Bad design: Ejection seats and carbines that look like SMG's

[Rolfski]

I've heard once T-Ray saying that everything you put in a game has to be there for a reason.

Unfortunately, they didn't think the guns through enough when they designed them. As bad as the design already is (way too generic and similar looking) it gets even worse as some design choices don't make any logical sense.

Selective fire as a different version of a gun (the -S versions) is plain bogus and just a cheap way to make us grind/pay smed bucks. All current carbines have selective fire, no reason to ditch it in a future sci-fi scenario.

Carbines should have buttstocks or at least folding buttstocks. They fire the same round as assault rifles which means they share the same recoil levels, making a buttstock a must-have. Without them they just look like impotent submachine guns, therefore bad design imo.

Another feature that doesn't make any sense, is that somehow in the future they have completely forgotten about parachuting out of a flying vehicle being standard issue. Having to cert into ejection seat is beyond rationale and just another way to make us grind, therefore bad design imo.

Of course this is all a game but it couldn't hurt to do some sanity checks (with future military experts maybe?) to make the Planetside universe a bit more believable and less arcade.

If you have spotted more illogical design choices, please state them below.

[Rolfski]

And your point is?

[maradine]

This isn't a good community to find any support for realism-based arguments. You have to start explaining things like why MBTs can't bullseye a 1 meter target on the move at 2 kilometers, or why my car can outrun an ESF. Just go with it.

[Rolfski]

Originally Posted by maradine

This isn't a good community to find any support for realism-based arguments. You have to start explaining things like why MBTs can't bullseye a 1 meter target on the move at 2 kilometers, or why my car can outrun an ESF. Just go with it.

Well the difference is that the features discussed here not only lack sense from a realism point of view, they don't make much sense from a gaming point of view as well.

Why does my carbine look like a pea shooter? If you want to attract new players, guns should not only perform and feel potent, they should look potent as well. And why I should invest hundreds of certs into some gun so it can do the same as when I tab fire my regular gun, is beyond me. Also, not being able to get out of my fighter safely from the get-go doesn't add anything to the game.

[Sturmhardt]

The design that annoys me the most are the skull masks. Tray, what were you thinking??

[Rolfski]

Originally Posted by Sturmhardt

The design that annoys me the most are the skull masks. Tray, what were you thinking??

I agree, they missed the mark with some of the cosmetics. They are called camo for a reason, not clown attributes that say "I'm lighting up like a Xmas tree and look like an idiot, shoot me please"

[Juryrig]

Originally Posted by Rolfski

Another feature that doesn't make any sense, is that somehow in the future they have completely forgotten about parachuting out of a flying vehicle being standard issue. Having to cert into ejection seat is beyond rationale and just another way to make us grind, therefore bad design imo.

In a universe where dead soldiers can be insta-recreated via rebirth technology, you'd never weigh down an aircraft with a bulky and complex ejection system. Why take the hit to performance when, once the aircraft is lost, you can just recreate the soldier, fully armed and functional, at the nearest base or sunderer?

What's the tactical advantage of briefly preserving the life of a grunt, who is probably now far from the fighting and carrying inappropriate equipment?

Not trolling, I agree with a bunch of your points (esp on things like the aesthetics, limited number of weapon models etc) but I was just trying to apply some 'future realism'.

Of course it all runs into the fact that the devs have to pick a point on the game >>>>> simulation axis, and they've done so. Different people will feel differently about whether they picked the right or wrong spot.

It does make me laugh that so far into the future we have tanks without stabilised gun barrels, with sighting systems that involve manually guesstimating range and projectile drop.

[Infernalis]

Planetside is more of sci-fi from the 70-80 than anything, you have immortal guys and vehicles in ridiculous flashy colors with strange and non-functionnal design... BF2142 was more realistic in its approach of the future and even then you still had some weird things here and there.

[Rolfski]

Well, I don't mind stuff being unrealistic like WW1 tank aiming mechanics and colorful factions, as long as it deserves a purpose in the game. But when it even fails to do that it just becomes plain bad design.

[Ghoest9]

There was a lot of player talk about stocks on carbines in beta - there wasnt any dev interest.

I would prefer stocks - but really is so low on my list of concerns that I effectively dont care.


But certing the ejection seat is no different than certing a parachute so i dont see a problem there.

[Rolfski]

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

But certing the ejection seat is no different than certing a parachute so i dont see a problem there.

It's the certing that is the problem. Certing in order to escape your plane safely is a forced grind mechanic that doesn't make any sense, game wise or "realistic" wise.

[IceyCold]

Actually a big part of the reason it became a cert that you had to unlock as a trade off is because of people on this very board complaining about people bailing out of planes thus denying them a kill.

No shit, go look it up, it is in the history pages of this board. And it was a long thread.

[Rolfski]

What's wrong with getting XP from vehicle kills and in addition getting XP if you kill the bailing pilot as well? Far more satisfying if you ask me as it takes skill to finish off the pilot while he has a chance to continue the fight.

Such a system would make way much sense imo.