Gameplay: EMP's for our ATV's

blue oktyabr · 2012-06-20, 11:00 PM

Any individuals reading this who have ever played Command and Conquer 3, will be very familiar with some of the things they are about to read. These concepts have been undeniably formed from gameplay in C&C3 and information I've read about how EMP's worked in PS1.

I also would like to apologize in advance, as I am quite new to the Planetside community and lack first hand knowledge pertaining to PS1.

THE IDEA:
A tactical EMP burst which can be unlocked using certs for the ATV and activated while mounted, disabling electronics within a 15 meter radius* (size subject to change and may be increased using further certifications).

USE:
With this cert unlocked, an ATV driver could use his advantages of speed and manuverability to get in close to the enemy and activate his EMP gadget (wich would probably replace any mounted weapons on the vehicle).
Within its limited range, all:
-vehicles will be disabled, preventing them from firing, moving, and tracking*
-esplosives will be destroyed
-shields will be depleted, including Nanite Mesh Generators
-MAXes will be unable to fire or move*
-jetpacks will become nonoperational
-cloaking devices become nonoperational
-turrets, both manned and automated will also be unable to shoot or track

This would also affect the ATV and driver wich deployed the burst, and any allies within range.

PROS:
If this were added to the game it would introduce a whole slew of complex, and unique strategies which are currently unavailable in any other FPS. Few gaming moments compare to the gratification a NOD commander would get in C&C3 when they were able to get their Raider Buggy EMPs to connect with an enemy tank column. In PlanetSide 2, this addition would provide a high risk/reward gameplay mechanic which many gamers have come to enjoy (similar to the popularity of throwing C4 on a vehicle and running it into a mass of enemies in Battlefield).

Example of Raider Buggies in C&C3 (jump to 1:38):

Example of C4/ATV usage in Battlefield:

CONS:
This could be extremely irritating for the player who's vehicle has just been EMP'd. It could render the game quite frustrating to play if it becomes a heavily exploited trolling technique instead of a real strategy.

To combat this, the longevity of the EMP's effects should probably be limited to around 15 seconds (up for debate). Perhaps a reduction in this time for allied players might be considered as well. This would drastically reduce the amount of trolling which could be committed using this method and render it more of a moderate nuissance. After all, in real life, an outfit planning on using EMP's would probably be prepared with some form of countermeasures in case they got too close, right? Also, while preventing players from exiting hatched vehicles may be considered, this could increase the annoyance factor. The ability to exit an EMP'd vehicle should probably be available in order to keep gameplay responsive for those on the recieving end.

BALANCE:
I know many of you are wondering, "could that possibly be balanced? ATVs are so cheap, and en masse it could become incredibly hard to stop." Well, it is my belief that it would be. I understand that C&C3 isn't an MMO FPS. However, a lot of the balancing concepts remain the same. Both games include similar unit models (tanks, APCs, air vehicles, base defenses, infantry) and tactics as far as troop movements go (the more allied units there are in one place, the more capable of handling threats they become).

If you don't agree with my RTS/MMO FPS comparison, I would like to again draw attention to similarities with the C4/ATV combo in Battlefield. I understand that on a larger scale, things might be more complicated, but it is still quite similar on a smaller scale as far as gameplay and balancing goes.

Variables subject to change for balance purposes would include the amount of damage ATV's can sustain, blast radius of the EMP, duration of effect, items affected and in what ways they become disabled. There could also be various certs and equipment available to combat EMP's which may affect duration, or deny an EMP's effects entirely. The possibilities in the cert tree are endless.

Any additional ideas or feedback to improve on this thread are greatly appreciated. I'm very interested in the opinion of the community on this concept. Also, even if you don't have anything to add, make sure to post your opinion and rate, so that the thread can get noticed if you think it's a good idea.

Thank you for your time!

EDITS:
*EMPs should not hault movement of vehicles, but instead perhaps just a movement penalty should be incurred (Thanks to Cuross)
*EMP usage should require the use of a consummable with an associated price, similar to grenades, to cut down on spam (Thanks to Cuross)
*the effective range should be reduced to somewhere near 5 meters (Thanks to Cuross)

Cuross · 2012-06-21, 12:52 AM

An interesting concept. In PS1 there were Empire specific, large versions of Sunderers (for lack of better terms) where the driver could fire off an EMP on capacitor charge. The thing that I have (and I think most players would have) a problem with in your idea is the thought of completely shutting down some characters. You are saying that MAX units will be virtually useless for such a long time, and vehicles will pretty much be sitting ducks as well. In PS1, EMPs basically just shut down offensive capabilities of vehicles. They could still drive and get away, but they just couldn't shoot.

And as you've mentioned before, the ATV's will be the cheapest vehicle to purchase, while I would normally say that this is a great addition to be explored, I feel that this would end up turning into a problem where people are respawning at distant bases and purchasing ATVs to cross the distance and pretty much disabling every player in the base when they arrive.

Raise the resource cost on the EM burst weapon on the ATV to be prohibitive for players just looking to ride in and disrupt, just enough to make the troll think twice about their resources. And take away a lot of the disruptions that you listed and the idea could have some merit

Jinxsey · 2012-06-21, 12:59 AM

This is way too powerful. Way too frustrating, and way to open for spam.

No.

Gonefshn · 2012-06-21, 01:19 AM

EMP makes more sense for vehicles who are meant to push the front line like the Sunderer, being able to EMP before your troops deploy makes sense but having it for the ATV doesn't to me. It wouldn't work well as an escape tool because youd have to get close to use it anyway when your trying to get away it wouldn't make sense. So I agree the only use I could see it for is kamikaze spam of EMP

blue oktyabr · 2012-06-21, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by Cuross

The thing that I have (and I think most players would have) a problem with in your idea is the thought of completely shutting down some characters. You are saying that MAX units will be virtually useless for such a long time, and vehicles will pretty much be sitting ducks as well. In PS1, EMPs basically just shut down offensive capabilities of vehicles. They could still drive and get away, but they just couldn't shoot.

And as you've mentioned before, the ATV's will be the cheapest vehicle to purchase, while I would normally say that this is a great addition to be explored, I feel that this would end up turning into a problem where people are respawning at distant bases and purchasing ATVs to cross the distance and pretty much disabling every player in the base when they arrive.

Raise the resource cost on the EM burst weapon on the ATV to be prohibitive for players just looking to ride in and disrupt, just enough to make the troll think twice about their resources. And take away a lot of the disruptions that you listed and the idea could have some merit

It would be frustrating to have all of your abilities shut down, I agree, but most of those instances, such as EMPs on a MAX and other infantry in general, should be pretty uncommon. Maneuvering an ATV inside of a base just to get a lousy EMP off on a MAX somewhere would be hardly worth it and unlikely to succeed. I understand though, and I think you're right. Perhaps just seizing the ability to fire would be appropriate for a MAX? I don't think it would make much sense for them to be completely unhindered.

As far as vehicles go however, I think I would have to respectfully disagree. The drivers would have the decision to either jump out and defend themselves, or try to wait out the EMP duration in the relative protection of their armor. There should at least be a movement penalty for disabled vehicles, otherwise drivers would be able to disappear before you even got to reap the benefits of your hard work.

I really like your idea about raising the cost though. Perhaps EMP bursts could require some sort of consumable wich you buy, similar to grenades.

But, the idea is that it would be difficult for one ATV to knock out more than one vehicle due to a small blast radius. "disabling every player" in a base would be impossible for one player, and even then, only the MAX units which hopefully wouldn't be spammed so much, would become disabled. Anyone outside that range and even most infantry inside of it, would be able to destroy an EMP-er easily. To be successful, these types of attacks would need coordination with other members on your team to make sure that A) you mates are outside of the blast radius and B) they are in a position to take out your target before they come back online.

In the end, this will be just as spammy as putting explosives on an ATV, which Higby mentioned will be possible in one of his interviews. The only difference being that this actually requires teamwork to get a kill out of it and may have a larger radius than an explosive. This would make it more viable when engaging large groups of enemies, than explosives would.

blue oktyabr · 2012-06-21, 02:12 AM

Originally Posted by Gonefshn

EMP makes more sense for vehicles who are meant to push the front line like the Sunderer, being able to EMP before your troops deploy makes sense but having it for the ATV doesn't to me. It wouldn't work well as an escape tool because youd have to get close to use it anyway when your trying to get away it wouldn't make sense. So I agree the only use I could see it for is kamikaze spam of EMP

This would help make ATV's more prevelent in competetive gaming, giving them a real role. Otherwise, there's no real reason to use it. Every other vehicle in the game can do what it does more effectively.

Also, it wouldn't be for escape, it would be an offensive weapon. The idea is that you would be able to get in close to disable enemy equipment for your team in order to suffer less casualties in the end of the engagement. The assumption is that you would only use this when being backed up by your team and that you will have to think smart in order to get close enough for it to work and not die immediately. Otherwise it is very kamikazee like. This will on its own, be another method of preventing spam. If there is a hefty risk involved, in this case death, and the monetary value, then it will be used a lot more tactically and a lot less annoyingly.

Cuross · 2012-06-21, 02:52 AM

What I meant was that there would be such an amount of players driving in with ATVs at nearly any given moment that you could effectively see a debilitated base for an entire 15 seconds. Especially with your proposed 15 meter blast radius. You'll just need a dozen or so to wipe out half a base by themselves. Personally, I'd make it about five meters radius at the most.

Regarding the vehicles. With the current animation-less entry/exit for vehicles, this makes it very likely that your idea could work a little, but PS1 had such animations, and I believe there was mention by the Dev team that they were keen on doing it again in the future. That gives you 1-2 seconds of inactivity where you'd be dead with our without the tank. Not to mention, 15 seconds is a good long time to be a really big target with a juicy xp count. Slower movement speed maybe, but definitely not totally incapacitated. If you wanted to get total disability, then shorten the time to a couple seconds. One or two seconds is enough to stop a shot or two, prevent evasive maneuvers, line up an AV missile lock, etc.

I've heard rumor that they were going to put in something akin to the Jammer back in PS1, so this may even make the idea of the EM burst weapon a bit superfluous, but the mechanics can be piggybacked off of what we know and develop further in the Beta.

WiFiN · 2012-06-21, 10:57 AM

The whole C4 tactic is just a gimmick from BF series where you get vehicles for free and loosing them doesn't harm your team in any way, that's why they become so frustrating.

About EMP buggies - I don't think it's a good tactic because riding an ATV into a group of enemies is a one-way ticket. CnC solved it by giving them cloak ability, but if it was okay in RTS, it will be a hell of frustration with invisible buggies here in FPS game.

So even though I like EMP since BF2142 I don't find suicide buggy concept usable in any way.

elementHTTP · 2012-06-21, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by blue oktyabr

).

USE:
With this cert unlocked, an ATV driver could use his advantages of speed and manuverability to get in close to the enemy and activate his EMP gadget (wich would probably replace any mounted weapons on the vehicle).
Within its limited range, all:
-vehicles will be disabled, preventing them from firing, moving, and tracking
-esplosives will be destroyed
-shields will be depleted, including Nanite Mesh Generators
-MAXes will be unable to fire or move
-jetpacks will become nonoperational
-cloaking devices become nonoperational
-turrets, both manned and automated will also be unable to shoot or track

This would also affect the ATV and driver wich deployed the burst, and any allies within range.

I think that needs to be nerfed its way too powerful

but EMP mines should be great ( stunning / stopping column of vehicles )

Rexdezi · 2012-06-21, 01:36 PM

I think an EMP blast would also make it so that you cannot hack terminals, which means if an EMP goes off in the radius of the terminal you hack to take the base, then that terminal is rendered useless for that amount of time. Also, a hatch on a tank isn't controlled by computers, there shouldn't be a penalty for drivers getting out of vehicles.

Gonefshn · 2012-06-21, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by blue oktyabr

This would help make ATV's more prevelent in competetive gaming, giving them a real role. Otherwise, there's no real reason to use it. Every other vehicle in the game can do what it does more effectively.

Also, it wouldn't be for escape, it would be an offensive weapon. The idea is that you would be able to get in close to disable enemy equipment for your team in order to suffer less casualties in the end of the engagement. The assumption is that you would only use this when being backed up by your team and that you will have to think smart in order to get close enough for it to work and not die immediately. Otherwise it is very kamikazee like. This will on its own, be another method of preventing spam. If there is a hefty risk involved, in this case death, and the monetary value, then it will be used a lot more tactically and a lot less annoyingly.

Their role is being a cheap alternative for transport and assault in groups.
Of course all the other vehicles can do what they do more effectively, they cost more resources.

An ATV allows you to get fast effective transport and a little firepower for very low cost. It's a point A to point B vehicle. If you give it a viable position on the battlefield it needs to be increased in resource cost to make it competitive with other vehicles and that takes away from the current design.

It's meant to be cheap, and with cheap comes limited functionality. The plus side is it's going to be readily available.

MrMorton · 2012-06-22, 12:04 AM

I think it would make the ATV a little bit op, because people would just zerg atv rush and then jihad for easy points, which would be kind of frustrating.

since you can already strap c4 to the atv and jihad, I don;t think an emp blast is needed.

Knotz · 2012-06-22, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by MrMorton

I think it would make the ATV a little bit op, because people would just zerg atv rush and then jihad for easy points, which would be kind of frustrating.

since you can already strap c4 to the atv and jihad, I don;t think an emp blast is needed.

Birgirpall style XD

blue oktyabr · 2012-06-22, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Gonefshn

Their role is being a cheap alternative for transport and assault in groups.
Of course all the other vehicles can do what they do more effectively, they cost more resources.

An ATV allows you to get fast effective transport and a little firepower for very low cost. It's a point A to point B vehicle. If you give it a viable position on the battlefield it needs to be increased in resource cost to make it competitive with other vehicles and that takes away from the current design.

It's meant to be cheap, and with cheap comes limited functionality. The plus side is it's going to be readily available.

I understand what it's designed for. Yes it is useful for lone wolfers, or small groups of players looking to get from point A to point B.

But as far as competetive play goes, in terms of how it will be used by outfits and well orginized groups, I don't think that the Flash would be very useful. In every PS1 stream/video I've ever seen, they use only the largest transports in order to keep everyone together. Even when a teammate dies, they have him wait at a rally point for the next large transport, instead of allowing him to jump in a fast moving vehicle to get back ASAP.

It is my humble opinion that the ATV needs a team play mechanic that would make it more valuable to outfits. I think one way they could introduce this, would be with an EMP.

Contrary to this statement,
"I think it would make the ATV a little bit op, because people would just zerg atv rush and then jihad for easy points, which would be kind of frustrating. since you can already strap c4 to the atv and jihad, I don;t think an emp blast is needed."
from the guy above, an EMP would actually require teamwork to get a kill out of it, as opposed to C4 which is a much more zergy jihad play style. If anything, I think C4 on ATVs will be a much bigger threat to the gameplay in PS2.

Gonefshn · 2012-06-22, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by blue oktyabr

But as far as competetive play goes, in terms of how it will be used by outfits and well orginized groups, I don't think that the Flash would be very useful. In every PS1 stream/video I've ever seen, they use only the largest transports in order to keep everyone together. Even when a teammate dies, they have him wait at a rally point for the next large transport, instead of allowing him to jump in a fast moving vehicle to get back ASAP.

I humbly disagree. I don't think it needs to fill any role other than it is already intended.

It is a one person vehicle, by it's very nature a lone wolf sort of transport. Of course outfits and groups of players will use the large transports all the time! That's what we should be hoping for. Those are meant to move large groups and promote organized team play.

I don't think the ATV needs a super effective combat role. Fast moving EMP vehicles could be useful to an outfit sure but it's a solo mission for a 1 man kamikaze and would be very powerful. It would increase the cost of an ATV and make it too expensive to fit the role of one man cheap transport.