News: AGN Community Night December 17th - Page 3

Captain1nsaneo · 2011-12-13, 01:24 AM

Now we only have to figure out how to make bridges destructible so the boats can actually use rivers.

Graywolves · 2011-12-13, 02:27 AM

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

Now we only have to figure out how to make bridges destructible so the boats can actually use rivers.

Or the boats can learn to jump!

Figment · 2011-12-13, 08:54 AM

Or just raise the height of bridges...

Anyway, I got a couple questions I'd love to see adressed:

Do they feel the customization of units interferes with the adding of new units, since any type of stat variation has pretty much been covered already by variants?

Basically, will there be niche vehicles next to the jack of all trades? Ergo, will there be dedicated anti-air/anti-infantry units and tank destroyers? We used to have the Switchblade as one such example. Similarly are there any plans for Mammoth tanks? ie. slow, but (extra heavy) tanks, but requiring much more resources to build and other weaknesses like slow rotating turrets, etc? Either way some more units to increase variation beyond Buggy, Lightning, APC, Sundy and tank.

Do they also plan on having more than just the amphibious APCs to replace naval combat if naval units are out? For instance, amphibious light or medium tanks. As Mags hover, the TR and NC used to have nothing but the Thunderer and Deliverer to engage those tanks, which explicitly put the TR at a disadvantage. Sadly these units were never used en mass frequently enough to mount D-Day style invasions. Or could they just create small landing vessel construction sites, where you could locally obtain a bunch of Lodestar style naval landing craft?

Hyncharas · 2011-12-13, 11:18 AM

I think there will only be a certain degree of customisation, and new units will actually be brand new models for the game rather than simple variants. There is, of course, one alternative that couldn't really be implemented in the last game and a PSIL-concept by Hayoo I might add, known as Emplacements. People who've played games like Company of Heroes may be more familiar with what these are -- small structures that can be built by one or two engineers into anything from a single-storey guard tower, to a bunker that can protect half a dozen people, to simply cover for heavy infantry or a machine gun. There were about a dozen of these proposed, but with the huge advancements perpetuated by Forgelight there might be the opportunity for more of them.

I think I speak for Hayoo for wanting to see the Maglev Trains Concept as well; PS maps were huge and you needed a vehicle if you weren't a MAX to get from one side of the continent to another, especially if the warpgates happened to be controlled by the enemy. To alleviate this, the Maglevs were capturable mass-transit trains and waystations mothballed when the war started, similar to the High-Altitude Rapid Transport vessels, built by the Terran Republic so that colonists could effectively transfer equipment and personnel the different continents and through the warpgates themselves. Each waystation consisted of Urban Towns where families used to reside until war broke out and were abadoned. The problems with this, however, is that the Maglevs would stop at a waystation ahead if the enemy captured it, and they'd be vulnerable to aerial assault when in transit, leading to mobile firefights where those onboard would need to defend against being destroyed or boarded.

The planned concept was they would be retasked for the war effort, allowing small contigents of troops and vehicles to bypass contested areas of the continent entirely and breach a nearby base in-force. As the trains passed a waystation they would be warped aboard, but I think it would be much more satisfying if factions had to fight to capture them, and to keep them by having a delay between stops for those wanting to get off in that area. Like anything else the maglevs themselves could also have customiseable weapons and whether they transported passengers, or had flatbed trailers for tanks.

GuvNuh · 2011-12-13, 02:16 PM

Looking foward to this next broadcast, enjoyed the last couple tremendously. While i would also love to see naval and space combat in the game, i really don't want it done in the same style as eve. I'm here to kill things, not check my corporate finances. That pissed me off more than anything about eve, i dont play games to have a second job dammit.

LongBow · 2011-12-13, 07:05 PM

Veteran Bonuses -

veterancy from PS1, absolutely not.
even an "I was there" token would be a disaster because the community
will favour the experienced player. If we want new blood we can't
be able discriminate against them.

Vs max changes -

yes, in PS1 verticality didn’t matter as much because there were only
specific places you could really use jump and the meta game evolved.

In PS2 "jump jets" is the main feature for "light" infantry if a heavily
armoured VS has the same mobility it is going to void the role for all
three factions - as VS jump units all have to be maxes and TR /NC
light infantry can't get a fun fight.

bringing in new people is kinda an odd topic, but ok -

the game is what is going to get people involved. a community like
PSU has to grow naturally through word of mouth and off-handed comments
by SOE staff.
Although I'm a first time poster so Gratz w/e it is, its working =P

Naval combat -

no - I think there are two camps to this: the first doesn’t want a
fight on water they want an amphibious landing. delivers can already
swim and fill that niche, full assaults are impractical as any water
transport would be unable to compete with a Galaxy.

VS already have this capability but rarely use it as it just splits your
force.

the other navy camp is the ship to ship combat, be it in space or on
the seven seas ... honestly this is just caving, I hope small arms battles
return but they probably won't make it for launch.

round table question suggestions-

1) Is allowing MB Tanks to be effectively operated by a single user going
to lead to a less social community?

2) Would you like to see a "target designator" by which vehicles could
lock on to a "target" created by infantry, maybe turn a few of those "damn
that Reaver stole my kill" into "damn fine shooting ace" …

3) Grenades are often shunned in the FPS genre as a skill balancing tool,
are you happy to see grenades make a come back in PS; and to take a more
prominent spot in your inventory.

4) is it ok for bullets/shells/missiles to travel beyond the MAX player load
distance? Because shelling that bunker is ok, but how do the people inside
the bunker shoot back?

On topic-

The current line up of vehicles on launch covers all major roles, I think we
have to accept that this game is going to look different two years after
launch, but for now its going to be very specific and well tested.
It also makes it easier for new players as they can gain experience of how fast that tank rearranges their face much quicker.

As for "a trains" concept; basically it won't happen for the same reason the heart shuttle is being scraped while it would make for great fights. You don't want to have to wait for the train every 5 mins and from a combat POV why would you capture the train station when you could capture the re-spawn point and have players "warp in" to that location. (assuming they don't just jump into a player created mission and arrive directly into the fight)

KernolKlusterFk · 2011-12-13, 07:56 PM

The navy concept will probably not only pertain to just combat. Navy ships will probably serve as a large support role on the battlefield. Examples would include landing pads for repairing aircraft on ships, Artillery, anti aircraft, transport of precious resources, and even ships can be used to mine resources that are only accesible in the water (kinda like offshore drilling). Navy on navy combat is just a plus.

LongBow · 2011-12-14, 06:14 AM

A "navy ship scenario" is unlikely, especially for launch - from a game play POV open water is big and featureless so it is improbable that you will get a "good" ship to ship combat more than once a night no matter how well populated the "ship" mechanics are. especially if you want the boats to be big enough to act as mobile towers.

However "oil rig" type facilities when placed in clear sight of the shore sounds really quite cool, the Vanu have a big advantage here as their MBT can approach the fight - but if its close to the shore and the Rig is quite tall any slow vehicle is a sitting duck out in the open for land based forces or AV infantry on the platform - and so the meta game will evolve.

Plus "oil rigs" make for great multilevel fire fights. though they would just be "towers" - a very different shape tower helps to diversify the experience for infantry and the relative isolation allows much smaller outfits to make a noticeable difference on the front lines.

GuvNuh · 2011-12-14, 10:56 AM

That's one of the better water-based ideas i've come across so far longbow. That would actually work.

Figment · 2011-12-14, 11:35 AM

Not just oil rigs, but you could also have water based fortresses.

This fortress (Pampus) protected the harbour of Amsterdam. Alternatively you could have fortresses and bases protecting sea lanes, think Guns of Navaronne. Ports could be used in logistics (creating supply lines behind enemy lines). These could act as if in direct connection with the main territory, quickening capture times around it.

If you create landing zones for invasion fleets, so a sort of intercontinental lattices by water, you could have another reason for naval combat.

Similarly, you could create docks, sub-pens, airports and other island and atol bases and facilities which require amphibious landings. Could be quite epic to have an island siege. In that sense you could have landing vehicle spawning ships, small (!) destroyer sized aircraft carriers, motor torpedo boats, hovercraft transports, minelayers, etc. Anything that can hamper or assist a naval landing, a bridge assault, a coastal base siege.

Hyncharas · 2011-12-14, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by LongBow

A "navy ship scenario" is unlikely, especially for launch - from a game play POV open water is big and featureless so it is improbable that you will get a "good" ship to ship combat more than once a night no matter how well populated the "ship" mechanics are. especially if you want the boats to be big enough to act as mobile towers.

However "oil rig" type facilities when placed in clear sight of the shore sounds really quite cool, the Vanu have a big advantage here as their MBT can approach the fight - but if its close to the shore and the Rig is quite tall any slow vehicle is a sitting duck out in the open for land based forces or AV infantry on the platform - and so the meta game will evolve.

Plus "oil rigs" make for great multilevel fire fights. though they would just be "towers" - a very different shape tower helps to diversify the experience for infantry and the relative isolation allows much smaller outfits to make a noticeable difference on the front lines.

Underwater Bases/Naval Combat: =
I'm not keen on naval combat either, though for underwater bases the principle was never to have it in the strictest sense i.e., not for assulting bases on the surface. Instead anybody flying over them or falling in deep water and not climbing out would suffer the same rules based on that gameplay-layer, meaning submersibles or an elevator would be required to breach the deep ocean.

Like the Battle Islands, they would be self-contained zones in underwater where players would fight for control of a network of submerged bases (notably for mining rights). It's possible, however, the oil rigs could tie into this; similar to how bases in Core Combat once locked warpgates for specific factions, rigs could provide certain types of submersibles and resources multipliers, while underwater trenches could weave their way beneath a continent and function as accessways to a submerged battleground. The gameplay here would be slitghtly different in that firefights by factions of players ingame would determine how the bases would get damaged and affect their capture. This damage to the superstructure would repair by itself over time, but create variety for groups fighting for control. As for facilities in the bases themselves, they would be player-driven as normal so teams could destroy or repair functionality during sieges.

Once all bases were captured by a specific empire in the zone, they would be locked for 24 hours to allow outfits of that side to mine what they needed before the system resetted all facilities to neutral. It could also be made so that underwater resources were depleted and would require a few days every month of non-stop firefights to replenish, so outfits/factions would have be careful on what forces they had to commit to long engagements.

Monorail Concept: =
I'm sorry you have reservations about it. It was just that some continents (Forseral, for example) have massive open areas where there's nothing in them! If there were spaces like settlements for some much needed resource areas it might be one thing, but the fact there was nothing at all makes them utterly useless for the most part besides as a staging area, and even this was pretty minimal since it was practically impossible to hide tank convoys from the enemy without multiple AMSs.

The monorails were meant as a way to provide some strategic importance to those areas, allow for roving combat and, most importantly, allow a supply line to outfit bases that might exist on the continent. If the studio can't find a realistic purpose for those areas they should make them mostly impassable.

PlanetSide Service Ribbons: =
In some ways I understand why certain players will be annoyed with attention; in others, so what if they choose people of certain factions (namely the TR) to ally with?

If PS2 is exactly the same as the first game where 40% side with NC and another 40% with VS, leaving 20% of TR players substantially outnumbered, I certainly won't be happy with going through the crap of not even having a fair empire-advantage. There wouldn't be any point in having a three-way battle in the game at all if two of the empires have superior everything!

LongBow · 2011-12-14, 01:07 PM

=D TY govnah Its appreciated

but its really just a tower* or bunker* putting it on stilts and sticking it over water ^^

LongBow · 2011-12-14, 01:29 PM

Defiantly underwater is an epic ascetic choice - and very James bond - but aside from the obvious windows there is no difference game play wise than just burying a facility underground...

Its the call for small arms or "infantry only" areas and honestly despite being a flyboy myself I see both the appeal and need for them.

as per your second point - if you asked higby (or any dev TBH) - I'm sure the answer would be: *if there are large featureless plains with nothing interestingto fight over, they have failed*

LongBow · 2011-12-14, 02:17 PM

=) hai Hyncharas

I would continue the discussion on your third point but I'm unfamiliar with the concept of how "planet side service ribbons" force faction balancing.

to my understanding they are just achievements.

Hyncharas · 2011-12-14, 02:50 PM

Take our outfit, the CDL, for example. In the beginning the support for outfits wasn't very good in PS1, because only a handful of them committed to a single empire and it felt defeatist. We, however, stayed TR for many years until it became clear SOE was flogging a dead horse; especially after the art team was reassigned to Everquest 2 because they felt that game was more important. Despite this we had it good -- many a time VS and NC alike will remember a dozen of us yielding only after five or six galaxies full of troops rained on top of us. We didn't just step up to the seriously biased plate in the game, but represented the TR in those engagements.

Now if PS2 is going to benefit the customisation of outfits in the game, they are going to be the driving force of gameplay. Even if people don't join us, players are going to think "Hey, what makes them sticking with the TR so much more satisfying than the sparkling incetives of the NC or VS?" They may be very good in combat too, and start their own outfit in the empire as a result, providing support because they see they're not the sole group in the empire that seems to know what to do.

But if there's no way for those outfits to show to new users how long they have represented their empire, or why it's so important, it can be very daunting for players to even consider going anywhere near the TR. This is why I believe service ribbons show that PS2 should be structured not just around the three empires, but the outfits that represent those empires with their dedication. Joining TR is the hardest empire of the game to many people, but if we can do it, why not be given the right to demonstrate that fact on the battlefield?