Smaller list of nonsequitur changes I'd make.

Warborn · 2003-11-29, 01:46 AM

Bunch of stuff I think would do well in Planetside:

1) I think an armor/weapon counters system would be good. Having a much more varied system for armor/weapons which creates niche roles for various vehicles and prevents a single vehicle (the tank, in this case) from dominating the battlefield would be welcome. There is no other way to make the other ground vehicles useful in combat other than to give them a purpose, and by making them more effective against some things and more resistant to different forms of attack, you create a niche role for them. People would use a vehicle that actually has a distinct function in the game.

To give you an idea of what inspired this, see Starcraft and its counters system. Using RTS game analogies, PS is operating based on a very primitive system of balance, and it's because of that that a lot of the vehicles in the game have little function, being made superfluous due to having identical specifics emulated in greater magnitude by the tanks of each side (meaning, if you're serious about killing people on the ground, why get a Marauder when you can get a Prowler?). It would be fine if there were only a handful of vehicles, with each having a different role unique to that vehicle (as with Tribes 2), but PS has too many vehicles to function that way, unless the developers have no problem with many of the vehicles being a rare sight in the game.

2) Overhaul the Mosquito and Reaver. Reaver rockets should have much less splash damage, making them anti-armor rather than infantry spamming weapons (and don't give me any "well they can only kill 3 or 4 infantry before having to rearm at a air pad somewhere" stuff, that doesn't diminish the fact that they can easily kill a handful of infantry before having to repair/rearm). Mosquitoes, too, should be primarily anti-air; their chaingun is far too effective against infantry when combined with their speed, low cert cost, and secondary functions. If necessary, its gun should be more effective against aircraft (as per the counters system).

3) Remove or greatly reduce the damage you take from being hit by a vehicle. I can't get over how retarded this feature is. If there was one thing I'd remove from the game, this would probably be it. It's insane that the main mode of attack for any non-tank vehicle (not including the MagRider) is its goddamn bumper. Even an ANT is very capable of killing a handful of guys before being taken down, terrain permitting. This has to be remedied in some fashion. Although vehiciles smashing other vehicles is just great, as I'd never want to deprive any tank drivers of the joy of smashing a Basilisk apart in one hit, insta-death for infantry is ridiculous.

4) Make the Core Combat weapons and vehicles available at any base, although the Flail and possibly the Router should require a Tech Plant to be created. If anyone believes this will lead to there being Flails anywhere, the obviously there's a problem with the Flail that should be addressed, but sweeping the vehicles many of you paid money for, and yet hardly ever have access to, is not the way to do it. Hell, I might even buy CC if this change were to go through.

Oh, and some Empire-specific skins for the vehicles would be nice. They can stay the same shape, but they should lose the uniform silvery look and go with the colors of their respective Empire. They're pretty hard to visually identify as friend or foe at a range, especially the Switchblade and Flail (Router isn't so bad, but it's still not obvious enough).

Veteran · 2003-11-29, 01:56 AM

I agree with #3 and #4 the most. I can't remember the last Flail or Router I saw. The Vehicle Module should just increase the armor and ammo of the AT vehicles, while the Equipment Module should increase the damage and ammo of the AT infantry weapons. Is it just me or does the Maelstrom suck rocks? Core Combat is going to be called 'the invisible expansion' if something doesn't change.

TeraHertz · 2003-11-29, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by Warborn

There is no other way to make the other ground vehicles useful in combat other than to give them a purpose

Most of them do in my opinion. I'm not going to explain them all. They're fairly self evident up sides, like being able to go over water, carry maxs, be invisible on interlink, available without a techplant etc.
With the cert reorder comming up people will have a tech plant and non tech plant option of their selected cert for the most part.

Originally Posted by Warborn

2) Overhaul the Mosquito and Reaver.

They're fine as it is. Possibly the rocket damage would be a good idea, forcing the reavers to use the chaingun. It IS supposed to be an anti tank vehicle after all. But remeber, the reaver costs 4 certs and requires a techplant.

Originally Posted by Warborn

3) Remove or greatly reduce the damage you take from being hit by a vehicle.

Sorry, but no. SO wrong. If you don't get out of the way of a vehicle, it's you're own fault. My tip for when there's alot if vehicles or aircraft about: Stay in doors or stick to the trees.

Originally Posted by Warborn

4) Make the Core Combat weapons and vehicles available at any base, although the Flail and possibly the Router should require a Tech Plant to be created.

I cant really comment on this as I don't own Core Combat. I wasn't insane enough to buy it. From what I've seen the point is that you go and get a vehicle module. Perhaps you're just being lazy

don't those things last over 3 hours?

Originally Posted by Warborn

5) They're pretty hard to visually identify as friend or foe at a range, especially the Switchblade and Flail (Router isn't so bad, but it's still not obvious enough).

I kind of agree with you on this one, though it's not a major problem at the moment. Like you said, there aren't that many CC vehicles about.

Veteran · 2003-11-29, 02:56 AM

The major problem with vehicle bumpers is that in real-life, you can easily move out of the way of a bumper by sidestepping or diving out of the way. In PlanetSide, thanks to the wonders of Client-Side Hit-Detection, dodging is usually futile and you can even die while hiding behind a tree.

Yes, I know it's not all about realism, which is exactly why vehicle bumpers shouldn't be so lethal. It would also stop those chucklenuts who jump in front of friendlies to force them to take a grief penalty.

Warborn · 2003-11-29, 03:21 AM

Most of them do in my opinion. I'm not going to explain them all. They're fairly self evident up sides, like being able to go over water, carry maxs, be invisible on interlink, available without a techplant etc.
With the cert reorder comming up people will have a tech plant and non tech plant option of their selected cert for the most part.

If you think it's fine that these vehicles have no reason other than this, then my next comment is that there is far too little need for any of these functions to be of any value, and that we should think about how to make the vehicles more useful that way.

They're fine as it is. Possibly the rocket damage would be a good idea, forcing the reavers to use the chaingun. It IS supposed to be an anti tank vehicle after all. But remeber, the reaver costs 4 certs and requires a techplant.

Cert points are not a tool to use in balancing things, so the cert cost is secondary.

Anyway, do you have a reason why you think the Mosquito is fine as an easy-access, air-dominating, infantry-killing vehicle that can be used to ferry you to the top of a tower or onto a base?

Sorry, but no. SO wrong. If you don't get out of the way of a vehicle, it's you're own fault.

Obviously you spend most of your time in a vehicle. Unless the driver is retarded or driving an ANT, or you're right next to a tree, you CANNOT avoid the vehicle. It moves too fast, you move too slow, and it can turn into you.

My tip for when there's alot if vehicles or aircraft about_: Stay in doors or stick to the trees.

Try playing an infantry now and then. The game shouldn't revolve around vehicles and aircraft.

ORANGE · 2003-11-29, 11:47 AM

First off to make myself completely clear I play as a Max/Hvy. Ass./ATV.

1. The fact that you want to get rid of damage from geting run over by vehicles is well....stupid the only times when I get run over is when its my own friggen fault you have to remember when you run in front of a vehicle that they cant always stop on a dime (especially vs vehicles)

2. The vehicles that are in the game all have fairly obvious uses to them especially tanks which are supposed to rule the battlefield.

3. Having been a pilot for awhile before switching out reaver for hvy. ass. it can be difficult to stay in the air for more than a coupla mins at a time during an assault or even defense to to all the aa so when you do get a few kills it makes up for the last hour that you just spent respawning and grabbing new reavers.

4. The mosquito is fine if anything the cannon on it in many cases can be too weak when up against air targets and it is pretty friggen hard to hit ground targets with it.

All in all the weaknesses and lack there of in the vehicles more or less balances them out. In a squad if you have 5 guys you can take out a tank with med. ass. weapons if you know what your doing. It sounds like you just need to get a vehicle Warborn and stop complaining when you get run over cause you ran in front of them.

TeraHertz · 2003-11-29, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Warborn

If you think it's fine that these vehicles have no reason other than this, then my next comment is that there is far too little need for any of these functions to be of any value, and that we should think about how to make the vehicles more useful that way.

They have a strong, yet subtle tactical value. How would you make them MORE useful?

Cert points are not a tool to use in balancing things, so the cert cost is secondary.

Really? I think they are.

Anyway, do you have a reason why you think the Mosquito is fine as an easy-access, air-dominating, infantry-killing vehicle that can be used to ferry you to the top of a tower or onto a base?

If there are alot of mossis about, man a gun turret. If you can't, stay in doors. They can't cap a base flying about. If you have to cross an expanse, make sure your mates have an AA cert, or a vehicle. The deliverer OWN mossies.

Obviously you spend most of your time in a vehicle. Unless the driver is retarded or driving an ANT, or you're right next to a tree, you CANNOT avoid the vehicle. It moves too fast, you move too slow, and it can turn into you.

Look at my certs. I Don't have a vehicle. At all. I either surge run, deconstruct, or hitch a ride.

Try playing an infantry now and then. The game shouldn't revolve around vehicles and aircraft.

Um, as above. No vehicle. No max. Try playing Werner.

Veteran · 2003-11-29, 12:29 PM

Cert points aren't a balancing factor for the following reason...

Imagine a gun that shot 100 rounds a second and killed any infantry or vehicle that they touched... The cost? 23 certs. Is this a balanced cert because it costs 23? Of course not. Thus, the cost of the cert is not factorial when judging its power.

I think that's what he meant.

Rbstr · 2003-11-29, 01:07 PM

well if it cost 23 then only Br20's could have it, and then they would had agile armor and nothing else to fight with making them very vonerable(sp). But i do agree with you just looking at it from another way.

Also i am a mosly infantry player and i think it would be ridiculous to not get killed by getting run down buy anything except an ATV, but they do need to make it so the vehicle has to be going a bit faster and if you are on one of the edges of the hitbox for the tank/vehicle you don't take as much damage. So if you get hit head on your dead, but if you get glanced you don't get hurt that bad.

WritheNC · 2003-11-29, 01:16 PM

As a grunt, I like the ideas...but I don't think they'll fly =\

Nimbus · 2003-11-29, 04:04 PM

1. Eh, the vehicles I think have pretty specific jobs already. Some just aren't as fun as others. Granted, they don't have the variation that RTS games do, but this is not an RTS either.

2. Reavers and Mosquitos are fine. Do you really think an anti armor weapon should have less of an effect on infantry? Bullshit. It's anti-armor because its MORE powerful. The rockets are fine the way they are. As for mosquitos. Mosquitos were NOT desiged to be AA. They were designed to be scoutcraft. Their machineguns should be effective against infantry.
Look, vehicles beat infantry okay? Thats what they are supposed to do. If you are running around without AA support you should EXPECT to get beaten by air opponants. Get used to it.

3. This is even dumber than the last one. You get hit by a semi going 45 mph you die, okay? No room for argument there. I can see upping the damage that a vehicle itself takes for non-tank vehicles, but other than that vehicle damage is exactly where it should be.

4. It really kind of ruins the point of core combat, but I can easily understand that. Only about half the people I know actually have it and I havent' seen any core combat vehicles for the past 2 weeks or so.

Rayder · 2003-11-29, 05:10 PM

1) No

2) No comment

3) No. If they got rid of vehicles crushing infantry, the weapons systems would have to be upped by at least 10x

4) No comment

Warborn · 2003-11-29, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Rayder

3) No. If they got rid of vehicles crushing infantry, the weapons systems would have to be upped by at least 10x

Sounds good to me.

Originally Posted by Nimbus

1. Eh, the vehicles I think have pretty specific jobs already. Some just aren't as fun as others. Granted, they don't have the variation that RTS games do, but this is not an RTS either.

I'm not implying that it should try to be more like an RTS, only that the really good RTS games out there actually have every unit fit some role in the battlefield. There are no wasted vehicles like there are now. After all, just because the idea stems from the RTS genre doesn't mean that it can't be applied to games like Planetside. Planetside isn't an RPG, but it uses experience and leveling to enhance its gameplay, does it not?

2. Reavers and Mosquitos are fine. Do you really think an anti armor weapon should have less of an effect on infantry? Bullshit. It's anti-armor because its MORE powerful. The rockets are fine the way they are. As for mosquitos. Mosquitos were NOT desiged to be AA. They were designed to be scoutcraft. Their machineguns should be effective against infantry.
Look, vehicles beat infantry okay? Thats what they are supposed to do. If you are running around without AA support you should EXPECT to get beaten by air opponants. Get used to it.

Yeah, anti-armor does annihilate infantry easily, what was I thinking? That's why Phoenix missiles and decimators are instantly lethal to infantry, right? Or is there actually some truth behind the old axiom of realism being a tool, not a goal, on the path toward game balance?

As for vehicles beating infantry, in most cases I have no problem with it. Even if a strong weapon/armor counter system like I'm proposing were added I would fully expect a vehicle weak against infantry to be able to gun down several infantry before being destroyed itself. The point is that all vehicles shouldn't mow down infantry in two seconds, because then it degenerates into which vehicle is best at killing infantry, rather than which are best at killing what the enemy has the most of and has the greatest survivability (which invariably is the tank).

3. This is even dumber than the last one. You get hit by a semi going 45 mph you die, okay? No room for argument there. I can see upping the damage that a vehicle itself takes for non-tank vehicles, but other than that vehicle damage is exactly where it should be.

So you're justifying this based on realism? I don't think you're in any position to comment on other peoples' intelligence, bud.

4. It really kind of ruins the point of core combat, but I can easily understand that. Only about half the people I know actually have it and I havent' seen any core combat vehicles for the past 2 weeks or so.

What is the point of Core Combat? I haven't seen one, even during the 7 day instant-access bit. If you actually got something you could use regularily out of the expansion, maybe it would have a point.

Originally Posted by Rbstr

well if it cost 23 then only Br20's could have it, and then they would had agile armor and nothing else to fight with making them very vonerable(sp).

Guys with nothing but Agile armor and a Jackhammer seem to do just fine.

Originally Posted by Veteran

Cert points aren't a balancing factor for the following reason...

Imagine a gun that shot 100 rounds a second and killed any infantry or vehicle that they touched... The cost? 23 certs. Is this a balanced cert because it costs 23? Of course not. Thus, the cost of the cert is not factorial when judging its power.

I think that's what he meant.

Bingo.

Originally Posted by TeraHertz

They have a strong, yet subtle tactical value. How would you make them MORE useful?

By making them worth a damn in combat.

If there are alot of mossis about, man a gun turret. If you can't, stay in doors. They can't cap a base flying about. If you have to cross an expanse, make sure your mates have an AA cert, or a vehicle. The deliverer OWN mossies.

Gun turrets are pretty useless against Mosquitoes if the pilot has a head attached to his shoulders, as he can easily afterburn away to an air pad and be back a minute later with full armor et al. And that's assuming that the Reavers haven't already annihilated all of the turrets from long range. As for having an AA cert, with infantry it doesn't really matter if you have a Striker or whatever, because a Mosquito can kill you before you can kill them. And although an AA MAX will make short work of a Mosquito, it's the other way around if the enemy is a Reaver.

Look at my certs. I Don't have a vehicle. At all. I either surge run, deconstruct, or hitch a ride.

I don't see your certs.

But, yeah, maybe with Agile armor and surge you have a chance. Either way, a MAX or Reinforced is almost always pooched unless it's an ANT.

Um, as above. No vehicle. No max. Try playing Werner.

I don't see what this has to do with anything.

Nimbus · 2003-11-29, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

.
I'm not implying that it should try to be more like an RTS, only that the really good RTS games out there actually have every unit fit some role in the battlefield. There are no wasted vehicles like there are now. After all, just because the idea stems from the RTS genre doesn't mean that it can't be applied to games like Planetside. Planetside isn't an RPG, but it uses experience and leveling to enhance its gameplay, does it not?

Good point, and I agree. Every vehicle should really have it's own niche.

Yeah, anti-armor does annihilate infantry easily, what was I thinking? That's why Phoenix missiles and decimators are instantly lethal to infantry, right? Or is there actually some truth behind the old axiom of realism being a tool, not a goal, on the path toward game balance?

Last I checked, they WERE lethal to infantry, it was just really hard to hit them with it. I've been 1 hit killed at full health and armor plenty of times by decimators while guarding a hack. I was twice today actually. Realism is a tool and not a goal as you said, but it is also the BASIS of the weapons.

As for vehicles beating infantry, in most cases I have no problem with it. Even if a strong weapon/armor counter system like I'm proposing were added I would fully expect a vehicle weak against infantry to be able to gun down several infantry before being destroyed itself. The point is that all vehicles shouldn't mow down infantry in two seconds, because then it degenerates into which vehicle is best at killing infantry, rather than which are best at killing what the enemy has the most of and has the greatest survivability (which invariably is the tank).

Thats true, but you have to realize that most of the vehicles WERE designed for taking out infantry. If the mowing really gets to be a problem, I would think a better solution would be to up the damage vehicles take from hitting them. The tank may be the best at handling ground issues, yes, however it's not as quick, not as maneuverable, it can't fly, it can't carry many soldiers and people wearing reinforced can't use it. Thats where the other vehicles come in.

So you're justifying this based on realism? I don't think you're in any position to comment on other peoples' intelligence, bud.

Yes, I am justifying it based on realism as the game is BASED on reality. It's not completely realistic and realism isn't necessarily a goal but it does use reality as it's basis. I don't feel the devs should make it more realistic, but they certainly shouldn't make it less if they don't have to. I'm sorry for the comment on your intelligence, but I don't see the logic in hating realistic physics in a game that uses realistic physics as part of it's basis. I hate getting run over by ant's just as much as you do but I don't think that we should be immune to their effects or that they should be lessened. A more reasonable way to deal with the problem would be to make it easier to dodge out of the way.

What is the point of Core Combat? I haven't seen one, even during the 7 day instant-access bit. If you actually got something you could use regularily out of the expansion, maybe it would have a point.

I agree totally. I saw a couple of flails during the 7 day trial thing but since then I havent' seen anything come out of those caves aside from NC and a few modules.

TeraHertz · 2003-11-29, 11:19 PM

I use rexo, and yeah, reaver versus me, I'm going to die if I'm stupid enough to have been caught in the open, but normaly I ament unless I've been gunning in a lib.

My point about playing werner, is that vehicles get OWNED by infantry here. I don't know of many people that don't carry at least one deci. The TR are the worst for it.
Likewise, aircraft take a beating. Fly near a base and you're guarunteed a lockon. Pissed off with aricraft? Take the airtowers. Still getting harrased? Destroy the tech plant gens. If you still fear the mossies, get an AA cert and use it till they flack off.