Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Mosquitos with machine guns? :scared:
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
2011-09-27, 12:10 PM | [Ignore Me] #241 | |||||||
BUT, by the same token, you're forgetting the scenario where the 2-seater blows right past the two 1-seaters, giving its turret a free shot at one of their back-sides. This just might be a 1-shot kill, we don't know yet. And while the remaining two tanks are turning towards each other, the AV turret will probably get at least one more free shot on the side armor. Ass-u-me-tions: All three tanks get two shots off before the 2-seater passes the two 1-seaters. Side shots do double damage rear shots do x5 (insta kill) damage. When the 2-seater passes the 2 1-seaters, it will have taken 80 damage. 1 of the 1-seaters will also have taken 80 damage. Now the turret gun puts a kill shot into the rear of the undamaged tank, killing it. While the other one-seater is turning around, the gunner gets another shot at the side armor of the remaining tank, killing it as well. Now that's a lot of "if"s and "maybe"s. But it is theoretically possible to create scenarios with numbers just as made-up as yours where a 2-seater comes out on top in straight up AV damage. So its not all cut and dried, and in general the 2 tanks will be more survivable given straight-up direct damage G2G AV weapons... which is precisely why I suspect turret AV weaponry to be DIFFERENT.
Funky Weapons might open up strategic possibilities that simply aren't possible with the main guns. Shield leeches, immobilizers, blinders, indirect fire weapons. Under the right circumstances a secondary weapon that was nothing but a targeting laser might be vastly superior to any single weapon a tank might carry, if only because there's several weapons of similar power at the ready waiting for a target.
Further, the ability to not charge in headlong means you have a better chance at dodging shots entirely. The downside being shots that do land might not hit your frontal armor (ouchy).
If a "secondary" AV does twice as much AV damage as the main gun, then straight up slugging matches are even. If they are superior in specific situations (front loaded damage, remove options from the enemy), then the smart players will work to create those situations and kick the crap out of the Derps in the 1-seaters. You can make A2G accessible enough that 1-seater tanks are just wheat to be mowed, with a survival time of 10 seconds outside air cover. Your "just pull two tanks" argument also rests on the ability of both players being able to pull two tanks. There's going to be lots of other stuff to spend time and resources on. A specialized tanker might have a specialized engineer as a gunner. What if that engineer has a cert that lets them passively repair the vehicle they're in? Or boost its shields? AND boost its shields? Given some prep time and CE, the enemy's "quick charge to an exposed flank" turns into "a dead tank in the middle of a mine field". Lots of balancing options. You either don't want to see them because you hate the idea of 1-seater MBT existing, or you're just not bright enough to figure it out. I'll be kind and assume you're emotional rather than stupid. Or I'm wrong. It happens. But not very often. |
||||||||
|
2011-09-27, 12:52 PM | [Ignore Me] #242 | |||
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
|
|||
|
2011-09-27, 03:03 PM | [Ignore Me] #243 | ||
Some upgrades may have a large one-time cost to unlock while others need to be paid every time you install them. I suspect that the MBTs themselves will need to be unlocked with a fairly large resource price tag.
But we don't know that they're available in a freshly created character. I suspect not. Something one could earn with a couple hours dedicated to it, but there will be Many Other Things that are shiny and interesting too. I disagree, and you're welcome. The only thing that'll settle this one way or the other is Word From On High (or beta, where we can see for ourselves). We could ask TRay on Thursday's twitter chat. He might even tell us. |
|||
|
2011-09-27, 04:48 PM | [Ignore Me] #244 | |||
Contributor Major
|
They're not meant to be a unique gameplay experience that requires coordination with others to be even fundamentally effective, offering solid performance, stand-out power, and a rewarding experience when you do so, as they were in PS1. It's just another set of equipment. A MAX on wheels, if you will. |
|||
|
2011-09-27, 04:49 PM | [Ignore Me] #245 | ||
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
Any sort of one-time cost, unless it is massive (takes more than a few days), will have little to no impact on the prevalence of vehicles we see. It will affect what you see on Day 1, but after a week or two zero impact.
If a 1-man tank is an effective killing machine then we will see a lot of them. If it isn't an effective killing machine then they'll be buffed until they are, otherwise you won't see many tanks at all. |
||
|
2011-09-27, 07:34 PM | [Ignore Me] #247 | ||
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
I want 2-man vehicles to reward teamwork and recognize the added risk and complexity in requiring 2 players to effectively run a vehicle. 1+1=3, that's the rough power translation. A 2 man vehicle should be 3x more effective at its role than a 1 man vehicle. Otherwise its more effective to just spam 1-man vehicles.
I am fine with 1 man vehicles, but you should get what you pay for. Lightning was a good balance with MBTs of PS1. Lighting was a 1-man tank, and if you knew how to drive it well you could do some great things. But it died pretty easily to a vanguard, mag, or prowler. That was the reward for teamwork. If you want deathmatch Call of Duty is there for you. A great part of Planetsides epic feel and appeal is teamwork vehicles. Seeing those replaced by killwhore CoD/BF-style vehicles is not a good direction. |
||
|
2011-09-28, 02:54 AM | [Ignore Me] #248 | |||||
Sergeant Major
|
Seriously, balancing based on very specific scenarios is impossible, these are things that you make tactics based off, not what to look at while setting up core gameplay.
Don't try to defend this concept, it was spawned from the same mindsat as jatpacks. In an interview they said something along the lines of "everybody loves jatpacks, so we added them. Appearently PS players are the only breed who don't...". Same thing here, "everybody loves running around with tanks and shooting it's BIG guns, so we made them solo vehicles. Apperently PS players are the only breed who don't..." It is a failed concept stolen from other, short term FPS games like the CoD and BF series, not something to defend or support by any means (if you want this game to last long, like PS 1 did that is) Last edited by Azren; 2011-09-28 at 02:57 AM. |
|||||
|
2011-09-28, 03:41 AM | [Ignore Me] #249 | ||
Captain
|
1) let's first play beta and discuss more about this.
2) we still cannot know if this will be able to be averted/changed before launch date. I'm personally a bit worried, though. 3) Devs plz chime in again and say some more about this. =) Last edited by cellinaire; 2011-09-28 at 03:47 AM. |
||
|
2011-09-28, 06:44 AM | [Ignore Me] #251 | ||
Sergeant Major
|
I'm afraid that is not good enough. This is a core gameplay issue, something that will not be changed after beta. They may remove/rebalance some guns, but this would take too much work. We need to make it clear to the devs that PS 1 style tanks are preferred, not the new nonsence concept.
The devs stated that beta will be a stress test mostly, basic gameplay will not be changed afterwards. Same with class system, anyone honestly thinks that it will be removed if we don't like it? It is a core part of the game by now, it would take too much redesigning to be changed, so it stays. |
||
|
2011-09-28, 09:09 AM | [Ignore Me] #252 | |||
Master Sergeant
|
|
|||
|
2011-09-28, 11:45 AM | [Ignore Me] #253 | |||
Captain
|
|
|||
|
2011-09-28, 03:26 PM | [Ignore Me] #255 | |||
Staff Sergeant
|
|
|||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|