Please remove Vehicle seat swapping.

[maradine]

Would the stationary / landed compromise be sufficient for you?

[fvdham]

In PlanetSide 1 if you wanted to change seats, you had to leave the vehicle
and re-enter at a different side of the vehicle.

This made you vulnerable for a few seconds for snipers and put
a delay between driving and gunning a vehicle, in case you wanted to operate
a multi-crew vehicle by yourself.
It was a penalty for playing solo with a heavy vehicle.

In the case of the bomber, the guy dropping bombs could not
switch to tail-gunner position while airborne, as leaving the vehicle
would drop you to the ground.

The pilot had to make a choice: do I wait a little longer for a tail gunner
or leave without one and run a risk of being shot down from behind by a jet.

[Zetsubo]

The most natural (compared to real life) solution would be seat-swapped with delay. IRL, if your gunner gets hit and you need to take the enemy out, you do just that: park it in the best spot available and get on the gun. Same with aircraft: if your bomber's gone and you need to drop the load, the pilot puts it on auto and shifts seats.

Of course, IRL, all of this takes time. Question is, would putting real-life like timers be acceptable in game? Would you like to stare at you screen for a full minute while your guy makes the tranfers? Make crawling through the aircraft to the tail gunner spot a mini-game? All those things slow the player down from what he wants to do: play the game.

So best compromise seems to be swapping with a short delay, like between 1-5 seconds. Enough to not be instantaneous but short enough to not break the tempo of the gameplay. What exactly would be the sweet spot is anyone's guess.

But I'm pretty sure there is nothing less natural than not being able to switch seats in a vehicle.

[Flaropri]

Originally Posted by Synapse

Lots of discussion here is about tanks, but really we should be talking about the liberator.

Indeed, the question is, especially for an aircraft, is losing the ability to control your flight for that period of time (and the ability to use the Nose Cannon, by all accounts a decent weapon on it's own) worth it?

If it is more than worth it, what type of time restrictions should be in place to make it not worth it or roughly an equal trade (including the access to different weaponry)?

[MrBloodworth]

EisenKreutzer, its not about being "modern" or not, its the difference between a session based shooter, and a Team based shooter with persistence.

Right now, Ps2 is shaping up to be a session based shooter in its design, with a larger amount of players, in many aspects.

Seat swapping is a trope of the throw away experience design of session based shooters, where you only have 30 minutes to "have fun". That's why no one cares if you just hoped out of a plane at 30,000 feet at mock 2 to fire your bazooka. It resets. It does not matter, because all that matters is kill counts.

Planetside aims to emulate a persistent war, not just a single battle engagement.

Any way, I surrender.

Originally Posted by maradine

Would the stationary / landed compromise be sufficient for you?

It would be better, but would not address ground units.

Originally Posted by Zetsubo

But I'm pretty sure there is nothing less natural than not being able to switch seats in a vehicle.

Most of the vehicles ate not designed with shared compartments, especially vehicles like the Lib, Gal, or tanks. I'm not talking about a mini-van here.

[EisenKreutzer]

I never said modern = good.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

^ This.



It absolutely does.

Session shooters cover the entire range of realism and pacing from slow and realistic to fast and arcade, so I don't see how that means anything. There have only been 2 real MMOFPS, PS1 and WW2 OL, and because they had realistic(in the case of WW2 OL) or "realistic except futuristic" for PS1, you're basically inferring that because they were both realistic, all MMOFPS must be realistic?

But you know, since you want realism, I'm thinking about what would *I* want. Well, I support middle ground in very nearly everything. For this issue, that would mean no animations,but perhaps a 2 second delay before the other weapons station becomes active. But I want to be clear that I say this because middle ground is appropriate, and not because instant switching is cheesy or because I care about immersion. It's cheesy for people who might seat switch to bomb in Liberators, to be sure, but that's because a pilot is so much more important to aircraft than to a tank that even a middle-ground position would think so.

And frankly I wish we could apply the middle ground philosophy to a lot more things although to be honest, it looks like they are.

[Klockan]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

EisenKreutzer, its not about being "modern" or not, its the difference between a session based shooter, and a Team based shooter with persistence.

Right now, Ps2 is shaping up to be a session based shooter in its design, with a larger amount of players, in many aspects.

Seat swapping is a trope of the throw away experience design of session based shooters, where you only have 30 minutes to "have fun". That's why no one cares if you just hoped out of a plane at 30,000 feet at mock 2 to fire your bazooka. It resets. It does not matter, because all that matters is kill counts.

Planetside aims to emulate a persistent war, not just a single battle engagement.

Any way, I surrender.



It would be better, but would not address ground units.

Since you pay for your vehicles you will want to squeeze as much out of them as possible unlike BF* where the vehicles respawn kinda like players and thus are as expendable as players.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

I never said modern = good.

I wasn't saying modern = bad

[Rivenshield]

Originally Posted by maradine

Please keep vehicle swapping.

Solo practitioners will not be able to deal with two threat classes at once.

Good. Anything that promotes TEAMWORK is a good thing.

And yes, keep the user-friendly yellow entry icons on the ground.

[Yutty]

i didn't like how a max unit was able to man a gunner spot in a tank

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Yutty

i didn't like how a max unit was able to man a gunner spot in a tank

That won't happen in live. That was just unfinished E3 stuff.

[fvdham]

Originally Posted by Klockan

Since you pay for your vehicles you will want to squeeze as much out of them as possible unlike BF* where the vehicles respawn kinda like players and thus are as expendable as players.

You don't need in-vehicle seat swapping to sqeeze things.

[BlueSkies]

lol, before you complain about any seat swapping in PS2, check this video out:


In any event, one person trying to solo operate a multi-person vehicle is gimping himself and will be an easy target. I fully encourage people to employ this tactic, it'll buff my killcount

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

Planetside 2 is fundamentally quite different than Planetside was. It owes more to modern military shooters than it does to the war game simulation that was part of what the original Planetside was.

There are just as many or more 'war game simulation' elements present in #2 than in the original. A lot of the original players look back at the game through a veil of nostalgia and warm feelings. They build the game up to be more than it really was.

The old guard, those who played, enjoyed and loved the original Planetside, want this new game to mirror the old one in as many ways as possible.

This isn't necessarily true. There are many of us who played and enjoyed the hell out of the original that are excited to see a lot of things change. The game feeling like a shooter from the era in which is was developed being chief among them. Planetside felt like a dated shooter when it was released.

You are alright fella. You have patience and tact, and you support your posts properly.