I LOVE vehicle spam, it's NOT the problem of this game - Page 8

Figment · 2013-01-09, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

The whole idea of this topic is that there is no need to limit vehicle spam as there are other ways to balance it out.

As expected of course, this topic derails into a brainstorm on exactly just that: How to limit vehicle spam

A forum is a place to debate pros and cons.

One expects multiple sides of a story.

A forum is a great way to place statements, but one should expect critique and to defend one self, as well as look at the alternatives and weigh the pro and cons of that.

Clearly Rolfski, you've not convinced the opposition with argumentation yet.

Sledgecrushr · 2013-01-09, 11:58 AM

All argumentation aside, changes to base layout with a mind to increased defensability would surely kill several birds with just one stone.

Figment · 2013-01-09, 12:03 PM

Oh yes, that's definitely the top priority. Think everyone can agree to that.

ShadetheDruid · 2013-01-09, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

The whole idea of this topic is that there is no need to limit vehicle spam as there are other ways to balance it out.

As expected of course, this topic derails into a brainstorm on exactly just that: How to limit vehicle spam

Mmm, I was mostly just thinking on things that would work as a good "middle ground" between people who want stricter limitations on vehicles and those who are ok with the current availability.

I definitely agree with the premise of the topic though. I don't have a problem with the number of vehicles (aside from some of the more.. powerful/questionable weapons, which to me is more a matter of their generalist usage rather than the actual power of them), it makes for an interesting game for vehicles to have a big part.

Thunderhawk · 2013-01-09, 01:23 PM

The topic of discussion has just evolved into all things PS2 and this and that.

We all agree that small steps are the way forward, and let's change the Base situation and defence, making them infantry areas first and see where we are with that.

No one wants whole sale changes, and I for one agree with most people here that Vehicle spam is not so much a problem as it is highlighting a problem with something else (namely infantry not having much room to do infantry only things without fearing a tank shell up the rear end due to all the camping)

Rolfski · 2013-01-09, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

All argumentation aside, changes to base layout with a mind to increased defensability would surely kill several birds with just one stone.

I wouldn't count on it too much as THE uber solution to fix the problems though. There's a reason why these bases where designed so open. It needs to be carefully balanced or we go back to Tech plant back door stalemates again.

Figment · 2013-01-09, 01:38 PM

@TH: think a lot of people don't realise that vehicles are this weak (endurance wise, not firepower wise) because they are spammed that much?

I'd rather have quite a few less, slightly stronger high firepower units to fight with and against, than zergs of semi-strong high firepower units.

EDIT: @Rolfski: Tech Plants are an extreme: just two open entrances. I mean, come on.

Chaff · 2013-01-09, 02:20 PM

I'm sure it must be true with any game, but PS players seem highly inclined to not only find weaknesses in game design/mechanics.....they almost Force them on the Devs. After going round-and-round in my own head, and then reading all the different points-of-view here, I am of the opinion that change is required, but needs to be introduced slowly.
Zerg mentality naturaly arose in PS1. Zerg Mentality in PS2 often is too damn disheartening. People can't help themselves.

Devs are in a Catch-22. Things have to change. Too many changes at once make it impossible (near) to ascertain cause & effect of newly implemented changes. Not enough change, and player bitching & quitting gets worse.

Weapons are fairly well balanced. Basic Base design must be altered. Vehicles (Air or Ground) should be able to force Infantry indoors or behind cover. duh. For this game to be funner, we need bases that are more DEFENSE-Friendly. It's all been covered. There is an overwhelming concensus to tweak base design. Start with a few of the major bases. Try something. In three weeks you should know if you need to tweak it a tad more, or a tad less. It will never be an exact science. It just needs to be close. PS2 players are going where the easy kills are. It seems like changes need to be made that ultimately serve to allow infantry to keep Air & Ground vehicles further away from base doors, windows, and also better defend the perimeter of bases.

I hope the new changes start there. With a little luck they'll hit a decent balance. A little bit of positive gameplay improvement will create a Lot of goodwill. Positive well-thought-out changes need to continually come on-line. There's a lot of ground to cover in the next couple months.

RoninOni · 2013-02-20, 04:44 PM

How many tank haters in here use MBT's?

You know they've extended the CD on them right?

Destroy a tank and it ain't comin back for several minutes at the earliest.

I've seen huge waves of tanks smash against rocket spam, or collide with each other...

The tanks don't keep coming indefinitely...

NewSith · 2013-02-20, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by RoninOni

How many tank haters in here use MBT's?

You know they've extended the CD on them right?

Destroy a tank and it ain't comin back for several minutes at the earliest.

I've seen huge waves of tanks smash against rocket spam, or collide with each other...

The tanks don't keep coming indefinitely...

Lovely necro...

...and, I do drive an MBT sometimes and I still think this:

is utter bullshit. A president earns 1 gazillion dollars. Billy Bob earns 1 dollar. Their average income is 0.5 gazillion dollars and 50 cents. Seems legit.

Tanks smashing against rocketspam is the only true thing that happens that I would accept as a valid point. And that is only true until the vehicular whiners get their long-desired Annihilator nerf. Then it's going to be tanks tanks rocketpods and tanks all over again.

Tanks smashing against tanks is as same as saying that Tank Buster Liberators kill Liberators, so Liberators anti-infantry capabilities are balanced.

Badjuju · 2013-02-20, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

There, I said it. I know I will get fried for it in this forum, that recently seems to be "hijacked by drama queens" that only see doom for this game, so let the flaming begin.

The promise of this game is that size matters. It's the sheer scale that makes me having a blast every day I play it. Seeing my screen filled up with endless armor columns and huge swarms of air puts a big smile on my face every time. It makes me feel being part of a big war.
I also love the power this game is giving me. I can be anything at any time with almost no restriction. If a situation demands for it, I can instantly switch to the appropriate class or vehicle to handle the situation. It's this freedom that gives me a lot of joy in this game.

Lately, I'm reading a lot of suggestions that want to limit my power and freedom or want to turn this game into a small scale tactical shooter. Screw that, it's not what I signed up for in this game.

You can still have a very strategic game without limiting peoples ability to do whatever they want. Limiting vehicle spam (increasing timers and costs, etc.) is a solution to the wrong problem. Instead, the game should focus on giving me more power to fight vehicle spam: better launchers, deployable AV and AA turrets, artillery call-ins, etc.

I will probably not make myself popular by promoting vehicle spam but I truly see it as the essence of this game, so it's time to stand up and voice a different opinion.

Most people who complain about vehicle spam don't want the game to be a small scale shooter. You are miss understanding. They want the game to be more like PS1, where vehicles play a strong support role and are not the primary force.

Currently you'll see 50+ tanks roll up to a point and almost no infantry. A few people exit vehicles to cap and that is it. With how powerful tanks are you may as well just remove the infantry class completely in these situations.

In PS1 you would see well over 100 infantry pressing and maybe 20 tanks. Tanks were also much more resilient and faster then. They could be more powerful because there were not as many on the battle field. It provided a much more balanced battle field and immensely better fights.

Right now the game is nothing but vehicle zergs. Vehicle zergs are only fun for some dedicated tank drivers. Many dedicated drivers I know don't even enjoy the zergs because they find it boring. It is misserable for infantry. I have seen countless people quit because of this. Many battles simply don't feel like battles at all. The larger force rolls in and instantly wipes out the smaller force with little to no fight, just spawn camping.

Another sour aspect of this is that vehicles just don't matter. They die instantly and then you typically go right back to a terminal and pop out another. In PS1, restrictions made you protect your vehicle. However they were much more beastly between the armor, speed, and more open continents. This allowed you to keep your vehicle up for much longer.

The fact is that PS1 had immensely better battles than PS2 has had yet. There are a multitude of factors for this. Map design (funneling players and lack of infantry cover), difference in cert system + lack of dedicated drivers = vehicle spam, base design, and non-dynamic capture system are some of the primary culprits. I'll admit i was down with the 1 man MBTs initially, but with what it has done to the meta game + how effective lightnings are this time around they should have required dedicated tank drivers, gave them more armor, and given drivers more xp per kill(driver assist) than the gunners. Both solo drivers and people who want to work as a team could have been happy. (you would increase lighting armor to most likely).

BTW I often find myself in a tank despite preferring to be a dedicated infantry member because there is just nothing for me to do as infantry aside from dodging tank rounds.

So yea, I would prefer 200 infantry and 50 strong tanks as apposed to 100 weak tanks and 20 infantry in any battle any day. Or at least make an environment where infantry can excel instead of being farmed all day. More open maps with increased cover (where the hell are all the trees?), defensible bases, actual interiors to bases with objects within them. Huts in a court yard is just lame.

Rolfski · 2013-02-20, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Badjuju

Most people who complain about vehicle spam don't want the game to be a small scale shooter. You are miss understanding. They want the game to be more like PS1, where vehicles play a strong support role and are not the primary force.

Not sure why this 1,5 month old topic got digged up again (infantry play has in the meanwhile changed for the better) but I kinda lost interest in your argument right after "They want the game to be more like PS1".

As is said a trillion times, this is a different Planetside: different times, different market, different audience, different business model, different development process, different mechanics, different engine, different dev team, different everything.

If you do not want to deal with this reality and keep asking for a PS 1.5 than I suggest you uninstall this game and check back in maybe a year or so. Although chances are you will never like this game so maybe don't bother installing it ever again.

Babyfark McGeez · 2013-02-20, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

...
As is said a trillion times, this is a different Planetside: different times, different market, different audience, different business model, different development process, different mechanics, different engine, different dev team, different everything.
...

Unfortunately different in this case also means setting us back several years in terms of FPS innovation. And ignoring all the potential PS2 has in order to make it not-so-different from any other popular shooter/MMO (not to mention ignoring all the stuff from PS1 that would improve this game).

You know, i'm at a point where i think they might aswell slap a different name on this game to avoid confusion and let someone else bring the genre forward.

"Michael Bay Simulator" maybe. Or "The Crown Online". "Grindside" would work too.

/rant

SturmovikDrakon · 2013-02-20, 10:59 PM

I'll tell you how to balance it out

Multi-crew MBTs

More personnel required, less but more durable tanks

/thread

Rolfski · 2013-02-20, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by Babyfark McGeez

Unfortunately different in this case also means setting us back several years in terms of FPS innovation. And ignoring all the potential PS2 has in order to make it not-so-different from any other popular shooter/MMO (not to mention ignoring all the stuff from PS1 that would improve this game).

You know, i'm at a point where i think they might aswell slap a different name on this game to avoid confusion and let someone else bring the genre forward.

"Michael Bay Simulator" maybe. Or "The Crown Online". "Grindside" would work too.

/rant

Yeah, yeah, we get it, PS2 is all dumbed down and a missed opportunity. So really, which part of PS2 is a different game did you not understand? The business strategy? What if it is SUPPOSED to be a dumped down game? A bare bone BF3 on crack to be developed over time, targeted initially at a more casual audience?
An audience that doesn't necessarily want to be bothered with uber complex game mechanics and is used to switch classes/pull vehicles whenever they want that they can drive and shoot themselves?

It's time for your wake-up call buddy because although SOE will never admit it, you are NOT the primary target audience for this game at launch. The BF3 crowd is. Deal with the reality.

Having said this, I can't blame you and some of the other PS1 vets for the distorted reality you seemed to be stuck in about this game. SOE has never done a proper job of explaining their business strategy to you which is a shame, really. PS1 vets are the most loyal fans, they deserve to be told the truth and I personally blame John Smedley for not doing a better job at this. It also would have saved a shitload of endless discussions like this one.