Key Parts of PS1 Vehicle Combat Missing from PS2 - Page 3

**Malorn** · 2011-09-22, 04:23 PM

"Buggies on list of things to put in, hopefully"

If buggies were a vital part of the vehicle balance, they wouldn't "hopefully" make it in -they would be must-haves for the game.

This statement means...

1) Buggies are not in.
2) Buggies are not must-have for launch.
3) Buggies have functional replacements in the game.

On the third part we know that at least 2 functions of buggies have been specifically named:

- Mortar for Tanks => Marauder Ground Pounder
- Flak gun for Tanks => Skyguard

"secondary guns are no joke"

It' pretty obvious that buggies are not in, might not get in, and their weapon systems and role have functional replacements in-game in the form of upgradable tanks.

There is no skyguard. Instead you have a tank with an upgradable secondary weapon system that you can convert into a flak cannon.

There is no marauder. Instead you have a tank with an upgradable secondary weapon system that you can convert into a ground pounder.

I suspect there is also a weapon system that replaces the enforcer rocket and probably the thresher flux cannon also.

I would also suspect that via upgrades to your tank you could make it faster and more maneuverable, almost like a buggy, possibly even with armor tradeoffs.

As far as I can tell they basically have a single key ground vehicle that can be upgraded and converted to fit all main battlefield needs. The two notable exceptions would be transportation (Sundy), mobile spawn point (AMS), and fast personal transportation (ATV).

Sirisian · 2011-09-22, 04:40 PM

I agree with Napalm's points. You're really reaching to make your arguments. Your assumptions about the role of vehicles in PS2 is mostly based on an argument that a vehicle used by one person isn't as a good as a system of mandatory teamwork.

You're also making assumptions about balance since you want this system to be like BF. Chances are it's not going to be exactly like that. I imagine it's still going to take a few passes from a Reaver/Bomber and a lot of hits from tank to kill another tank. (Picture long range battles on an open field where tanks are trading shells back and forth).

Originally Posted by Malorn

In PS1 we had a variety of vehicles and a paper-rock-scissors balancing mechanism to them. We also had a "1+1=3" principle where multi-manned vehicles had a lot more power than single-manned vehicles.

meh, the PS1 system was more Driver + Gunner = 1 AV Gun

New system is Driver + Gunner = 1 AV Gun + 1 AA/AI Gun.

The original system was the "bland gameplay". When you had 10 people you had 5ish tanks and 5 people gunning. You really needed to enjoy driving to assist players. For me it was dull. I don't play an FPS game to assist a player for hours. I need to shoot a gun. The new system has 10 people with either 5-10 tanks depending on the amount of AV needed. 10 AV only tanks is going to get destroyed by AV infantry, Reavers, and Bombers.

The goal will be to keep tanks to open areas fighting other tanks which is how I believe tanks should be used. If they roll into an infantry area with rocks they're silly AV cannon with what I can only imagine is a slower fire rate than before will leave them dead.

**Malorn** · 2011-09-22, 04:58 PM

Sirisian doesn't agree. Didn't see that coming.

Baron · 2011-09-22, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I agree with Napalm's points. You're really reaching to make your arguments...

Actually given what information we know, Malorn isn't "reaching"... it's fairly good reasoning. Again, with what information we have.

Hamma · 2011-09-22, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Sirisian doesn't agree. Didn't see that coming.

I just went through Bags' Q&A doc, the info thread, and her lunch interview summary. No mention of the lightning at all, one way or the other. That does NOT mean there will be no lightning in PS2.

Bags is female?

FIREk · 2011-09-22, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

meh, the PS1 system was more Driver + Gunner = 1 AV Gun

New system is Driver + Gunner = 1 AV Gun + 1 AA/AI Gun.

The original system was the "bland gameplay". When you had 10 people you had 5ish tanks and 5 people gunning. You really needed to enjoy driving to assist players. For me it was dull. I don't play an FPS game to assist a player for hours. I need to shoot a gun. The new system has 10 people with either 5-10 tanks depending on the amount of AV needed. 10 AV only tanks is going to get destroyed by AV infantry, Reavers, and Bombers.

This makes a ton of sense, really.

There is one point of concern, still. Even if tanks will mostly be manned by 2 people (which is reasonable, since there are benefits to manning a comparably weak gun, but still superior to infantry weapons), will tanks' survivability be balanced around it being a 2-person or 1-person vehicle?
If it's the former, it's reasonable to expect higher survivability from tanks. If it's the latter, tanks will likely be as fragile as those in BFBC2.
I would prefer the former, even if it made my job as an AV trooper more difficult..

For this reason, a tank should always need 2 people to operate it, both with something with which to shoot stuff. This doesn't force the devs to gimp its armor (either before launch, or post-launch after tons of forum whining) to compensate for the possibility of it being a reasonably successful solo vehicle.
And yes, I'm very stubborn with my secondary-gun-for-the-driver concept.

Accuser · 2011-09-22, 05:20 PM

Fully support everything Malorn has said. I see all the little zerglings taking a one-man tank into battle, with the vets and team players rolling tank+AA. People who take out reavers or fighters will quickly learn to stay away from the "no joke" AA within the mixed tank columns. So assuming that only one class has AV, and that 1 tank > 1 AV guy... why would you see anything else out in the field?

By the way, they're welcome to clone the Battlefield aiming system. The "no moving hindrance and minimal accuracy hindrance for moving" system of PS1 was crap.

**Malorn** · 2011-09-22, 05:30 PM

The new empire-specific fighters might also change the AA landscape quite a bit.

I expect MAX will have customization allowing them an AA option. I believe the reddit Q&A had Higby stating that there will be viable Infantry AA as well, so tanks may not require all that much AA to be effective.

I can also see solo-tankers running around with no gunner & an AA config. When Air shows up they stop, hop out and into the gunner seat and become an armored stationary "no joke" AA gun. People have done it for years with the Skyguard, so its fair to say we'll see it with tanks in PS2 as well.

Also, the main gun on tanks is not just AV - it's AI also. The only thing you can't effectively kill with it is aircraft (unless they fly low and slow/hover giving you a good shot) thus the default secondary config will be AA.

Sirisian · 2011-09-22, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by FIREk

There is one point of concern, still. Even if tanks will mostly be manned by 2 people (which is reasonable, since there are benefits to manning a comparably weak gun, but still superior to infantry weapons), will tanks' survivability be balanced around it being a 2-person or 1-person vehicle?
If it's the former, it's reasonable to expect higher survivability from tanks. If it's the latter, tanks will likely be as fragile as those in BFBC2.
I would prefer the former, even if it made my job as an AV trooper more difficult.

I'm hoping it's balanced as a 2 person vehicle. That is it has a high armor value so that they're not easy kills for Reavers or Bombers. I'd hate to be using a liberator by myself (without a secondary tailgunner) and make a single one-hit dive bomb on a tank. I'm more of a fan of focused fire to destroy tanks.

Then again I'm in the camp that likes high TTKs so vehicle combat should give players a lot of choices when getting attacked rather than just giving up. Even the BF2142 tanks had a momentary shield to give players more choices. I know PS2 isn't going to do this, but imagine if tanks had straight up upgrades to add canister smoke grenades like the one's on real tanks.

That or stealth modules for momentary cloaking of large vehicles. Anything to increase the complexity of a battle.

moosepoop · 2011-09-22, 05:34 PM

since bad company 2 had tank smoke grenades, smedly prolly will want it added in.

NapalmEnima · 2011-09-22, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

If buggies were a vital part of the vehicle balance, they wouldn't "hopefully" make it in -they would be must-haves for the game.

This statement means...

1) Buggies are not in.
2) Buggies are not must-have for launch.

With you so far...

Originally Posted by Malorn

3) Buggies have functional replacements in the game.

...and there we part ways. The eventual balance they're going for isn't necessarily what we'll see at launch.

Originally Posted by Malorn

On the third part we know that at least 2 functions of buggies have been specifically named:

- Mortar for Tanks => Marauder Ground Pounder
- Flak gun for Tanks => Skyguard

Err, no. I must disagree. The ground pounder was a grenade launcher: direct fire small AOE weapons with a relatively high rate of fire. Mortars are indirect-fire Really Big Shells with a relatively slow rate of fire.

Not the same thing at all.

Not so sure I agree with the "skyguard/tank flak" thing either, though its not so cut and dried.

Originally Posted by Malorn

"secondary guns are no joke"

It' pretty obvious that buggies are not in, might not get in, and their weapon systems and role have functional replacements in-game in the form of upgradable tanks.

It sounds to me like just about every weapon platform in the game is going to have a variety of weapons it can take.

Originally Posted by Malorn

There is no skyguard. Instead you have a tank with an upgradable secondary weapon system that you can convert into a flak cannon.

There is no marauder. Instead you have a tank with an upgradable secondary weapon system that you can convert into a ground pounder.

The PS1 Marauder is empire specific. Arguing that it's Role is now filled elsewhere has a serious flaw in that this role didn't exist in 2 of the empires.

The skyguard is far from the only AA option in PS1. It's not even the only Flak gun, particularly now. There was always the TR AA Max, now there's a base turret upgrade and a deployable as well.

It's the only dedicated AA vehicle in PS1. Fine. Yes, there are other vehicles that will be AA capable in PS2.

Originally Posted by Malorn

I suspect there is also a weapon system that replaces the enforcer rocket and probably the thresher flux cannon also.

I would also suspect that via upgrades to your tank you could make it faster and more maneuverable, almost like a buggy, possibly even with armor tradeoffs.

Could be. We don't know that either. I suspect the customization won't be able to take a tank quite that far, but it remains to be seen.

Originally Posted by Malorn

As far as I can tell they basically have a single key ground vehicle that can be upgraded and converted to fit all main battlefield needs. The two notable exceptions would be transportation (Sundy), mobile spawn point (AMS), and fast personal transportation (ATV).

And where did you get the idea that the ATV was in. I haven't seen that anywhere either.

I also noticed you didn't give any sort of answer to my "where did you get the 'no lightning'" thing. If you just misread something, please say so. If you can cite something, please do.

Goku · 2011-09-22, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Hamma

Bags is female?

That would be news to me as well. Explains the ponies perhaps? lol

NapalmEnima · 2011-09-22, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Goku

That would be news to me as well. Explains the ponies perhaps? lol

Not sure where I picked up that impression. Must be the ponies.

**Malorn** · 2011-09-22, 06:02 PM

Enima, if you don't see how a flak cannon on a tank is a functional role replacement of a skyguard I don't know what to tell you. I don't agree with your nitpicking and I'm not going to write long point-counter-point quote chains arguing it. I just don't care enough. I think I made my point and I'll let other readers be the judge on whether it is worth further discussion.

FIREk · 2011-09-22, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I'm hoping it's balanced as a 2 person vehicle. That is it has a high armor value so that they're not easy kills for Reavers or Bombers. I'd hate to be using a liberator by myself (without a secondary tailgunner) and make a single one-hit dive bomb on a tank. I'm more of a fan of focused fire to destroy tanks.

Well, it all depends on how much skill is put into the dive bomb.

Back when I played BF1942, I was an epic-level fighter pilot (no idea where that air combat skill went over the years, though

). While tanks normally needed to bombs to blow up, I could often one-shot (one-drop?) a Tiger/M10 with just one bomb.
I would dive in and, just as I pulled up, I would release the bomb so that it would fly at a relatively flat angle, practically flying sideways into the side or rear armor. Bam!

I think that, just as a skilled sniper will (hopefully!) be able to one-shot non-MAX infantry with a headshot, the game should also reward bomber pilots for making tricky dive bombing runs.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Then again I'm in the camp that likes high TTKs so vehicle combat should give players a lot of choices when getting attacked rather than just giving up.

I understand what you're getting at, however I'm in the camp that likes short TTKs, so vehicle combat, while giving players many choices, forces them to make those choices really, really fast.

Also, smoke grenades are teh shit - I definitely want them to be in the game.