Key Parts of PS1 Vehicle Combat Missing from PS2 - Page 5

Azren · 2011-09-23, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by Missunadztood

What we've all got to remember is SOE are trying to attract new players to the game, and the majority will most probably come from a BF2/COD backgrounds. These games are attractive to these people for a reason!

Unfortunaltey if they soley concentrated on the existing gamer base (whilst important to consider suggestions from them) PS2 would turn out a failure just as PS1 did.

If SOE offers the same or similar to what BF/COD offers, those very same players will leave the second a shiny new BF/COD hits the market. If SOE wants to be smart about this, it would offer anything, but BF/COD mechanics.

Missundaztood · 2011-09-23, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by Azren

If SOE offers the same or similar to what BF/COD offers, those very same players will leave the second a shiny new BF/COD hits the market. If SOE wants to be smart about this, it would offer anything, but BF/COD mechanics.

Not necceasrily, PS2 will have far more depth and longevity than any current BF2/COD setup has. Character progression is where its at these days! COD/BF2 offers this on a limited basis but no way near the level PS2 will be on. I think in the end these games will strive towards a similar Planetside model.

therefore....

I actually think SOE are being clever in that they are tapping into a market that has not yet reached its full potential. Why play COD/BF2 when you can play a game similar in some respects but can offer you so much more?

They really need to market it properly, sod everything else, game mecahnics etc if theres a poor marketing campaign PS2 will fall flat on its arse!

**Malorn** · 2011-09-23, 02:57 AM

I was incorrect in stating that the lightning was confirmed.

That is an assumption based on the obvious overlap between the lightning and a 1-man MBT. The MBT is better in every way other than having a 12mm gun, which seems like a minor loss next to more armor and a far stronger main gun. With tech no longer required to get a MBT and no resource cost (and no need since you aren't running a gunner), the Lightning is obsolete.

I'd be shocked if it was in the plan given the current design facts.

Kurtz · 2011-09-23, 10:50 AM

I agree that it is smart of SOE to incorporate elements of BF/COD game style in order to beat those franchises to the punch.

I am for most of the changes they have implemented, but am cautious that combined they may create another completely different experience. We are all hoping to recreate those memories from long ago.

I have been pointing the guys at DICE to this game for a long time and was actually really disappointed that BF3 wasn't an MMOFPS. But luckily there is PS2.

Raymac · 2011-09-23, 11:14 AM

I know BF and COD are the big kids on the block and the obvious target, but there are a crap ton of other current fps games out there right now and coming soon that have many similarities. It's a genre. That's how it works. PS2 is probably going to have some similarities to Castle Wolfenstein and Goldeneye. "OMFG PS2 is on another planet? Doom clone."

Talek Krell · 2011-09-23, 11:18 AM

Similarity may be inevitable but I haven't heard the devs say that they really love Doom and are trying to take a lot of design lessons from it.

basti · 2011-09-23, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Raymac

I know BF and COD are the big kids on the block and the obvious target, but there are a crap ton of other current fps games out there right now and coming soon that have many similarities. It's a genre. That's how it works. PS2 is probably going to have some similarities to Castle Wolfenstein and Goldeneye. "OMFG PS2 is on another planet? Doom clone."

We should make a silly list of silly things that could make PS2 a silly close of some other silly game, just for the heck of it.

Like "It got a skybox, OMG EVERYTHING CLONE!"
It has shields OMG HALO CLONE!
It has tanks OMG BF CLONE!
It has a continent named Searhus OMG PLANETSIDE CLONE!
Wait, what?

Raymac · 2011-09-23, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

Similarity may be inevitable but I haven't heard the devs say that they really love Doom and are trying to take a lot of design lessons from it.

Because the game is older than time. Can you imagine the conniption fit these forums would have if they referred to something as ancient as Doom? I was making a point that either went over your head (not likely, you're smart) or you're kinda trollin.

EDIT: And Basti, it's funny you say that because when the teaser was first released on youtube, the comments were all "pffft Halo clone". haha

Talek Krell · 2011-09-23, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by basti

We should make a silly list of silly things that could make PS2 a silly close of some other silly game, just for the heck of it.

These feet are clearly a knockoff of Beyond Good & Evil.

NapalmEnima · 2011-09-23, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

I was incorrect in stating that the lightning was confirmed.

I suspect you're incorrect about a great many things.

Originally Posted by Malorn

That is an assumption based on the obvious overlap between the lightning and a 1-man MBT.

They're not one man MBTs. They're two seaters. Bigger. Slower. More armor. Heavier weapons.

In order to deal with infantry (give some half-decent cover) and air-to-ground, they will REQUIRE a gunner.

You keep shrieking out that the sky is falling, but I don't even see an acorn.

Originally Posted by Malorn

The MBT is better in every way other than having a 12mm gun, which seems like a minor loss next to more armor and a far stronger main gun. With tech no longer required to get a MBT and no resource cost (and no need since you aren't running a gunner), the Lightning is obsolete.

I'd be shocked if it was in the plan given the current design facts.

You're ignoring several important points.

1) Probable unlock tree. Like PS1, the lightning will probably be required before you can have access to tanks. We don't know that, but it's not a big stretch.
2) Speed and maneuverability. Lightning > MBT. Potentially by a huge margin depending on how they're spec'ed out. One person who wants A-to-B transportation and wants some armor/weaponry wrapped around them will take a lightning over an MBT unless they know they're going to run into other MBTs.
3) Independence. A Lightning isn't Just Fucked when the air and infantry show up. Oh, they're probably fucked when a reaver shows up (given my repeated experience with PS1), but they can in fact fight back, and have a shot at victory, however unlikely it might be. MBT vs A2G-> Just Fucked.

4) Packs of lightnings are FUN. A lightning squad can do pretty well against anything it runs into, even MBTs with the right terrain.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that many of the secondaries from the MBTs make appearances as the primaries on the lightning, though scaled down a bit.

Baron · 2011-09-23, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by NapalmEnima

I suspect you're incorrect about a great many things.

You're ignoring several important points.

Maybe use "perhaps you have over looked several important points" ? No need to be passive-aggressive man, we are just discussing.

Originally Posted by NapalmEnima

1) Probable unlock tree. Like PS1, the lightning will probably be required before you can have access to tanks. We don't know that, but it's not a big stretch.
2) Speed and maneuverability. Lightning > MBT. Potentially by a huge margin depending on how they're spec'ed out. One person who wants A-to-B transportation and wants some armor/weaponry wrapped around them will take a lightning over an MBT unless they know they're going to run into other MBTs.
3) Independence. A Lightning isn't Just Fucked when the air and infantry show up. Oh, they're probably fucked when a reaver shows up (given my repeated experience with PS1), but they can in fact fight back, and have a shot at victory, however unlikely it might be. MBT vs A2G-> Just Fucked.

4) Packs of lightnings are FUN. A lightning squad can do pretty well against anything it runs into, even MBTs with the right terrain.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that many of the secondaries from the MBTs make appearances as the primaries on the lightning, though scaled down a bit.

Those points are valid and indeed very reasonable. However if you can control your own main weapon on a MBT, the lightning will become even less of a presence on the battlefield. It will be a quick stepping stone to the MBT cert and most likely never be used by that player again (unless there are base requirements or some special outfit event).

Talek Krell · 2011-09-23, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

I was making a point that either went over your head (not likely, you're smart) or you're kinda trollin.

I think I just don't understand the complaint. Like you said BF and COD are current and well known so they're good references. The devs have stated that they're pulling a lot of inspiration from Battlefield, and many of the changes they've shown us lean heavily toward that style of gameplay. People could and have formed coherent arguments that they're leaning closer to it than they ought to, so the accusation of it being a "BF clone" seems logical enough, if a little alarmist.

Raymac · 2011-09-23, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

I think I just don't understand the complaint. Like you said BF and COD are current and well known so they're good references. The devs have stated that they're pulling a lot of inspiration from Battlefield, and many of the changes they've shown us lean heavily toward that style of gameplay. People could and have formed coherent arguments that they're leaning closer to it than they ought to, so the accusation of it being a "BF clone" seems logical enough, if a little alarmist.

I see what you are saying, and I actually think I understand your point of view alot better. I agree with what you said there to a point. I think part of the issue with the devs repeatedly referring to BF is that we are running into this "tastes like chicken" perception. Of course everything doesn't taste like chicken, but we all know what chicken tastes like so when you are describing something new that tastes similar to chicken, you'll say it tastes like chicken. That doesn't mean it tastes exactly like chicken, but we are limited by our frame of reference.

Most of us know how BF plays, so it's a good frame of reference, but PS2 will obviously have its own flavor.

Also, I extremely appreciate your tone. I was getting a little snippy and bitchy, and you took the high road and kept the tone civil, so thank you very much.

Talek Krell · 2011-09-23, 07:08 PM

Ok, I think I understand what you mean now and I can't really fault you for it. Speaking for myself, at least, I don't expect that Planetside 2 will ever degrade into an actual Battlefield ripoff. Even if the only thing they took from Planetside was the scale it would still be pretty unique. My only real worry is that they may change enough of the original flavor that game just doesn't taste the way I'd hoped.

BorisBlade · 2011-09-23, 09:42 PM

When BFR's first came out i was all for adding weapon slot customization to vehicles. But as I began to think about it, I realized that you end up with bland vehicles and gameplay. One vehicle can equip a weapon for any situation then you only see that vehicle.

I think its more fitting to allow for tweaks or upgrades to the current weapons/role of a vehicle but not changing its role such as allowing for a buggy to have AA, unless its a skyguard. Yes it can get a 15mm or whatever that does ok, but its no where near as good as flak. Same with a tank, it has its AV, and its AI sidegun. But it stays out of the heavy AA department and no grenade/mortal style guns. Just tweaks and upgrades to its given role. If you want AA, you get the skyguard, if you want AV/armor you get the tank. Buggies tho could have two versions, AI and AV, because they fill a different role than tanks, much less armor, but much faster and more maneuverable. This allow for the introduction of new vehicles to fit various niches or roles. If you can change up weapons too much like they talk about, you really dont need new stuff. And thats boring.

Having vehicles more limited also allows for much cooler stuff for specialization. Buggies with a turbo button to help with hit and run, maybe a salvo mode to hit hard then run. And so forth with all vehicles.

And again we gotta have pilots not be gunners unless its a small vehicle like a lightning. The gameplay should focus on teamwork. If we are gonna have 1500-2000 people, you should be focusing on gettin them to work together. PS1 had the best core vehicle design i ever saw in a game. It was awesome. (and btw no he didnt mention lettin us have ps1 style "pilot only" option, he said maybe you could pilot and use teh secondary gun with someone else on the main, still a bad idea but better) The devs must learn what really made PS memorable. You never hear stories about vehicle fights in BF and how you had a ton of fun with friends for hours. Those vehicles, much like the PS2 tank design, are just buffs for solo players. They dont feel like vehicles. You dont get that epic feel when you drive and gun and go all rambo style alone. You feel disconnected. I want to feel part of my empire, have my friends gunning away while i focus on my skills as a driver. These vehicles must be redesigned. Its central to the gameplay of PS and its epic feel and its community that it creates.

If you want to cater to casual friendless tards, then design a lightning for em, let em use a reaver, but give the rest of us who play a massively MULTIPLAYER game, actually play with our friends and work as a team. And maybe you can cater to those of us who want that, and who want to specialize in being a driver.

One reason they dont have buggies, the fail solo style vehicles dont work well with fast hit and run vehicles like buggies. You gotta have two people with one being a focused pilot only. But doin that makes you feel gimp next to rambo solo'n with his tank buff and you wonder why you even got the buggy in the first place.

I have been playing PS lately with some friends for several months, and 98% of the time outdoors im driving a vehicle, i rarely gun. I was excited as all hell to see i could upgrade and specialize my vehicles to support my crew. Finding out PS2 is all about being selfish turned me off to vehicles completely. And after speaking with friends this seems to be a huge deal to them, turned quite a few of em off to the game with that news. Lets rethink this and get it right. Its the teamwork that makes it different and fun, not the solo aspects, any game can do solo (and most do).