Vehicles vs Terrain & Weather

[VioletZero]

Here's another crazy idea.

I propose we have certain vehicles be more adept at crossing certain terrain tiles than others.

Just throwing this out there, but one suggestion I have is to have a "mud" terrain that makes wheel based vehicles such as the Sunderer slower, but a vehicle like the Lightning would cross it just fine because of its tracks.

And there could be customizations that favor certain types of terrain. Maybe there could be a wheels customization for tanks that lets them move faster on "road" terrain but makes them slower everywhere else.

Then there could be weather like rain or snow that makes almost all vehicles slower.

What do you think? I think it has potential to add some depth to the game's terrain that some people want. But I want your thoughts.

[Warborn]

Terrain affecting vehicle movement is something I'd like to see. Having swampy areas which make vehicle travel somewhat slow, versus roadways which make movement faster. Planetside 1 did something sort of similar, although it instead just had some areas where the terrain was very rough and there were lots of trees and traversing the area with vehicles was pretty hazardous, so it's not much of a departure from what the predecessor did.

Weather I'm a bit iffy on though. While I hope there is weather and it changes and etc, having significant gameplay effects due to something really arbitrary like weather might be annoying. If it didn't have too big of an effect that'd be okay, but purely random factors should probably have a slight effect on gameplay. So, for examples of stuff that might be going too far, having dust storms which make it really hard to see, or severe storms which made flying really difficult due to cloud cover or whatever. But having vehicles skid more during rain, or having minor visibility changes due to dust storms or blizzards, that would probably be passable.

[Traak]

I want realistic water. That you can see through when under, not just farm underwater people from a plane, in addition to the rest of the advantages of being a pilot that they massively heaped on pilots in PS1.

[Garem]

At first, meh. Now that I've pondered the idea, I've come around. The more factors you have to think of when entering or preparing for a big battle, the better I say!

Terrain challenges give commanders and the doers a hurdle to jump which makes the game more interesting. Plus, those damned Vanu always have interesting technology that helps them overcome it, but the heavy NC tanks and gear might make swamp fights harder... so I can see a great dynamic where one faction loves nasty weather but the other hates it.

Vanu rides the storm, and NC braces. TR falls somewhere in between.

I also disagree with Warborn- REALLY nasty weather could be very interesting! Tropical locales have more storms, so air travel is slowed and vision is impaired. Snow or sand storms could cause their respective environments a great deal of trouble.

It could be annoying if done in excess, but epic sandstorms brewing up in the middle of a major battle sounds pretty epic.

[Warborn]

I also disagree with Warborn- REALLY nasty weather could be very interesting! Tropical locales have more storms, so air travel is slowed and vision is impaired. Snow or sand storms could cause their respective environments a great deal of trouble.

It could be annoying if done in excess, but epic sandstorms brewing up in the middle of a major battle sounds pretty epic.

A sandstorm is fine, but if you can't see what's going on then it isn't fine. People want to play the game, not play "what the fuck is going on I can't see anything?". This is in danger of becoming that terrible thread about dark nights, but I think rain and snow and storms and etc is fine, but just randomly shutting down gameplay on people because the computer calculated that it is now time for a blizzard is stupid and would be incredibly frustrating.

[NewSith]

I want ice to effect vehicle handling. So the VS get the hovering advantage on icy planets.

In other words... I miss Esamir :cry:

[Garem]

A sandstorm is fine, but if you can't see what's going on then it isn't fine. People want to play the game, not play "what the fuck is going on I can't see anything?". This is in danger of becoming that terrible thread about dark nights, but I think rain and snow and storms and etc is fine, but just randomly shutting down gameplay on people because the computer calculated that it is now time for a blizzard is stupid and would be incredibly frustrating.

We tolerate a lot of other frustrations, I don't see why this would be any different. If we see a river but we can't get across it quickly with our vehicles, that's pretty damned frustrating. Having only one bridge to get where we want to go is frustrating. Massive hills and cliffs that impair or prohibit troop movement is frustrating.

Weather would just be another one of those obstacles to overcome.

If you have a snowstorm that blows up into a blizzard, you still have options. Perhaps a special implant for a 50 meter heat-vision, or just moving very slowly. Maybe tanks become too easy to spot, so you have to leave them behind for a bit while you get everybody suited up for an infantry-only advance. Perhaps your air support can't fly around without getting tussled by high winds, so you're on your own. Or maybe you're just in a tight spot, so you have to wait for the storm to die down in a few minutes.

Or maybe this snowstorm will be the damning factor, giving enemies cover to creep up unhindered towards your position.


My point is that this would be just another obstacle to overcome, and one that poses some very interesting changes to the battlefield. It would create a totally new environment to learn how to handle; the dry, typical desert map is suddenly something totally different. Merely being "frustrating" to deal with isn't a sufficiently powerful argument to me, because that logic applies to every imaginable obstacle.

Lastly, while weather should be random, I think a weather forecasting overlay would be a nice touch to expand on the weather element.

As a final note, remember the situation that occurred on D-Day?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings#Weather

Strategic choices made because of weather patterns literally changed the history of the world. I would be loathe to keep it out of PS2 because it's occasionally inconvenient. Hell, that's kind of the point.

[Warborn]

Oh boy, another debate about semantics, how exciting.

[Garem]

Oh boy, another debate about semantics, how exciting.

No, it isn't? :rolleyes:

It's a disagreement about the substance.

You say that something is too frustrating to be in the game, and I disagree, saying that it is indeed annoying but that's a good thing... this is not an argument on the semantics.

If I disagreed with your use of the word, frustrating, then yea, we'd have an argument on semantics. Let's avoid that.

If you really meant something else than what you said, please use more clear language. Feel free to respond to the substantive post I made prior to this one.

[Warborn]

The good news is I am drunk enough to think replying to this stuff is worthwhile.

Weather would just be another one of those obstacles to overcome.

You can't fight back against weather. Severe weather would be like bad latency or frame rates -- a thing that just happens which prevents you from playing the game how you were a minute ago. Stuff that shuts down gameplay which is out of the hands of the players is a Bad Thing. Augmenting gameplay through mild weather or day/night is cool and adds variety though.

If you have a snowstorm that blows up into a blizzard, you still have options. Perhaps a special implant for a 50 meter heat-vision, or just moving very slowly. Maybe tanks become too easy to spot, so you have to leave them behind for a bit while you get everybody suited up for an infantry-only advance. Perhaps your air support can't fly around without getting tussled by high winds, so you're on your own. Or maybe you're just in a tight spot, so you have to wait for the storm to die down in a few minutes.

Forcing people to stop playing the way they've been playing in a drastic way like that is a bad idea. Telling all the pilots they can't fly their planes anymore will not endear them to the game. Telling everyone else they have to equip some implant or something like that otherwise they can't see anything is similarly bad.

You need to think about what exactly you're trying to accomplish here. Why is weather in the game? Is it to stop dead in their tracks players who've been enjoying the game just fine up to that point? To say "fuck you, now do this"? Weather which affects visibility a bit but is mainly there for atmosphere does everything that severe weather does, but it wouldn't force people off the continent, either.

Realism is not an end in itself when it comes to games. Adding variety is cool, adding things that happen which provide tactical elements to exploit and change the game a bit is cool, but reducing visibility for players to nil because "well that happens in real life" is not something people would appreciate. Planetside is an arcadey FPS meant to appeal to a broad spectrum of FPS gamers. Think about the audience the game is designed for and what their expectations would be.

Lastly, while weather should be random, I think a weather forecasting overlay would be a nice touch to expand on the weather element.

This is actually a good idea.

As a final note, remember the situation that occurred on D-Day?

Players don't give a shit about D-Day, they care about playing a fun game. And as this isn't Hearts of Iron IV: Hearts of Iron-er: The Musical, gameplay elements that consist of "the weather is too bad to attack right now so you can't fly at all and you can't see because of the sand/snow/dicks, wait a few hours or go somewhere else" on a grand scale doesn't fly.

No, it isn't? :rolleyes:

It's a disagreement about the substance.

It will be. It always is. It'll be a debate about what you imagine versus what I imagine, attempting to paint pictures with necessarily brief paragraphs. We've done this song and dance already. It went on for, like, 11 pages or something stupid like that.

[Garem]

Much better response! Drink more often, I say.

My summary of your points (correct me if I'm wrong) with responses:

(1) Inclement weather would shut down gameplay because you can't do anything about it.

The suggestion on inclement weather isn't to shut down gameplay: a blizzard freezing the treads of tanks making them unusable is an overly drastic measure that nobody suggested. The suggestion is to change the environment of the battlefield, temporarily. Necessarily, you CAN do something about it- wait it out for 5 to 15 minutes for the storm to die or adopt your tactics to adapt to the new circumstances.

That's typically fun for most players.

There was a level in the 2nd CoD: Modern Warfare where you infiltrate an enemy camp during a snowstorm. Nobody was upset about the challenges and benefits that come with these sort of battlefield conditions, but they were instead in an interesting opportunity to change the typical gameplay from run and gun to weather-boosted stealth. While I'm not advocating for the game overall, this particular aspect was certainly interesting because it was a novel way to play the game.

---

(2) Forcing drastic gameplay changes ("by reducing visibility to nil") would not be fun.

Similar to my #1 response, any change to the gameplay can be fun. If you don't like interesting challenges (which both sides have to handle), then no, this won't be fun for you. If running and gunning with only aesthetic environment changes are all that matter to you, I can't change your opinion on that. I do, however, strongly disagree.

Also, I'm not advocating ZERO visibility so that people are totally blind. Merely reduced visibility to varying degrees. I don't think you can honestly say that a thick snowstorm where you couldn't see more than thirty meters wouldn't make a war all the more thrilling.

So, being totally blind? Yea, that would be annoying. Like normal storms, except in the harshest extremes of the world, these sorts of storms don't exactly happen but for a few times a century and are usually localized. I'd want the game to reflect that- if it were ever THAT extreme, only once, only briefly until calming into more reasonably manageable weather.

---

(3) You can't do anything if inclement weather arises, which isn't fun.

Of course you can do something about inclement weather. You can delay operations until the weather calms down several minutes later, you can divert your attack to where the storm isn't heading or has already passed, or make the tactical adjustments to deal with reduced visibility.

Any fight in one of these storms would challenge both sides. It just changes the environment, and only temporarily at that.

---

(4) We've already discussed this topic ad nauseum.

I haven't seen anything about it; by all means, enlighten me!

---

Conclusion:

We fundamentally disagree on the principle that more challenges are a good thing. You perceive it an undesirable nuisance that impedes gameplay; I perceive it as a temporary change in environment inducing players to be more tactical, use better teamwork, or suffer the consequences of failing to adapt to a changing situation. If you don't agree with me and want the game to be essentially constant in its environment, we'll just have to leave it at that.

[WaryWizard]

Warborn

Why do you disagree so adamantly when anybody suggest something that could decrease the distance you can see. Weather should make it hard to see,and if it doesn't I'm going to be disappointed. Why aren't you complaining about trees or mountains making it hard to see as well? They pretty much do the same thing.

Making certain things like mud(caused by rain or other water source) slows down certain vehicles, and making high winds (caused by storms) make piloting a little more difficult, then I'm all for it.

[VioletZero]

For the VS Magrider, this would have a special effect on them. Instead of a flat reduction in speed, it reduces their acceleration and braking power a lot. So they're a lot slower getting going and have much less control on unfavorable terrain. But on the bright side, once they get going then they can move faster than other vehicles on unfavorable terrain than other vehicles.

[Azren]

Here's another crazy idea.

I propose we have certain vehicles be more adept at crossing certain terrain tiles than others.

Just throwing this out there, but one suggestion I have is to have a "mud" terrain that makes wheel based vehicles such as the Sunderer slower, but a vehicle like the Lightning would cross it just fine because of its tracks.

And there could be customizations that favor certain types of terrain. Maybe there could be a wheels customization for tanks that lets them move faster on "road" terrain but makes them slower everywhere else.

Then there could be weather like rain or snow that makes almost all vehicles slower.

What do you think? I think it has potential to add some depth to the game's terrain that some people want. But I want your thoughts.

Only if you can visually see the wheels sink into the mud. Would be neat to have tanks sink in muddy terrain, leaving them immobile. Maybe a sunderer could pull them out.

[Warborn]

Warborn

Why do you disagree so adamantly when anybody suggest something that could decrease the distance you can see.

I don't. This is the semantics stuff I'm so bored to death with. I don't mind weather affecting visibility, or darkness doing the same. But for weather to be so inclement, or darkness so dark, that you can't play without some kind of implant or whatever, that is something I oppose. Making it so people can't see more than a few metres in front of them would halt gameplay in its tracks. That is what I'm opposed to. Blizzards are fine, but not if people need some kind of fancy heat sensor to engage enemies and aircraft can't fly.

[Azren]

The VS would love muddy terrains though :)

[Warborn]

I'm glad to see you've gotten over your love for eye-rolling emoticons. It was a brief and torrid affair of the heart, but its conclusion is for the best. You'll meet an emoticon who deserves your affection someday.

The suggestion on inclement weather isn't to shut down gameplay: a blizzard freezing the treads of tanks making them unusable is an overly drastic measure that nobody suggested. The suggestion is to change the environment of the battlefield, temporarily. Necessarily, you CAN do something about it- wait it out for 5 to 15 minutes for the storm to die or adopt your tactics to adapt to the new circumstances.

Nobody specified any sort of time frame that I recall. Something brief like five minutes would be just a nuisance. Either way, you indicated something severe like aircraft not being able to fly and people requiring a heat sensor implant in order to see at a distance with various mechanics related to heat signatures. So I don't believe I've been given to hyperbole in my words.

Incidentally, five to fifteen minutes? All that work for just a fart in the wind?

There was a level in the 2nd CoD: Modern Warfare where you infiltrate an enemy camp during a snowstorm.

Single-player game. What works there doesn't work in an ever-changing, unscripted online environment.

Similar to my #1 response, any change to the gameplay can be fun.

It can also be amazingly frustrating. What about the guys who just got their liberator out to the fight and now can't see anything because of the weather? Waiting it out isn't tremendously fun gameplay. Serious disruptions like that will frustrate players. The novelty of fighting in a snowstorm will wear off after not much time. Moderate weather impacts, as mentioned, accomplish all of the above without the frustration of your chosen playstyle no longer being viable.

Also, I'm not advocating ZERO visibility so that people are totally blind. Merely reduced visibility to varying degrees. I don't think you can honestly say that a thick snowstorm where you couldn't see more than thirty meters wouldn't make a war all the more thrilling.

More thrilling for who? For an infantry guy with a shotgun? Yeah, sure. For the sniper? For the fighter pilot who had been strafing ground targets till then? For the tankers whose foil is infantry able to put rockets up their tailpipe? Not so much. Those people would just have to wait it out or be forced to change what they're doing for no good reason.

Let me restate this point: "Waiting" is boring. People don't like to wait at all. Delays are not good gameplay. Expecting people to wait until the weather passes in order to play their preferred style is not a good answer to this issue.

(4) We've already discussed this topic ad nauseum.

I haven't seen anything about it; by all means, enlighten me!

What's this in response to? I don't see it.

[Garem]

It seems like your point really boils down to saying that everybody should at all times be permitted the optimal utility for playing their particular interest.

That's crazy. I don't think you actually believe that, but it's the case you're trying to make - Snowstorms, sandstorms, or any sort of severe environmental change that would restrict the usefulness of any particular play style is bad.

Really?

Not trying to sound repetitive, but the frustration of not having optimal use of any particular play style is a hallmark of Planetside. For everything, there is a season... even in PS. Usually, you can see them coming: a tank specialist knows that he's not going to be useful when it comes to taking an underground bunker, a hallway, or a thickly wooded forest. Same thing goes for a pilot specialist.

This has always been true. Not all "classes" are created equal at all times. It makes the game interesting.

So why would this be different for snowstorm environments? And frankly, a tank is useless in an underground bunker, but in a snowstorm, that might not be true! A tank may be able to slip up close to a base and blast infantry nearby while avoiding the wall turrets. Or a plane may be able to see large troop movements and throw down bombs or missiles, but if they move fast enough, infantry anti-air won't be able to spot for a proper missile lock. Nobody is totally winning or losing from this, it's just different.

Inclement weather is just another interesting element to think about for tactical purposes. As for the heat sensors I mentioned, I think having a way to more easily handle darkness, torrential rain, underwater, or stormy weather would be a great addition to the kinds of customization changes PS2 wants to offer its players. Preparation gives an edge to every other fight in this game, why would this be any different?

Lastly, as for the duration, the numbers I threw out were arbitrary, but I stand by them. I'm not trying to be rude or pedantic, but bad weather doesn't just start or stop. It builds up as a crescendo, it reaches its pinnacle of nastiness, and then it tends to quickly blow over. A three hour white out isn't necessary, but realistic weather patterns (including weather forecasting as I suggested) would be an amazing touch to quite literally change the landscape and playing environment into a more dynamic and interesting place to wage our endless war. It's just one more way to reduce the repetition that you see in every other FPS out there. We have a whole, unique world to play with... why the hell would we want it to be static like every other game?


In summation:
-You're overblowing how "helpless" people would be in crazy storms. They aren't helpless, they just have to adapt better than their adversary to the temporary environmental changes to gain the upper hand in a fight.
-You only have to wait in Planetside if you're not clever enough to devise a new tactic, which is pre-existing and positive part of the game anyways.
-Inclement weather creates a brand new environment (and new challenge) for places that we'll all have seen and fought over a hundred times before.
-If anything, keeping Planetside 2's locales MORE interesting than singleplayer games' is more important in order to keep it from becoming stale/static. That's why we all prefer games like Planetside- they're dynamic, and no two fights should ever be the same.

[Warborn]

Once again, I am fine with weather and night time imposing mild changes in visibility. It shouldn't always be "optimal", and that is not something I ever stated. But nobody should ever feel like they can't play a certain way over something like weather or darkness. People should always be able to grab a plane or a sniper rifle and go to town. Weather and time of day should not prevent that.

[Talek Krell]

I'm all for severe weather and dark nights. It's probably best that it not reach the point of a full stop, admittedly.
Tanks slowed by muddy terrain, sure. Tanks bogged down and unable to move, probably no. I think you could make it work, but it'd be difficult.
Aircraft having difficulty in flight due to inclement weather, sure. Aircraft physically incapable of flying, no.
For night you have to strike the same balance. Dark enough to give people reason to use the various light sources that should be readily available to each soldier, light enough that those who choose not to use them are clumsier, but not blind.

I think it's important to point out though that neither weather nor night needs to be random. Before the bending in PS1 you could watch storms drift across the global map, and plan for their arrival appropriately. Having the same system in PS2 shouldn't be hard. And if you don't like fighting in the dark, then it's always noon somewhere. Finding a fight on a continent in a different time zone shouldn't be difficult.

[WaryWizard]

I think it's important to point out though that neither weather nor night needs to be random. Before the bending in PS1 you could watch storms drift across the global map, and plan for their arrival appropriately. Having the same system in PS2 shouldn't be hard. And if you don't like fighting in the dark, then it's always noon somewhere. Finding a fight on a continent in a different time zone shouldn't be difficult.

Those are good thought. i never played the first one so i didn't know about being able to see storms and such. I hope they have a global map that nicely represents the weather and lighting.(maybe a 3d globe like a google earth with a zoom in restriction)

I see it as people who don't like weather can just fight on another part of the continent, and people who don't like night can fight on another continent. Not interrupting the game really unless the really hate it, and they were not paying attention to maps for the past hours, in which case it's their fault.