Please remove Vehicle seat swapping. - Page 7

Aurmanite · 2012-07-17, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Oh so one man units have gunner spots now?

You don't balance a one man unit as equal to a two man unit (well, you do). They are not the same. :/

I am not a huge fan of seat swapping to be honest. It is one of the things from the original I would like to remain the same.

That said, some of the stuff you guys type out is completely ridiculous. The only way it makes sense is if you warp your perception to a point where this minor detail becomes something significant and game changing.

This mechanic is already on display in other shooters. It doesn't break the game, change the value/balance of a 1 person/2 person unit. Really, it's just a matter of taste and nothing more.

That mole hill ain't no mountain.

Rivenshield · 2012-07-17, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

Even with all these things, the mission system, the built-in voice system, the way capture of facilities and resources works and the presence of strong Outfits will still create a game environment where teamplay is paramount.

I sincerely hope you're right. I hope all my concerns are much ado about nothing.

I do.

I still disagree.

EisenKreutzer · 2012-07-17, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by Rivenshield

I sincerely hope you're right. I hope all my concerns are much ado about nothing.

I do.

I still disagree.

That is a fair position, and I respect it.

Accuser · 2012-07-17, 07:47 PM

Um... so I set my Magrider with AA for the gunner, but I lock the tank so no one can get in. I ride around, tearing up with the main gun until I see an aircraft, hop in the AA and take it out too.

Do I really NEED a gunner at that point? Isn't it much better to have 2 Magriders firing their main guns, and then 2 AA turrets firing when an aircraft shows up? The silliness comes from this being the only game where, if you decide not to have a gunner, that person can get yet another tank. No other game (that I'm aware of) does that. I mean, in BF3 if you and your gunner came upon an empty enemy tank, one of you ALWAYS hopped out and took it. Imagine that situation where the gunner can almost always spawn a new empty tank... I would expect almost all tanks to run with just the driver, and to actively avoid letting anyone be a gunner.

EisenKreutzer · 2012-07-17, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by Accuser

Um... so I set my Magrider with AA for the gunner, but I lock the tank so no one can get in. I ride around, tearing up with the main gun until I see an aircraft, hop in the AA and take it out too.

Do I really NEED a gunner at that point? Isn't it much better to have 2 Magriders firing their main guns, and then 2 AA turrets firing when an aircraft shows up? The silliness comes from this being the only game where, if you decide not to have a gunner, that person can get yet another tank. No other game (that I'm aware of) does that. I mean, in BF3 if you and your gunner came upon an empty enemy tank, one of you ALWAYS hopped out and took it. Imagine that situation where the gunner can almost always spawn a new empty tank... I would expect almost all tanks to run with just the driver, and to actively avoid letting anyone be a gunner.

There are two things coming into play preventing this: Vehicle resource cost and spawn-timer.

vehicles are expensive, and once you have bought one you can't buy another for a set period of time. To my mind, this means the sensible thing to do is to buy one Magrider for two guys, fight until you're killed, and then the other guy buy a new one.

Aurmanite · 2012-07-17, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by Accuser

Um... so I set my Magrider with AA for the gunner, but I lock the tank so no one can get in. I ride around, tearing up with the main gun until I see an aircraft, hop in the AA and take it out too.

Do I really NEED a gunner at that point? Isn't it much better to have 2 Magriders firing their main guns, and then 2 AA turrets firing when an aircraft shows up? The silliness comes from this being the only game where, if you decide not to have a gunner, that person can get yet another tank. No other game (that I'm aware of) does that. I mean, in BF3 if you and your gunner came upon an empty enemy tank, one of you ALWAYS hopped out and took it. Imagine that situation where the gunner can almost always spawn a new empty tank... I would expect almost all tanks to run with just the driver, and to actively avoid letting anyone be a gunner.

You really think two tanks are going to have a huge impact on the field?

Suddenly 2 Magriders become the ultimate force on the field because they can spec less than optimal AA and switch seats. The two Prowlers with dual AV and 2 gunners? Owned! I mean, it's Magriders with AA and seat swap.

Didn't we all play Planetside? Don't we remember that 2 units could rarely (if ever) have a large impact on the battle? Galaxy gunships and low pop fights aside.

Accuser · 2012-07-17, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

There are two things coming into play preventing this: Vehicle resource cost and spawn-timer.

vehicles are expensive, and once you have bought one you can't buy another for a set period of time. To my mind, this means the sensible thing to do is to buy one Magrider for two guys, fight until you're killed, and then the other guy buy a new one.

I guess that depends on the timer, resource cost, and survivability. Still, I strongly suspect that the best tank drivers will avoid having a gunner so long as they stay alive long enough. I expect tank-oriented outfits (where seat swapping is fast/instant) to have a one-person-tank policy, so long as the members can afford it. There's just much more firepower in having 2 tanks that can seat swap, rather than one fully manned.

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

You really think two tanks are going to have a huge impact on the field?

Em, you aren't following. I'm saying it would likely become the policy of tank outfits to have one-person-tanks so long as the members can afford it. That means that instead of 50 fully manned tanks, you have 100 tanks that can all seat swap to AI/AA in an instant (or near instant) when needed. Yeah, I think that would effect the battle a bit.

EisenKreutzer · 2012-07-17, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Accuser

I guess that depends on the timer, resource cost, and survivability. Still, I strongly suspect that the best tank drivers will avoid having a gunner so long as they stay alive long enough. I expect tank-oriented outfits (where seat swapping is fast/instant) to have a one-person-tank policy, so long as the members can afford it. There's just much more firepower in having 2 tanks that can seat swap, rather than one fully manned.

I doubt there will be a one-person-tank policy. There will be open season on tank pilots without auxiliary gunners, and Heavy Assaults will happily line up and plant rockets up his ass while he is switching seats and playing the sitting duck game trying to shoot them in hi stationary tank. With a bit of cover, three-four HAs could take out more than a couple of tanks, if they play it smart.
Whereas with machine gunners, the tanks could have spotted them while they were getting into position, and they'd have over twice the firepower to deal with them effectively.

Same goes for aircraft, perhaps even doubly so. Hitting a stationary target is much easier than hitting a moving target, AA guns or no.

Accuser · 2012-07-17, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

Suddenly 2 Magriders become the ultimate force on the field because they can spec less than optimal AA and switch seats. The two Prowlers with dual AV and 2 gunners? Owned! I mean, it's Magriders with AA and seat swap.

Wow, you just gave me the perfect example for my argument!
Imagine these options, you can have:
2 Prowlers with 2 AV gunners - that's 4 people with 4 AV guns
4 Prowlers with unmanned AA guns - that's 4 people with 4 AV guns, the option of 4 AA guns, and double the health points for the enemy to shoot through

Aurmanite · 2012-07-17, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by Accuser

Wow, you just gave me the perfect example for my argument!
Imagine these options, you can have:
2 Prowlers with 2 AV gunners - that's 4 people with 4 AV guns
4 Prowlers with unmanned AA guns - that's 4 people with 4 AV guns, the option of 4 AA guns, and double the health points for the enemy to shoot through

This point keeps coming up over and over. You're thinking too small, too literal. There's no law saying that for every person that is doing one thing, there will be an equal amount of people doing that same thing. The game doesn't play that way. If you're running 2 fully manned tanks, you aren't guaranteed to run into 2 fully manned enemy tanks, 4 single manned tanks, or anything.

Besides, who is to say that 2 dual AV tanks wouldn't be able to kill twice as fast?

VSENSES · 2012-07-17, 08:10 PM

Keep seat swapping like it is.

Death2All · 2012-07-17, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by Metalsheep

I hope they remove instant seat swapping. If you got in the wrong gun, stop, get out, and get in the gun you want. It makes no sense that the driver can warp from the drivers compartment, to the Cannon or bombers seat instantly. How did he get there? Through the wall?

It's a lot more balanced to have to switch seat manually. Sure, the vehicle might be gimped or immobile, but if the driver switched to the proper gun to destroy whatever is attacking him, he should win regardless, then switch back and drive away. If he has to stop and get out, he cant do that.

(Also wants vehicle enter/exit animations)

Planetside Vets don't want the game to mirror Planetside 1 perfectly, we want it to be similar, with problems fixed. So far, from what i have seen, Planetside 2 is only similar in name and graphic design and size. A lot of mechanics are just modern mechanics with a Planetside skin.

In calling the game Planetside 2, it infers that it is some kind of sequel to Planetside. But absolutely everything is different. Other game series keep many similarities in mechanics and design between sequels while still improving the experience. (Halo 1-Reach for instance.) Anyone can look at them or play Combat Evolved or Reach and tell you right away its Halo without knowing anything else. But from looking at the two games i can't really tell they are from the same series aside from some visuals like the Factions colors/symbols. They should have just named it Battlefield Auraxis or something along those lines.

/rant

No to seat swapping, yes to delay/manual switching.

This man speaks the truth!

And oh boy, the Battlefield fanboys are out in full force tonight I see. I've yet to see any argument apart from "seat swapping in convienent when my gunner bails on me" to keep seat swapping in the game.

Most of you are even acknowledging that the unfairness of firepower will occur, yet you use "Well everyone else can do it too! So it's fair!!!" as your justification.

Some even try to justify it further by adding in delays to swapping seats or putting it on a cooldown. The issue is neither here nor there how often you can swap seats. The issue is that you can do it period.

Figgy said it well:

Originally Posted by Figment

The problem Bloodworth, is that they look only at or find more important the perspective of what is convenient for the switching player (usualy refered to as "I like" or "me" by these players). Meanwhile you look at the reward and tactical advantage for the enemy player given this enemy faces a team that decided to use equipment not built around their manpower.

The people here argueing with you are not interested in manpower balance, they don't want to be dependent on others and they don't want to make long term tactical and strategic disadvantage choices as compensation for exploiting a unit designed for three with two or less. Hence they ignore any argument based on fairness of manpower.

They even think it is already a disadvantage that you try to use it with less. That is where they are wrong, because it is no guarantee you need to use both at once as they presume to justify their position. Meanwhile, where did the third gunner go? He is elsewhere. As another unit. Meaning Bloodworth and I conclude you get more units than entitled to without paying a price for it.

I know the concept of long term decision making and repercussions for your mistakes can be scary, but is it really that daunting that you can't find room for it in a video game?

So you're driving a tank and you lose your gunner? Stop and find another one. Losing one of your gunners does not justify you being able to swap seats and use every gun yourself. The whole point of this game is to have thousands of players all working together. The game is going have litterly thousands of players everywhere, it's not like there's going to be any shortage of gunners. Pull your tank over and find someone you lazy piece of shit.

You jumped in the wrong spot of your vehicle? Darn! Maybe you should learn the correct spot to jump in next time so that doesn't happen in the future. A little learning never hurt anyone did it? What's that? The current game design doesn't allow you to pick which spot you want to get in? Then that's a flaw in the current game design, not a justification for allowing seat swapping. Start thinking outside of the box for once.

I'm not one of these realism freaks, but why does it make any sense at all why the driver of the vehicle could jump from the driver seat to the back tail gunner spot in a second? Doesn't that ruin your immersion that you guys are all crazy about?

The system in PS1 worked fine. There were little icons outside of the vehicle informing you on which seat each spot was for. Over time you learned where the gunner and passenger seats were for each vehicle. If you got in the wrong seat for the wrong situation then you were shit out of luck and you died. You learned in the future not to make that mistake. Why are people so persistent on degenerating society into a legion of idiots where no one is wrong, everyone is a winner and it's okay to be different. It starts with video games, then before you know the whole world has gone to shit.

Okay, maybe I sound a little crazy with that last part

. But seriously, no vehicle seat swapping, it's stupid.

Aurmanite · 2012-07-17, 08:15 PM

What does Battlefield have to do with this?

Oh I see, if you are for seat swapping you're a Battlefield fanboy and we hate Battlefield around here.

Way to completely shoot yourself in the foot with ignorant fuckery.

NexAnima · 2012-07-17, 08:18 PM

Interesting, in the 26th century all vehicles are build with individual pods for seating, I did not know that.

Seriously, why is it so improbable for the passengers to shuffle around inside the vehicle? Add a delay, problem solved. No pilot in an aircraft, realistically there's auto pilot...For balance, make the aircraft start falling out of the sky until a someone reclaims the cockpit.

Hell even in real life, we don't need to swap seats to control most military arms on a vehicle, some tanks even use souped up tablets to control the cannons. Even if the gun needs to be manned, the vehicles are built as not to expose the soldier to fire. Did we some how devolve in military tactics in 600 years?

EisenKreutzer · 2012-07-17, 08:18 PM

Sure is elitist in here.