Making Air Power more practical in PS - Page 3

Firefly · 2004-10-09, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by WritheNC

If you want to make reavers refuel every 5 minutes, then rexo infantry needs to stop every 200m from running with 80 pounds of gear on.

Usage of afterburners should deplete fuel like gunning the motor on a '57 Chevy. For all you prepubescent little boys and girls that don't know what that means, those were the days before fuel injectors, when you could literally watch the fuel needle drop as you drove.

As far as rexo running 200 meters. I can strap on an 80-lb rucksack and run for longer than 200 meters. In fact, in the Army I used to run 20 kilometers (we were supposed to forced-march it). When I say run, I mean run at a steady pace. Not sprint or haul-ass. It occasionally turned into the Airborne Shuffle when I was conserving energy, but 200 meters with 80lbs of shit for a seasoned soldier is like asking me to take ten steps to the front and stop and rest, then take ten more.

Baneblade · 2004-10-09, 04:51 PM

Yeah, we can't forget that all the characters are seasoned and trained soldiers.

I think a fuel capacity should last as long as it takes to cross the largest continent from the furthest points. That would be the vehicle's capacitor.

I don't really like the idea of power units, as much as I like the idea of using the gas pumps (repair/rearm terms and pads).

Rbstr · 2004-10-09, 04:59 PM

Also the armored suits are exo suits meaneng they have strength enhancing servos motors in them

Baneblade · 2004-10-09, 05:24 PM

True, makes you wonder why you can't jammer them hehe.

Warborn · 2004-10-09, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

True, makes you wonder why you can't jammer them hehe.

Probably for the same reason that jamming a vehicle only disables the weapons and nothing else.

Peacemaker · 2004-10-10, 09:20 AM

The point of limiting the ability of a vehicle to be the uberleet destruction machine is so that you cant JUST rely on vehicles... you need infantry to push into a base too. Also it would make defending that much easyer... imagine you are stuck inside and a vanguard is outside shelling the door.... then he runs out of gas.... now you are free to escape and kick his arse.

Firefly · 2004-10-10, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

imagine you are stuck inside and a vanguard is outside shelling the door.... then he runs out of gas.... now you are free to escape and kick his arse.

Except that in current military technology, we have armored units that can fire their weapons with the engines off. The Abrams tank does not need to be "on" and "in gear" to use its weapons systems. Previous armored systems did need to have the engine running; however that was a survivability issue and the R&D wonks in the US military system figured a way around this.

My point? Planetside is over a millenium into the future. I'd imagine we have superior technology by "now". Tanks should be able to fight even though they are out of gas.

Lartnev · 2004-10-10, 01:41 PM

Whilst I agree that tanks would still be able to fire with their engines off, facts are of little importance when it comes to Planetside

Warborn · 2004-10-10, 06:43 PM

I think the biggest question to overcome in regards to vehicles having fuel isn't about whether it's realistic or not, but instead, whether it will be a good addition to the game, or just a nuissance for vehicle drivers. It would take a lot of care to ensure that vehicles refueling wasn't so common that it made driving a vehicle especially tedious, but at the same time not so infrequent that you're barely aware the feature exists.

I think the idea has potential and could help add some more depth to the game, but at the same time I worry that having to drive off to refuel might be more hassle than it's worth. Fuel trucks or something similar would absolutely need to be added were fuel to be made a part of the game, both to alleviate the burden of driving back to a base to refuel, and to give defenders more key targets to aim for when trying to force the attackers back.

Baneblade · 2004-10-10, 07:07 PM

Another thing to consider is how fuel consumption would be counted. Would it be whenever a driver is in the vehicle, or just when it is in motion.

Warborn · 2004-10-11, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

Another thing to consider is how fuel consumption would be counted. Would it be whenever a driver is in the vehicle, or just when it is in motion.

Every reason for it to be "when in motion". Having things vary like that allows more to develop out of that feature than if it were a constant, universal drain. Indeed, fuel consumption could develop into the gameplay in terms of tactics fairly well. If certain light, fast vehicles get some more torque I could definitely see them actually being good at harassment, depleting the fuel of other vehicles and damaging their battlefield endurance fuel wise rather than health wise (though they'd be doing a bit of damage too of course).

WritheNC · 2004-10-11, 04:01 AM

I think Fuel would totally cut the subscription numbers.

For everyone that dreams of having a nice fight with fuel and logistics, there are 10 that aren't gonna pay 13/month to drive an ANT around and fill up tanks.

Yeah, we can't forget that all the characters are seasoned and trained soldiers.

Well, we are in game, aren't we?

So I guess infantry won't have to stop every 200m.

DropShipEdward · 2004-10-11, 04:15 AM

exactly, there are barely any people who run ANTs nowadays, and CR`s have to practly scream for an ANT when there arent any outfits operating, and even fewer if you need em to fight in the field

me personaly, i`m one of the few people that actually /t a CR5 that i have an ANT already en route when they notice a base needs juice and asks about for one, god only knows what would happen if fuel made its way in

but it would be kinda cool for the logistics nut inside some of us

Lartnev · 2004-10-11, 06:21 AM

There's a difference between ANT runs and refuelling. Refuelling is pretty much the same as re-arming/repairing which people do anyway. However ANT runs can be a long haul from a base, to a warpgate, fill it up, drive back (often in dangerous territory) and then deploy at the base and hope someone hasn't beaten you to it.

If fuel was an optional add-on to give added bonuses I think people might begin to like the idea even more.

Hayoo · 2004-10-11, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Lartnev

There's a difference between ANT runs and refuelling. Refuelling is pretty much the same as re-arming/repairing which people do anyway. However ANT runs can be a long haul from a base, to a warpgate, fill it up, drive back (often in dangerous territory) and then deploy at the base and hope someone hasn't beaten you to it.

If fuel was an optional add-on to give added bonuses I think people might begin to like the idea even more.

I couldn't agree more, Lartnev. Those are concepts I would propose as well.