Poll on driver gunning

[Aractain]

The number of non planetside players will probably outnumber the planetside players 10 to 1...

[Canaris]

well I do remember from Forumside, one of the biggest complaints from drivers was there inability to use any weapons on their vehicles and that they spent cert points getting the best stuff but then ending up as glorified taxi drivers.

I'm all for giving PS2 option a whirl, that's what Alpha and Beta testing is for

[Senyu]

Option D please

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Aractain

The number of non planetside players will probably outnumber the planetside players 10 to 1...

And that means what? I don't even know if it's an argument. Either way it means nothing. Nothing at all. There is no such thing as a uniform "PlanetSide player opinion", let alone a "non-PlanetSide player opinion". Hence changing for the sake of the undefined latter would be ridiculous.

There is only good and bad gameplay mechanics within its game context.

This sort of "we have to change this for the rest of the world audience" argument is something Hollywood came up with and it cost us a great deal of quality in movies already. Don't think we need this sort of argumentation for games too.

This level of argument is about here: "Oh my, there's a lot of Microsoft Patience players in the world, therefore, from now on we should deal cards to determine the outcome of a FPS game."

Game developers should do what is best in the context of THEIR game, not look at what Battlefield, Halo or Tribes does and simply copy that, because those games have their own contexts.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Figment

Game developers should do what is best in the context of THEIR game, not look at what Battlefield, Halo or Tribes does and simply copy that, because those games have their own contexts.

PS2, being not PS1, should not look at what PS1 did either, by that logic, and hence they are perfectly fine making the new game how they want.


Its utter folly to not try to incorporate good ideas from other games. You merely disagree with whats a good idea. Which is normal. No release will please everyone. They could rerelease PS1 exactly and no small number of people would be pissed for not taking the chance to fix some of the various issues that plagued it.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

You merely disagree with whats a good idea.

I feel like this is one of the biggest mistakes people make in discussions about differences between PS1 and PS2.

There are certainly some things that objectively worked well in Planetside 1, but it is not at all objective to say that no other system would work. That's entirely opinion.

We're all excited for the game (more or less) and we all want to be able to enjoy it, but what made Planetside special will vary from one person to another.

I hope the devs are smarter than to just lift an idea because it's popular without making sure it works in the context of the game, but everything solid and finished that we have seen in detail indicates to me that the dev team is extremely competent. Competent enough for me to want to give their new systems a try, even if I don't personally think they are always the best changes on the outset.

I like to try and think of PS2 as what Planetside would have been, had it been made today. Planetside 1 was very much a game of it's time. Not all changes to the FPS genre have been for the best, but the fact that PS2 seems to be cherry picking a lot of the better directions that the genre has gone in (regeneration only on shields, not health, for example) keeps me hopeful.

I have no doubt that Planetside 2 will get some stuff wrong. I mean objectively wrong. Those things will have to be fixed in patches. I don't think you can have such a genre redefining game as Planetside 2 without needing some revision. Hopefully that shit gets sorted out in beta.

I also have no doubt that PS2 will disappoint a lot of Planetside 1 players. Hopefully the number will be small and hopefully most of them won't be so disappointed that they can't still enjoy the game. Disappointed PS1 players will provide absolutely no indication of the quality of the game though, only the quality of their own expectations. The game could still be objectively better crafted and balanced than the first game, but the fact that it's different will turn some people off.

On the plus side, no matter if all the PS1 players play PS2, or only a handful, the majority of the players will be totally new, having never played the first game. With no expectations to disappoint, the game will be a success or failure on it's own merits.

I want the game to be good (obviously I hope it will suit my own standards of what is good), but I plan to try really hard to evaluate the game based on it's own merits, not in comparison to the first game.

[acosmo]

i would like to know if option d is compatible with the progression model brewko is using as a justification for the driver as gunner. in my opinion option d is the perfect solution.

Originally Posted by Option D

In the vehicle customization screen, the driver can allocate one weapon to themselves, or both weapons to their gunner.

this gives players a choice between using the original or the planned driver/gunner model at no forseable cost or change to the planned design. usually in these kinds of debates theres no win-win resolution but option d is looking very much like one.

[LongBow]

the advantage of placing the main gun on the gunners seat is that the players of same faction have to work together ... When you give them a choice you take that away.

When the gunners seat has the secondary weapon, gunners rarely want to hop along for the ride, after all the only reason you trust your vanguard driver to not crash into a rock is the 120mm reward ...

Honestly the problem with the PS1 mechanic is not "drivers don't have guns" it is that "driving is boring!"

[Aractain]

Thats not something they can fix with out making them aircraft, which have driver weapons...

So yeah, doing the right thing with this imo.

[LongBow]

Originally Posted by Aractain

Thats not something they can fix with out making them aircraft, which have driver weapons...

So yeah, doing the right thing with this imo.

there are other, less radical solutions; which, have far more effective results than they would appear to on first glance.

Improve the weight of the tank - making a tank feel heavy and big and powerful help to counter the feeling of wasting cert points on a weapon someone else gets to use.

Improve the sound assets - everything from the engines roar to the crushing of the ground beneath it should should add to the feeling of power.

driver control of the secondary weapon - it gives him/her the engagement of shooting and feeling like an integral part of the fight. (as an aside I wonder how many of the complaining tank drivers were Vanu).

My opinion however is that:
who has control of the MBT's main gun is going to be a focus of beta testing and a point that could swing either way.
SOE have not shown themselves to be armatures, and I'm sure internal test data currently indicates the driver controlling the main gun is giving the best game play experience.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by LongBow

the advantage of placing the main gun on the gunners seat is that the players of same faction have to work together ... When you give them a choice you take that away.

When the gunners seat has the secondary weapon, gunners rarely want to hop along for the ride, after all the only reason you trust your vanguard driver to not crash into a rock is the 120mm reward ...

Honestly the problem with the PS1 mechanic is not "drivers don't have guns" it is that "driving is boring!"

They have said, repeatedly, that it is not a 'secondary weapon'. They are roughly half the firepower of the tanks. Its not like the peashooter the other guy gets in the BF games.

Originally Posted by LongBow

Improve the weight of the tank - making a tank feel heavy and big and powerful help to counter the feeling of wasting cert points on a weapon someone else gets to use.

Improve the sound assets - everything from the engines roar to the crushing of the ground beneath it should should add to the feeling of power.

Seriously? The first one would make driving even more boring. The vehicles that are fun to drive are the zippy ones that take a high degree of skill to not ram into things and die. The second would really change nothing.

driver control of the secondary weapon - it gives him/her the engagement of shooting and feeling like an integral part of the fight. (as an aside I wonder how many of the complaining tank drivers were Vanu).

The PPC was a horrible driver weapon. The mag was just squirrelly in side to side motion, and it had a high rof, which meant it just wasn't very useful since you had to stay pointing at them. Plus the thing just maneuvered too slow to have a driver weapon mounted like that.

My opinion however is that:
who has control of the MBT's main gun is going to be a focus of beta testing and a point that could swing either way.

The guns will be a focus, for balance. Who has control is a decided issue for them. The only way it would change is if its a spectacular failure, which of course it won't be. It, at worst, will make solo tanks have a somewhat higher population.

[CutterJohn]

woops

[Figment]

See, just because something is changed from PS1 doesn't mean it's a good idea or an improvement over PS1. But that's even irrelevant considering the question is what will it do in the context of PS2. And I honestly don't think a lot of the changes made compared to PS1 will ultimately benefit or fit the context and gameplay of PS2.

Yes they can change what they want, they can implement player cottages and everything if they so desire for all I care, thing is we're all FPS players and we know damn well what we do with provided certifications and units and that's ensuring we get the fastest, most efficient TTK. And we, as a playerbase in general, are not going to be sidekicks in doing that because epeen is far too important for FPS players. If it is possible for the individual to be in control and have advantages, they will.

Why do you think there wasn't a single Raider outfit on ANY of the TR empires, but every single outfit on every single server had a LOT of one person aircraft? Because it was most effective and efficient. The suggested driver-gunner dynamic is neither and only benefits drivers and makes potential gunners want to get another role. If you disagree with that I don't know where you've been the last 8 years of PlanetSide, but you surely have not been paying attention to what was being pulled while standing around the vehicle pad!


In fact the biggest mistake people can make is not critique in advance and wait till a system is in place that "cannot be changed anymore". (read: takes too much time to change and would take away time from other fixes, etc). Thus you better provide this critique as early as possible. A worse mistake maybe is writing off other people's critique as being mere nostalgia sentiment (which somehow is always a bad thing too if it suits the "innovators"). Innovation is great and was needed in many things PlanetSide, but the last thing that needed innovation was driver gunnery!

In the context of PS2, which is still a lot closer to PS1 than Halo, BF or CoD, CS or whatever other FPS you can think of, this mechanic will imply be a very bad idea. Not as bad as BR40 was for PS1's context, but it'll definitely take a big chunk pf the team out of teamwork.

So if you could go back, I have provided extensive argumentation why it is a bad idea using the context of PS2 customizable Lightnings and examplifying this by refering to comparable PS1 situations (Prowler + Raider and in fact even the Marauder, the three worst designed units in the game in terms of manpower efficiency). By removing even the big gun from the control of the gunner, you're simply aggravating this situation even more and even less people will want to gun for someone else. Especially if they miss out on 'driver skill improvement experience points'.

To just ignore this argument and shove it on "people blabla PS1" is rather shortsighted, tbh.

And sorry Cutterjohn, but your opinion seems biased in the sense that you have absolute trust in devs. I honestly can't recall a single person who wanted a driver weapon for a tank, saying people wanted it would be a blatant lie. In fact, ALL people I've asked over Steam today (about 15) raised their eyebrow at the prospect and agreed they'd most probably use a secondary unit instead due to the same reasoning I provided.


The only reason one would still gun, was if that secondary gun was at least better in dot + armour loss compared to the alternative of using a secondary unit with a comparable or complementary weapon. The thing is, that the moment this secondary gun is THAT powerful, you have an overpowered weapon and a weapon platform that has too many roles. These agreeing people are some of the top brass from outfits like Mercenarys, Delta Triad, TRx, Risk and other respectable outfits that know how to optimize their firepower, endurance and TTK.


I'm not saying the system can't work, I'm simply saying it'll be a social failure, a huge missed opportunity and a hell of a big problem to balance fairly compared to other units, next to it becoming completely impossible to add more dedicated platforms, because their semi-niche roles will have already been filled by two ground units.

Which is going to make driving boring because you're only going to encounter the same units.


For the record, I've driven Thunderers, Sunderers and Furies for 7 years. I've never felt bored and I can't think of any other drivers who were bored, because you functioned as a team and we always took on major challenges. Pulling them off was always down to the whole team and everyone knew that. I feel that sentiment is going to change drastically towards even more individualism and that is going to be a big loss for the game.


Just because increasing individualism and social isolationism is a trend in society and gaming, doesn't mean you should follow or encourage that (for instance by creating on man jacks of all trade vehicles, or BR40 one man suiss knife armies). It might sometimes mean you should encourage the exact opposite. And that's what TEAM vehicles do.

The class system and splitting up of weaponry types can for instance be a very good alternative to create a social interdependency context similar to BR20. As long as you can't change to each and every class each death or at every equip term, but still need some certs for instance. I wouldn't enjoy the idea of everyone in a base simultaneously deciding to grab a MAX unit, for instance. Role overlap creates both overpowered and imbalanced situations, as well as reduces the uniqueness of a player. And uniqueness, specialisms, that is what makes players appreciated.

As such I'm also going to be VERY critical about the cert / class system of PS2. If it leads to a BR40 situation, I'll heavily protest its implementation. Not just because it was in PS1, but because it will be extremely bad for general gameplay.

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by Figment

See, just because something is changed from PS1 doesn't mean it's a good idea or an improvement over PS1. But that's even irrelevant considering the question is what will it do in the context of PS2. And I honestly don't think a lot of the changes made compared to PS1 will ultimately benefit or fit the context and gameplay of PS2.

Yes they can change what they want, they can implement player cottages and everything if they so desire for all I care, thing is we're all FPS players and we know damn well what we do with provided certifications and units and that's ensuring we get the fastest, most efficient TTK. And we, as a playerbase in general, are not going to be sidekicks in doing that because epeen is far too important for FPS players. If it is possible for the individual to be in control and have advantages, they will.

Why do you think there wasn't a single Raider outfit on ANY of the TR empires, but every single outfit on every single server had a LOT of one person aircraft? Because it was most effective and efficient. The suggested driver-gunner dynamic is neither and only benefits drivers and makes potential gunners want to get another role. If you disagree with that I don't know where you've been the last 8 years of PlanetSide, but you surely have not been paying attention to what was being pulled while standing around the vehicle pad!


In fact the biggest mistake people can make is not critique in advance and wait till a system is in place that "cannot be changed anymore". (read: takes too much time to change and would take away time from other fixes, etc). Thus you better provide this critique as early as possible. A worse mistake maybe is writing off other people's critique as being mere nostalgia sentiment (which somehow is always a bad thing too if it suits the "innovators"). Innovation is great and was needed in many things PlanetSide, but the last thing that needed innovation was driver gunnery!

In the context of PS2, which is still a lot closer to PS1 than Halo, BF or CoD, CS or whatever other FPS you can think of, this mechanic will imply be a very bad idea. Not as bad as BR40 was for PS1's context, but it'll definitely take a big chunk pf the team out of teamwork.

So if you could go back, I have provided extensive argumentation why it is a bad idea using the context of PS2 customizable Lightnings and examplifying this by refering to comparable PS1 situations (Prowler + Raider and in fact even the Marauder, the three worst designed units in the game in terms of manpower efficiency). By removing even the big gun from the control of the gunner, you're simply aggravating this situation even more and even less people will want to gun for someone else. Especially if they miss out on 'driver skill improvement experience points'.

To just ignore this argument and shove it on "people blabla PS1" is rather shortsighted, tbh.

And sorry Cutterjohn, but your opinion seems biased in the sense that you have absolute trust in devs. I honestly can't recall a single person who wanted a driver weapon for a tank, saying people wanted it would be a blatant lie. In fact, ALL people I've asked over Steam today (about 15) raised their eyebrow at the prospect and agreed they'd most probably use a secondary unit instead due to the same reasoning I provided.


The only reason one would still gun, was if that secondary gun was at least better in dot + armour loss compared to the alternative of using a secondary unit with a comparable or complementary weapon. The thing is, that the moment this secondary gun is THAT powerful, you have an overpowered weapon and a weapon platform that has too many roles. These agreeing people are some of the top brass from outfits like Mercenarys, Delta Triad, TRx, Risk and other respectable outfits that know how to optimize their firepower, endurance and TTK.


I'm not saying the system can't work, I'm simply saying it'll be a social failure, a huge missed opportunity and a hell of a big problem to balance fairly compared to other units, next to it becoming completely impossible to add more dedicated platforms, because their semi-niche roles will have already been filled by two ground units.

Which is going to make driving boring because you're only going to encounter the same units.


For the record, I've driven Thunderers, Sunderers and Furies for 7 years. I've never felt bored and I can't think of any other drivers who were bored, because you functioned as a team and we always took on major challenges. Pulling them off was always down to the whole team and everyone knew that. I feel that sentiment is going to change drastically towards even more individualism and that is going to be a big loss for the game.


Just because increasing individualism and social isolationism is a trend in society and gaming, doesn't mean you should follow or encourage that (for instance by creating on man jacks of all trade vehicles, or BR40 one man suiss knife armies). It might sometimes mean you should encourage the exact opposite. And that's what TEAM vehicles do.

The class system and splitting up of weaponry types can for instance be a very good alternative to create a social interdependency context similar to BR20. As long as you can't change to each and every class each death or at every equip term, but still need some certs for instance. I wouldn't enjoy the idea of everyone in a base simultaneously deciding to grab a MAX unit, for instance. Role overlap creates both overpowered and imbalanced situations, as well as reduces the uniqueness of a player. And uniqueness, specialisms, that is what makes players appreciated.

As such I'm also going to be VERY critical about the cert / class system of PS2. If it leads to a BR40 situation, I'll heavily protest its implementation. Not just because it was in PS1, but because it will be extremely bad for general gameplay.

Very wise words. I especially agree with the bolded part. Planetside is a unique game, and just because COD and BF have certain "improved" FPS features, does not mean at all that this game should follow them. "Teamplay" in BF3 is throwing ammo/med boxes and reviving people. "Teamplay" in Planetside is much more, and from the sound of it, it seems they are definitely going for a more individualistic approach. This isn't because I'm afraid of change, this is because I'm afraid this game will just be a massive Battlefield 3. I know, I know, "wait for beta" and all that, but I stand firm on my view as of now.

[acosmo]

Just because increasing individualism and social isolationism is a trend in society and gaming, doesn't mean you should follow or encourage that (for instance by creating on man jacks of all trade vehicles, or BR40 one man suiss knife armies). It might sometimes mean you should encourage the exact opposite. And that's what TEAM vehicles do.

Oh SOE, please consider