Side effects for vehicle resource costs

WorldOfForms · 2012-06-28, 04:59 PM

Something that worries me with resource costs for vehicles is the possibility of players not wanting to leave vehicles unattended for fear of wasted resources.

In PS1 you could get a vehicle for transport purposes, drive to your destination, and hop out to join the indoor fight on foot. The only real worry was if your vehicle got hacked while unattended.

What will happen with tank crews in PS2? Are they going to be willing to climb out and help push inside of bases, or are they going to hold on to their tank as long as possible and instead camp doors?

What about galaxy pilots wanting to use them as mobile spawns? Will they be forced to sit around babysitting the galaxy, especially as it appears the gal is particularly resource expensive?

I like the idea of vehicles costing resources for combat purposes, but for transport it gives me pause. It could lead to stagnant fights where people are afraid to leave their vehicles, slowing the process of base capture.

Can anyone think of other possible side effects of the vehicle resource cost?

Razicator · 2012-06-28, 05:01 PM

There's going to be way more fights along a contiguous front. It's not like the zerg goes to a base and stops there, fighting indoors. A tanker can just leave after the outside is secured and join the fight in the next door hex.

Nash · 2012-06-28, 05:01 PM

Well, there are specific transport vehicles like that buggy (forgot the name) that barely cost any ressources.

roguy · 2012-06-28, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by WorldOfForms

Something that worries me with resource costs for vehicles is the possibility of players not wanting to leave vehicles unattended for fear of wasted resources.

In PS1 you could get a vehicle for transport purposes, drive to your destination, and hop out to join the indoor fight on foot. The only real worry was if your vehicle got hacked while unattended.

What will happen with tank crews in PS2? Are they going to be willing to climb out and help push inside of bases, or are they going to hold on to their tank as long as possible and instead camp doors?

What about galaxy pilots wanting to use them as mobile spawns? Will they be forced to sit around babysitting the galaxy, especially as it appears the gal is particularly resource expensive?

I like the idea of vehicles costing resources for combat purposes, but for transport it gives me pause. It could lead to stagnant fights where people are afraid to leave their vehicles, slowing the process of base capture.

Can anyone think of other possible side effects of the vehicle resource cost?

No, because the prime motivator will always be XP.

In your tank example you have the choice between holding on to your tank and getting no xp or fighting inside the base where you'll get XP AND the ressources for a new tank... It's a non issue.

Crator · 2012-06-28, 05:04 PM

Perhaps they will allow you to deconstruct the vehicle which in turn gives back some, if not all, the resources you used?

Eyeklops · 2012-06-28, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Crator

Perhaps they will allow you to deconstruct the vehicle which in turn gives back some, if not all, the resources you used?

This seems to be the most logical way to handle it. I would not give back all the resources though, there need be no free rides.

TheDAWinz · 2012-06-28, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by WorldOfForms

Something that worries me with resource costs for vehicles is the possibility of players not wanting to leave vehicles unattended for fear of wasted resources.

In PS1 you could get a vehicle for transport purposes, drive to your destination, and hop out to join the indoor fight on foot. The only real worry was if your vehicle got hacked while unattended.

What will happen with tank crews in PS2? Are they going to be willing to climb out and help push inside of bases, or are they going to hold on to their tank as long as possible and instead camp doors?

What about galaxy pilots wanting to use them as mobile spawns? Will they be forced to sit around babysitting the galaxy, especially as it appears the gal is particularly resource expensive?

I like the idea of vehicles costing resources for combat purposes, but for transport it gives me pause. It could lead to stagnant fights where people are afraid to leave their vehicles, slowing the process of base capture.

Can anyone think of other possible side effects of the vehicle resource cost?

It infuriates me that people use combat vehicles as transport. Your rant sucks

Eyeklops · 2012-06-28, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by TheDAWinz

It infuriates me that people use combat vehicles as transport. Your rant sucks

Because if the fight is a kilometer away your supposed to walk?

WorldOfForms · 2012-06-28, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by roguy

No, because the prime motivator will always be XP.

In your tank example you have the choice between holding on to your tank and getting no xp or fighting inside the base where you'll get XP AND the ressources for a new tank... It's a non issue.

I don't buy that it's a non-issue. A tank gives a player a distinct advantage. If you get out of the tank and enter the base, you may die immediately and also lose your tank as it gets destroyed while it's unattended. I'm not saying it's something I personally would necessarily worry about, but I'll bet other people (possibly a lot of them) will.

Originally Posted by TheDAWinz

It infuriates me that people use combat vehicles as transport. Your rant sucks

What? How in the heck is raising some thoughts on in-game effects a rant? Do you know what a rant is?

Also, prepare to be infuriated constantly, because all vehicles in PS2 will (gasp) be used at transport.

Sephirex · 2012-06-28, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeklops

Because if the fight is a kilometer away your supposed to walk?

I think you're supposed to take the incredibly inexpensive ATV, or hitch a ride on a Sunderer/Galaxy.

WorldOfForms · 2012-06-28, 05:54 PM

The point here isn't about people buying a tank purely for transport and then not being able to dump it at their destination.

It's about the psychological effect of a vehicle costing something and how that might affect people's behavior once it's time to get out and fight on foot, regardless of the purpose they bought the vehicle for.

Sephirex · 2012-06-28, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by WorldOfForms

It's about the psychological effect of a vehicle costing something and how that might affect people's behavior once it's time to get out and fight on foot, regardless of the purpose they bought the vehicle for.

If anything it would encourage me to park it somewhere safe...Not leave it out in the open where the enemy can see it. I'm okay with this.

StumpyTheOzzie · 2012-06-28, 07:12 PM

I think people will get over it.

I plan to make a MAX my primary weapon type. I'll be chewing through resources every time i spawn

Karrade · 2012-06-28, 07:18 PM

My guess is that all the tanks won't need to be emptied, some of the bases let them get pretty far in. Of course there'll need infantry support to cover what they cannot see, but that is the beauty of combined arms. The base in E3 was just begging for a good armored column to role up and nuke it, straight through the front door.

Also, logically the lightest stuff won't be too pricey if you just want to get from A - B.

It made me think that perhaps there will be options to make a vehicle cheaper for transport, (or perhaps faster) while sacrificing armor or weapons.