enemy Airship coming in from the north.

So if an Airship comes in and totally changes the battlefield environment- that's okay! In fact, that's a great thing. It wouldn't be any different if it were two squadrons of tanks, or a flock of reavers. Coordinated players, in whatever form they may come, should change the battlefield in some way. That player-caused change in the tide of war is a dynamic sorely needed to keep PS2 fresh and fun for everyone.

Of course, if Airships were a constant and/or significant presence, that would be different. I trust the devs to figure out a cool way to balance these bad boys, either by making them largely aesthetic but common, effective but expensive, or some fine balance in-between these two.

Baneblade · 2012-05-29, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

That doesn't really balance things or make much of any sense. Not sure why you brought up naval combat, an idea that would just hurt the game. Basically ideas that separate combat from the ground, air, infantry system won't work well. You need balance where all the vehicle types and infantry are intertwined in the combat. Maybe it could work, but I'm not a fan of such a concept so I'll leave it at that.

Fair enough, but I don't really agree. By that logic the vehicles both ground and air take away from the infantry fight, maybe they do, maybe they don't. PlanetSide has variety, which is infinitely better than the alternative.

Originally Posted by Jinxsey

BF2142 did this with it's Titan matches.

Well, they gave it a try anyway.

Originally Posted by Garem

Scope changes everything.

Exactly.