Thoughts on the homogenezation of vehicles

[Death2All]

My friend and I were having a discussion about this earlier today. Just wondering what the the community's general consensus is on the homogenization of vehicles.


What do I mean by that? I mean how there's a huge decrease in the number of vehicles with independent roles, instead we're having a select few vehicles with multiple variable roles. For example, a Vanguard equip with AA guns now fills the void for a Skyguard.


The gripe I personally have with it, is that it sort of defeats the whole purpose of the the idea behind the whole "class system" idea. The idea that they implemented classes so that players could easily distinguish what an enemy is based solely on their appearance, I.E. a medic will have Crosses and a medic fanny pack and will be able to heal/revive people.

I think think it's a little odd that that concept is pretty much thrown out the door, since Tanks can fill multiple roles this time around and you'll never know what exactly it's equipped with.

In PS1 when you saw a Marauder you knew exactly what it was capable of based on which gunner seats were occupied. You knew that if it didn't have a gunner in the passenger (chain gun) spot and you were in an aircraft you'd have an easy kill because it couldn't defend itself. Vice versa, if it had a chaingun you knew to back off.

Also multiple vehicles with individual roles certainly added an increase in variety on the battlefield. I'm just saddened that we may only see Prowlers/Vanguards/Magriders on the battlefield, all spec'd differently, instead of seeing a bunch of different vehicles that could all fill the role.

I know I'm probably clinging onto PS1 desperately, and I know PS2 is far to along in it's development for this to be changed, but like I said, I was just curious what the general consensus is on Small number of vehicles that can fill multiple roles vs. Lot's of vehicles each with their independent role.




EDIT: Sorry, I wanted to add a "neutral/wait and see" option but I can't figure out how to edit the poll.

[noxious]

I like it. The new system rewards groups of players that gather intel and use ambiguity to sow uncertainty in the minds of the enemy. It ought to be akin to poker matches; perceptive individuals and groups that can read and deceive the enemy will do better than people who do not stop to think. It opens up another avenue for intelligence to trump raw skill.

[Malorn]

I voted that I like it, but mainly because there's no way to have rich customization without having some vehicles capable of multiple roles, at least to some extent. As long as any role-changing upgrades are visually easily distinguishable I think we're in good shape.

For example, it should be very obvious when a tank has its secondary gun upgraded and what that gun is. Same with lightning and galaxy and sunderer upgrades.

From what we saw in the PC gamer magazine with a magrider at different stages of upgrade, there are distinct visual appearance changes that accompany the upgrades, which is awesome.

As long as we can easily tell what's what and upgrades look distinct I think it's a good feature. Because customization is awesome, but not at the expense of intuitive gameplay.

[Shanesan]

In a technical aspect, there are less assets to load into memory, so you have a smaller usage footprint. This makes it so you can have larger battles.

I have a feeling this may have been a technical design choice.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Death2All

For example, a Vanguard equip with AA guns now fills the void for a Skyguard.

By this logic you can claim a sniper rifle and HA fulfill the same role, because they are both AI weapons.


Just because vehicles can outfit to combat certain classes of target better than others does not mean they must all be equally capable at all things. Tank AA may be better vs aircav, and lightning AA better vs libs, or maybe their ranges are different. Who knows.

[Death2All]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

By this logic you can claim a sniper rifle and HA fulfill the same role, because they are both AI weapons.


Just because vehicles can outfit to combat certain classes of target better than others does not mean they must all be equally capable at all things. Tank AA may be better vs aircav, and lightning AA better vs libs, or maybe their ranges are different. Who knows.

What? I don't see how you made that comparison.


Sniper Rifles are for long range combat, Heavy Assault is for medium-close range engagements. Totally different things.


The point was that a Tank actually is enveloping the role of the SG since there isn't a SG in PS2 and it now fills that role.

[Zekeen]

I think that it won't be a varying role, but a more capable at patching weaknesses only a little. I'm sure anti air mods on tanks will mostly just give it a bit of anti air defense at the reduction of some anti armor power, rather than completely rerouting it's abilities against tanks to be made for aircraft.

We also need to remember that the tanks, while the main cannon is directed by the driver, have a secondary gunner position. This probably is what most sidegrades will do. Changing out a top mounted anti infantry machine gun for a flak cannon, ect.

[Raymac]

All in all, I like it. We will still have a similar number of different vehicles as we did at the launch of PS1, but the deeper customization will really give you much more of a feeling of ownership over your vehicle. While there is something to be said about the point the OP makes about vehicle recognition, I see it as a net gain. Plus, it gives them room to add many more vehicles later to fill in small niches (like buggies) and after launch we are ALL going to be clamoring for more new content in every patch.

[Knocky]

It is fine for now. Your precious (and mine for that matter) Buggies are going to be released sometime after launch....and they had better float too!

[Sirisian]

I like it. It opens up a lot of options for players with each vehicle making it so that players aren't necessarily limited by their vehicle.

Also your post is mostly based around a general misconception that more choices automatically means less vehicles. There are hundreds of ways to implement AV, AI, and AA weapons. Just looking at AV alone you have rocket, lock-on missile, guided missile, MIRV rocket and with that you have AOE damage area, the type of damage (EMP, fragment, radius). Then on top of that you have rate of fire and accuracy modifiers and things like projectile velocity and drop. (Depending on if it's a rocket or a shell). Velocity could even increase over time. Needless to say AI and AA also have hundreds if not thousands of variables that can control their gameplay making them distinct. (As another example of AV remember the lancer's charge time? Another property to promote a unique weapon).

When you try to make broad statements like only one vehicle can perform AV or each vehicle can only do one of either AV, AI, or AV at a time you box yourself in design-wise. Start thinking about the hundreds of variables that control the weapon systems and how the vehicles maneuver and other things when considering if they are unique.

One of the big reasons I like this is that it allows players to customize vehicles and really make them their own. There's no vehicle that you choose to use that is inherently horrible at 2 things in the game. They might not be as great as other vehicles, but they're not completely bad. That and it opens up a lot of room to use resources.

[NewSith]

I actually like it. Where we lost our inventory metagame we obtained vehicle modification metagame.

[Boomzor]

I'm willing to see how the stuff we have now plays out before I start a rucus for more.
Keep in mind the skyguards were not in PS initially either (they came as a counter to and in the same update as the liberators if I recall right).

Tho in principle I'm all for variation, I like stuff that works even more.

[Warborn]

PS1 had a glut of useless vehicles nobody used other than as gimmicks because they were kinda fun to use now and then. There were too many vehicles without enough of defined roles.

I don't think how the PS2 vehicles are setup to work will become clear until we play the game. Reading that the lightning has AA, AI and AV weapon load-outs might be misleading, causing one to presume their AA, AI or AV capacity is basically the same as that of any other vehicle's. I'm not sure that'll be the case. At any rate, fewer stupid, pointless vehicles means less wasted effort on their part. That's a definite plus.

[Dir]

Originally Posted by Death2All

I know I'm probably clinging onto PS1 desperately, and I know PS2 is far to along in it's development for this to be changed, but like I said, I was just curious what the general consensus is on Small number of vehicles that can fill multiple roles vs. Lot's of vehicles each with their independent role.

I'm curious at what point in the PC/Console time line did this regression first start for the Battlefield series of games? Put in the hands of the PC modding communities vehicle models and variations increased many times such that it was possible for 32 players on either side to each have their own very different vehicle, variation and purpose and be completely interchangeable with their rivals. With each version of Battlefield on the way to a console release entire theatres of war disappeared or were extremely limited. A prop aircraft carrier...a couple tanks and helicopters. Eventually mod development was completely eliminated...what would have happened if DICE released their customary mod tools for BF3?...would the players have migrated back towards to their PC's and shelved their consoles if they were not able to keep up with the natural complexity that evolves from outside home PC based development?

The thing that scares me the most is how could limiting the number of vehicles, items and their various combinations make that game more compatible for either a current or near future gaming console? One with a keyboard and mouse but stagnant in upgrade-ability. Does making a game more diverse and sandbox-ish make it harder for console technology to keep up? Could “missions on rails” be conducted by current console technology on a limited scale? Perhaps within a hex? We are talking about a company that builds and designs consoles and their games...I find it hard to believe that it wasn't or isn't factored in directly to what PS2 is about to become. Is this a product of the times being dumbed down and developed on rails rather than making it a product that makes the times like PS1 did? PS1 had a treasure trove of vehicles and weaponry that seemed to get washed away much the same way it did in multiple titles that all ended up on consoles. Considering the raw computer power sitting on our desks with no sign of even slowing down in development and instantly upgradeable PS2 strikes me as being quite child like or even cosole-ish in nature?

We assume all our favorite vehicles will eventually make it back into the game but let us suppose for a moment that from day one they said you will see all your favorite vehicles return in PS2 plus the ability to customize each of them and give you to tools to even create some of your own...would you be in here complaining about that? Technical aspects asside from a creative point of view I prefer diversity...let the programmers figure out how to deliver it to our PC. Why should be have to miss having anything? My computer is 10x as powerful as the one I had in 2003 and my internet is 10x as fast ...is PS2 progress at all? It honestly feels like a throwback and we're so busy making excuses for it we don't see what's really going on.

Dir

[Rbstr]

Besides using homogenisation completely wrong, considering a given vehicle is going to have more diversity in set-up, compared to PS1's invariability.:

PS1 Launch vehicles that are "missing" entirely:
AMS
Ant
Deliverer
Harasser
3x Empire Buggies
Mosquito
reaver (the original forms of both of those, that is)

PS2 launch vehicles that weren't in PS1 launch
Liberator
3x Empire aircraft

So, we lost empire buggies, got empire aircraft. Lost one class of aircraft (I'd venture to say the mossy in its original form hasn't been replaced, but the reaver has), but gained bomber/gunship class.
Then we lost the AMS and ant, rendered redundant or unnecessary. And the harasser.

The only thing I find deficient is the Deliverer and/or the harasser/buggy type vehicle. I think a lighter weight infantry transport/fighting vehicle would be nice to have.

Otherwise, customisation replacing things like the skyguard isn't a big deal at all. Surely an anti-air lightning won't be much different from a PS2-adapted skyguard in application. Plus the skyguard wasn't a launch vehicle. Ps1 added many vehicles over its run, you can't really compare PS2 launch vehicle counts with the vehicle count built up over a couple years.