Rethinking the Drivers and Planetside Vehicles as a whole

[Sirisian]

I've always preferred vehicles where the driver and gunners work together without leaving the driver out of the action. This is going to sound controversial, especially for veterans, but the change that I'd make to enable that is to give the main weapons of a vehicle to the driver and let the gunner offset the weaknesses of the main weapons with secondary weapons. (Breathe. This is similar in concept to the BFR). I assure you I've included changes that make this balanced.

So how I see this changing things depends on the vehicles. Some would stay like they are while others would see a different gameplay.

Starting with two single person planes that many view as "solo but can work with a team such as a squad". That is they don't have mandatory teamwork.

Mosquito
Focus on anti-aircraft/anti-infantry. The idea would be to keep them agile and suited for taking out other aircraft while also allowing them to kill infantry in quick attacks. (As I said in another thread I'm not a fan of hovering and I prefer A-10 Warthog type strikes with high fire-rates).

Reaver
Focus on anti-vehicle/anti-infantry (depending on the rockets) ranged sneak attacks. Like normal they'd be good at damaging targets and avoiding AA.

Liberator
The liberator in Planetside is a 3 person vehicle with a lot of down-time especially for the tail-gunner. I foresee a whole new gameplay model for it.

The bombs would be weaker making the driver inline with the other aircraft and focus on tactical strikes. The physics for the bombs would be changed such that they behave like real bombs keeping the velocity of the plane that releases them. That is you can fly at a target then release a bomb and pull up and the bomb would be thrown into the target. (This would alow allow you to throw a bomb through a door, but that's less likely). Or if you start out high in the clouds then drop straight down on a target and release bombs one after another they'd hit in the same spot. The main idea would be giving the driver more control over the skill of using a bomber. The driver would lose their front gun and become a more specialized aircraft. When you see a bomber you know what it's after basically.

There would be one gunner for it. The tailgunner would have anti-vehicle cannons or anti-air rounds. With the increased maneuverability (6 degrees of freedom flight) the tail gunner would actually make sense in the new game. It could be used to defend the plane or to aim at targets with AV rounds if the plane was low bombing. (A single bomb wouldn't kill a vehicle basically, thus why dive bombing to focus multiple bombs would be used if a person wanted to do more damage).

Tanks (Prowler/Vanguard/Magrider)
With this change tanks would function more as a slow firing heavy hitting vehicle. That is when you saw one you know they can only attack one piece of armor at a time but they can do this very well. For instance, if you saw a vanguard fire there would be a loud blast and smoke particles emitted from the muzzle and the vehicle would rock backwards and the barrel would recoil into the tank then slowly reset itself. The round would travel through the air in a long arc then explode when it hit something. You'd immediately know that whatever it hit probably just sustained a lot of damage.

However, because of this slow firing heavy hitting you'd know pretty well that they were vulnerable to infantry and air attacks. This means that a secondary gunner would be very beneficial. The top of a tank would have either anti-infantry or anti-aircraft weapons.

However to keep things simple they'd be generally the same.

Prowler: AI = Long Range Dual Rockets, AA = Air-Burst Flak Rounds

Vanguard: AI = Long Range Dual Cluster Rockets, AA = Shotgun Flak Rounds

Magrider: AI = Long Range Dual Plasma Rockets, AA = Energy Flak Rounds

The AI would be used to attack with nearly the same distance as the main cannon and the AA would be used to tell aircraft to stay out of range.

The whole idea here is to make both the driver and gunner important roles and keep both interesting in the battle with ideally no downtime. While this seems like it makes the gunner's roll unimportant, without one a person using a tank would set themselves up to be ambushed by infantry and air attacking the weak components of the vehicle since the reload time would make leave it defenseless.

Also I really didn't like the old gameplay of the tanks; shooting the main cannon while driving 50 through a forest. Ideally the tank would be doing one of two things. Either lining up a shot and shooting something or moving into position. Their role would be focused more on open terrain combat where both the driver and gunner are bombarding the enemy. The gunner would be much more able to shoot while driving whereas the main gun would difficult to aim exactly while moving.

Skyguard
Possibly one of the most specific vehicles in the game with the strongest AA in the game. It was fun to gun for, but driving them them wasn't nearly as rewarding. It had a huge role overlap with the AA max which was probably the main problem. Not sure if this was anyone's favorite vehicle, but since the driver never got any kills I've always wanted it to be a deployed dual AA turret.

That is it wouldn't have a secondary gunner. It's teamwork would be more of a big-picture stationary air-turret for taking out fast moving planes from afar. Rather than flak though I've always wanted a super high rate-of fire anti-aircraft gun. That would basically totally re-invent the skyguard. (The original did have a machine-gun though).

Did anyone enjoy driving this vehicle?

Empire-Specific buggies
The way I imagine making them more interesting is giving the driver a forward facing chaingun and letting the gunner still deal with the main gun. That is the marauder would still promote a fast agile attack platform and the driver could stay occupied if it was chasing something. (This is similar to the old magrider's front gun which wasn't that great as a front gun).

Ground Transport
In the 8 years the games been out I've only used them once or twice. I'm sure some people found them fun, but they weren't as rewarding as any of the other vehicles. Pulling a galaxy for my squad was usually my first choice. If there was terrain or caves in the new game where these could be used then maybe I'd change my mind. Not sure how those will even work if they're included in the new game since it sounds like they buffed the role of the galaxy even more.

Conclusion
Now a few people are probably going to think to themselves "what if 50 people try to use these vehicles solo?" Ideally they'd be designed with a weakness like the tank such that they'd leave themselves open to a wide range of attacks.

Also since I was in IRC the comment of "This just promotes solo play" came up and I agree to a point. The idea is to make all the vehicles rewarding to use even as a driver. Some people found driving extremely rewarding getting their gunner into the perfect positions to fire. I personally didn't enjoy it as much as the developers probably intended.

What do you guys think about these ideas? (I know they're going to be compared to other games, but describe what you don't like about how it was handled at least in those games with how I presented the driver/gunner relationship). Also if you enjoyed driving say that. I'm in the minority on that I'm almost 100% sure.

[CutterJohn]

Also since I was in IRC the comment of "This just promotes solo play" came up and I agree to a point. The idea is to make all the vehicles rewarding to use even as a driver. Some people found driving extremely rewarding getting their gunner into the perfect positions to fire. I personally didn't enjoy it as much as the developers probably intended.

While I am a fan of the idea of all drivers having guns and/or more things to do(a lot more), I don't think its necessary to make all vehicles solo viable. There are vehicles balanced for soloing, and vehicles balanced for going out with a friend or two.

Of course I'm also a fan of drivers being able to bring an extra gunner to take those responsibilities off their hands if they wish. My classic example is the Prowler. Driver controls the chaingun turret, unless a third gunner is found. Both setups have advantages and disadvantages.

I don't particularly agree with the primary weapon being controlled by the driver.

[Elude]

I like the idea of the skyguard being a deployable air turret, but perhaps it could also be changed out with a artillery mortar weapon. Aside from what the sykguard will do, it would also be nice to see it's appearance I think changed from being a buggy the size of a harasser to being more truck like.

I also like your idea of the mosquito, I too do not like the concept of it hovering, it should propel itself forward at a slow speed until you step on the gas to go faster. As for the reaver, I'm hoping this thing will behave more like a two man attack helicopter where you have a pilot with rockets, and a gunner with a fully automatic machine gun.

[CutterJohn]

Tbh, I believe the skyguard would be perfect as a lightning variant. Perhaps cut back on the dps a bit, but otherwise its fine.

[Elude]

Tbh, I believe the skyguard would be perfect as a lightning variant. Perhaps cut back on the dps a bit, but otherwise its fine.

Perhaps that's what it could actually start out with being and later have upgrades for small artillery and anti air.

[SgtMAD]

you can already throw lib bombs inside doorways.

[Sirisian]

you can already throw lib bombs inside doorways.
I didn't want to derail the topic. I was imagining allowing a liberator driver to choose different bombs. One of which is a rolling bomb. That's why I made that random statement of flying 90 kph at a door and releasing a bomb. All I'm imagining is it rolling down some stairs then someone staring at it and going "what is that". :lol:

[Talek Krell]

the change that I'd make to enable that is to give the main weapons of a vehicle to the driver(Breathe. This is similar in concept to the BFR)

It's also why you regularly see "Gunner" BFRs leave base without a gunner, or without even a gunner turret. If you want to play by yourself, just use one of the numerous vehicles already available to you.



The physics for the bombs would be changed such that they behave like real bombs keeping the velocity of the plane that releases them.

You can do that now. Nobody figures that out, it seems like, but you can.

[CutterJohn]

It's also why you regularly see "Gunner" BFRs leave base without a gunner, or without even a gunner turret. If you want to play by yourself, just use one of the numerous vehicles already available to you.

Pretty sure that only ever gets done because of the tendency of the gunner to 'killsteal' from the driver, depriving him of kills for the FV merit.

Otherwise there is almost zero downside to taking a gunner. A bfr without one is pretty weak.

[Talek Krell]

Pretty sure that only ever gets done because of the tendency of the gunner to 'killsteal' from the driver, depriving him of kills for the FV merit.

I'm not sure that makes it better, although I never asked. Still, I suspect that giving the power to the driver will tend to result in people pulling their own vehicles instead of gunning for each other. Why have one tank with an MG when you can have two tanks? Or a tank and a skyguard, if you're really worried about air.

[Zulthus]

I do think more vehicles could be more like the Mag; where the driver gets a slightly crappy AI weapon, but they definitely should not get the main weapon.

[Sirisian]

It's also why you regularly see "Gunner" BFRs leave base without a gunner, or without even a gunner turret. If you want to play by yourself, just use one of the numerous vehicles already available to you.
Yeah I get that mentality. The point isn't to make all the vehicles solo mode. It's more just to balance them so drivers and gunners both have equal weapons such that pulling two of a certain vehicle doesn't really make sense and isn't as rewarding. If you can jump into a tank and launch rockets at the same range as the main gun and kill infantry then it's going to be pretty epic. Having tanks fight on open terrain like they did on Ishundar would make this kind of stuff work well.
Pretty sure that only ever gets done because of the tendency of the gunner to 'killsteal' from the driver, depriving him of kills for the FV merit.

Otherwise there is almost zero downside to taking a gunner. A bfr without one is pretty weak.
Yeah never liked that myself. The sharing of kills when in a vehicle in regards to merits was never fully balanced. That's something that needs to be taken care of in PS2.
I'm not sure that makes it better, although I never asked. Still, I suspect that giving the power to the driver will tend to result in people pulling their own vehicles instead of gunning for each other. Why have one tank with an MG when you can have two tanks? Or a tank and a skyguard, if you're really worried about air.
That's actually a really excellent point. They could. In other words it promotes symbiotic mutualism. The idea being why pull your own when you can just jump in the tank and get the same features. (Remember people in the tank share experience).
I do think more vehicles could be more like the Mag; where the driver gets a slightly crappy AI weapon, but they definitely should not get the main weapon.
Why? I already suggested that the secondary weapon is basically of equal power for a different armor group (AI/AA).

[Zulthus]

Why? I already suggested that the secondary weapon is basically of equal power for a different armor group (AI/AA).

The driver is driving; the gunner is gunning. I really like the way it is in PlanetSide right now. I see no need at all for the driver to have a gun. A vehicle is designed to counter and fill a certain role; be it AA, AV, or AI. I don't think the driver of a team-oriented vehicle should be able to solo with it because no one is around to gun for him.

[Sirisian]

The driver is driving; the gunner is gunning.
But it doesn't have to be as clear-cut as that. There's no reason really why the game can't be more engaging for the driver. Looking at the roles like that just limits choices.
I really like the way it is in PlanetSide right now. I see no need at all for the driver to have a gun.
Is this because you enjoy driving or because you like the mandatory teamwork that relying on a gunner brings to the game or something else?
A vehicle is designed to counter and fill a certain role; be it AA, AV, or AI.
This still does that. It just means the driver would fulfill that roll with a gunner providing extra support.
I don't think the driver of a team-oriented vehicle should be able to solo with it because no one is around to gun for him.
It can still be a team-oriented vehicle by having obvious weaknesses that make it an easy kill without teamwork. It's just that it's not mandatory. It's purely advantageous to have someone get in the other gunner spot. However, it's not mandatory if you can't get someone it just puts you at a disadvantage to other tanks with extra gunners.

Also another point that was made a long time ago in another thread was about upgrading vehicles and spending time on researching upgrades for your gunners. It's pretty nice of you to put in say a 5% faster reload instead of researching stuff for your character. Maybe I'm selfish though when it comes to upgrades on vehicles.

[Talek Krell]

If you can jump into a tank and launch rockets at the same range as the main gun and kill infantry then it's going to be pretty epic.

Our concepts of epic continue to be radically different.

That's actually a really excellent point. They could. In other words it promotes symbiotic mutualism. The idea being why pull your own when you can just jump in the tank and get the same features. (Remember people in the tank share experience).

A second vehicle will come with it's own health bar, as well as the ability to flank. With armor now being directional, that's exceptionally important.

[NCLynx]

Talked about this in IRC earlier.

I dunno to me it still sounds like if someone were to ask for the Nano-Dispenser and the Medical applicator to do damage to enemies.

There ARE vehicles that allow the driver to have a gun, for the bigger harder hitting ones the driver drives and the gunner guns. He doesn't have to have a gunner if he doesn't want to, I've got my Run-People-Over Merit to prove that.

The aspects of the game that require more teamwork than simply doing grunt work are there for a reason. Planetside (IMO) was practically made around the concept of teamwork.

Saying said vehicles will be easier to take down etc won't mean much because it's still a VEHICLE and will still require a decent amount of effort to take down. I also still say that if the driver had access to the main gun that pulling 2 of said vehicle would be better than one with a gunner. Sure it opens those vehicles up to more weakness but I would think that the sheer number of people who would either A. not want to gun because they want to main weapon or B. simply drive off without a gunner because it's easier would still outweigh those weaknesses.

[EASyEightyEight]

I don't see the problem with putting a 12mm ball gun on the front bumper of each empires tank (essentially what the Magrider has) with a limited cone to aim in, like with the Basilisk or old Lightning. As for buggies, dual machine guns strapped to the hood, Twisted Metal style.

The driver should by no means have access to the real weaponry of the vehicle, but being that this is a warzone where crap is made seemingly out of thin air thanks to nanites, I don't think it's too much to imagine everyone installing forward mounted firearms onto every one of their crafts.

[BorisBlade]

You want it more engaging for the driver? I'm not seeing a problem. In faster vechicles you should be concentrating on driving only, a good driver in thresher is the key to makin the vehicles not be totally worthless. If i had a gun on it i wouldnt be driving anywhere close to as well and would be dead in short order.

Even in slower vehicles, just be a driver and you can also help with spotting. Definately dont want drivers having main guns. I dont even like secondary guns for drivers much. Its not so bad with the magrider, cause its a complete pain in the arse to use and is extremely weak, I dont even use it most of the time.

There's a reason the lightning isnt very powerful. You dont want people able to have one man death machines, sorta like the flight BFR's. Why would you get in a lightning when you can get in a prowler and have 3x the armor and twice the firepower, you may not get that secondary gun but who cares.

One of the best aspects of PS is that it is designed so everything is multiplayer and encourages/requires teamwork. You need several people to maximize your effectiveness in vehicles. Any game can put 500 individuals on each side and let em fight in single person vehicles, but a true epic game puts 500 team members on each side and lets em work together for maximum interaction and fun.

[Mastachief]

Every suggestion i see from the OP seems to centre on SOLO killwhoring, this is a team based game.

[Malorn]

The driver/gunner model is something they got right the first time. It's a teamwork game and if the driver got primary weapons it would basically turn almost every vehicle into a 1-man vehicle, which is lame. Compare to the battlefield series where 1 man can power the main guns of a vehicle. You don't see 2-manned vehicles very often and it isn't efficient at all to do so.

As a frequent tank driver I also liked not having a gun. I liked knowing that my job was to keep the tank safe and give my gunner good shots, not try to get kills myself. I still got plenty of roadkills but its a fundamentally different mentality when you don't have a weapon and working with a teammate to set up the best shots, evade enemy fire, etc. A driver gun is a distraction. I'd much rather remove that distraction and give more power to the gunner.

The magrider was pretty much the exception to the rule in PS1 (Lib wasn't in at release). While they did give the driver a gun, that gun was a secondary weapon and not the main weapon. The Lib got a pilot gun but I think that's only because the Lib was modeled after the A-10, which has an anti-vehicle nosegun and it doesn't make sense to have a nosegun that isn't in the pilot's control unless its on a swivel, which would be quite sick.

The mag is also the only tank that can really have a driver gun due to the way the others handle it wouldn't work out very well. That mag front gun was also not something you could really use as a vehicle all by itself. I saw a few that tried but the angle of the weapon was very poor and relied on the tanks turning to track horizontally. It was a support weapon, that's all.

[ECM]

I still prefer the classic style of PS1. Planet side should never be about just only bringing the most vehicles to the fight, which I feel your idea suggest (your saying the vangaurd driver should have a weapon just as effective as the cannon, that don't fly, think about it...). The reason you had tons of people playing PS back in the day was because you needed tons of people. I am sure there will be plenty of vehicles where the driver gets a gun, just not the biggest stick in the playground, more like toothpicks. I would rather the devs like of new bigger and better vehicles that require 3 or 4 man crews to operate (I'm thinking for when the devs put in naval warfare).

[Sirisian]

You want it more engaging for the driver? I'm not seeing a problem. In faster vechicles you should be concentrating on driving only, a good driver in thresher is the key to makin the vehicles not be totally worthless. If i had a gun on it i wouldnt be driving anywhere close to as well and would be dead in short order.
100% agree which is why I focused more on changing tanks and their current gameplay of run and gun vehicles. Setting up their gameplay to be hard hitting and forcing a player to have a steady shot when aiming is important. Personally I hate how players would be racing through trees with a tank one hitting players with the main gun. That role is for buggies.

The driver/gunner model is something they got right the first time. It's a teamwork game and if the driver got primary weapons it would basically turn almost every vehicle into a 1-man vehicle, which is lame. Compare to the battlefield series where 1 man can power the main guns of a vehicle. You don't see 2-manned vehicles very often and it isn't efficient at all to do so.
Look at the reason for it though. Why don't people use the gunner seats of vehicles. It's because the driver has both a main gun and a secondary anti-infantry gun. The tank I described both the driver and gunner have important roles.
your saying the vangaurd driver should have a weapon just as effective as the cannon, that don't fly, think about it...
I did think about it. The idea is to offset the weakness of the main cannon which I described would function differently than in PS1 to focus on a different use style. The "just as effective as the cannon" meant toward a different threat such as AI or AA. The main cannon would be slow and powerful at AV damage while the gunner would provide extra fire power keeping both positions in the action.

Every suggestion i see from the OP seems to centre on SOLO killwhoring, this is a team based game.
While it might seem that way my intention is to make the game more interesting in every role a player uses without subtracting the need to have a secondary gunner. It's possible to have teamwork with a group of players without forcing mandatory teamwork to use vehicles.

[Zulthus]

While it might seem that way my intention is to make the game more interesting in every role a player uses without subtracting the need to have a secondary gunner. It's possible to have teamwork with a group of players without forcing mandatory teamwork to use vehicles.

Each vehicle should be fitted with one role, and one role only. AV, AI, or AA. If a Vanguard driver has an AA turret as powerful as the main cannon, why would we need Skyguards? This logic applies to every vehicle in PlanetSide. This is a team-based game, and should not encourage pulling team vehicles to solo with. If you can't find a gunner, join an outfit.

[Sirisian]

Each vehicle should be fitted with one role, and one role only. AV, AI, or AA. If a Vanguard driver has an AA turret as powerful as the main cannon, why would we need Skyguards? This logic applies to every vehicle in PlanetSide. This is a team-based game, and should not encourage pulling team vehicles to solo with. If you can't find a gunner, join an outfit.
I think it's perfectly fine for vehicles with more than one person to become more versatile. Having someone pull solo vehicles specialized in one area is also valid tactic. It's no different than pulling an AA max instead of taking a skyguard. (Look at the prowler. It had an AI gun on the top along with it's main gun. Dual roles right there with extra people).

Also regarding the whole why would be need skyguards I honestly don't feel we need them in their current form. It should be a customization choice on a vehicle to offer those features to extra gunners. Having a vehicle solely designed to do AA is kind of pointless. It's basically the same as certing an TR Burster max.

The idea would be if you can't find a gunner then your vehicle would be gimped. It wouldn't be impossible to use. That is spending certifications to upgrade it or spending resources in the game on it will be more rewarding.

[basti]

Wth?

Seriously OP, who the hell are you?

First, you want BFRs again, now you want the good and perfectly fine concept of one man driving one man gunning changed into one person death machines?

[321]

Seriously OP, who the hell are you?

He is your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. He revealed his identity on IRC.

[ECM]

Look at the poll, it clearly shows what most people like when it comes to having a driver drive and a gunner gun. Plus MBT's have dual roles anyway because you can always mow people. They already great AV/AI anyway.

[Tycho]

The driver gun on the Magrider should be removed. A second gunner position should be added to the VS and NC MBTs. The drivers gun on the Magrider can be given to a second gunner and the machine guns on the vanguard can be manned separately. I would also like to see three or four person buggies. Why should the Terrans have the only three person vehicles?

[Malorn]

Wth?

Seriously OP, who the hell are you?

First, you want BFRs again, now you want the good and perfectly fine concept of one man driving one man gunning changed into one person death machines?

He flipped the bit for me too. Also, don't forget the creatures idea. Mechs, two-man vechicles made pointless, and PvE. The trifecta of Fail for PS2.

[Zulthus]

The ability to change seats... Minus aircraft.

That is all.

Are you saying you should be able to instantly change seats in ground vehicles, if so...

:stoppost:

[Zulthus]

Instantly no. two second wait, yes. How many times do you hear people screaming " WE NEED A GUNNER "

Now it would require limitations to ground vehicles only.. but hell... in terms of "realism" I've driven hummers and it is fairly easy to jump in the turret.. and that is with gear on....

So yes.... I think we should be able to switch seats on ground vehicles.


http://i53.tinypic.com/2wcno84.jpg

So get out of the vehicle, go around, and get in the gunner seat. Don't be lazy.

[BorisBlade]

Instantly no. two second wait, yes. How many times do you hear people screaming " WE NEED A GUNNER "

Now it would require limitations to ground vehicles only.. but hell... in terms of "realism" I've driven hummers and it is fairly easy to jump in the turret.. and that is with gear on....

So yes.... I think we should be able to switch seats on ground vehicles.



You can already do that, stop, get out, then get in the right seat. No switchin while moving. No one in a real humvee is gonna jump out of the driver seat while its movin and switch over to the gunner slot, no one, cause you'll crash. Plus even if you stop and switch it takes a crap ton longer than 2 seconds to do so. If you want to make it take 15-20+ seconds to switch which is about as fast as you could possibly hope, then go for it. The rest of us will get a gunner, or stop, get out and switch. Keep your lazy design, terribad, instant slot switchin from BF out of PS.

[Chaff]

sheeeesh

Why do guys have to flame-out so much over someone elses "ideas" or opinions ? Some cats need to get their Manginas waxed 'round here.
Yeah. The original theme of PS Cooperative team-oriented play is someting I'd like to see continued - pretty much a universal mindset for any PS1 vet.

Having said that - a little solo/specialization should be there as well. Sometimes your squaddies may not be on .... and the random one you joined may simply rub you the wrong way. Somtimes I soloed becasue I didn't want some jagg-waggon telling me what to do on ts ..... a CR5 or CR-Zero ..... sometimes the cat leading a squad was not worth the XP. Sometimes, it was me just being anti-social, or wanting to work on something on my own without a squad feeling I was letting it down by free lancing for a while.

I didn't get much out of the original post - except the guy did put some thought into his ideas. I appreciate the effort. No need to torch him - or plie on his previous ideas either.

I liked gunning in the Skyguard. Not enough guys certed them or pulled them to help protect friendly forces from enemy air. They were a fragile vehicle, but they need that balance becasue enemy air could not like fying in on one (or 2 or 3).

I like the idea of a Lightning with an AA turret. Instead of new vehicles, I'd prefer to see more customizations as people specialize deeper into their respective cert trees.

The AA on a tank should never be lilttle more than a deterrent to enemy air. I'd like to see more options for either the main or secondary guns on every vehicle in PS1 that carries over to PS2. As always, reasonable in-game balance and vulnerability to countermeasures needs to be part of any weapon/weapons system.

I'd like better anti-air on the LIB - a Top and Belly turret - that turns 360 degrees. If manned and gunned properly - and with a competent pilot - it could fend off two Reavers ..... or, at the least make it very dicey for them to get thru the Libs defenses.

I'm for change. Change some of the old stuff, and add some new. As long as it keeps the game fun, challenging, and deters repetitive (boring) gameplay - I'm for it.

Anyone who would claim that PS1 did not get monotonous or boring (after a while) .... well, I don't know what to say to those folks. For me, it got too repetitive, predictable, and almost pointless after a while. There have to be ways to help make gameplay stay a little more fresh.

I like hearing ideas with passion and creativity behind them - even if I ultimately think it's counter productive to the game. Sometimes, it seems like guys fail to remember they're not the DEV's either. None of us own this game. All of us do LOVE it. I'm tired of the speculation and yanking-off about any number of the endless possibilites. The game is approaching completion.

I'm ready to play.

[waldizzo]

Drivers drive. Gunners gun. If driving is not engaging enough for someone then they should not certify it.

In Planetside, a gun is not required in order for a player to be "engaged."

[NCLynx]

People are afraid of change.

And countless hordes soloing more than they already do in the first game.

[waldizzo]

but I want to be able to drive and shoot a prowler at the same time and then repair it and then heal myself!!!!!!!!!! change!!!!!!!!

[Sirisian]

And countless hordes soloing more than they already do in the first game.
Stand back and look at the game. The reason you didn't see a lot of vehicles was because driving is boring.

Drivers drive. Gunners gun. If driving is not engaging enough for someone then they should not certify it.
Probably one of the better arguments against what I proposed. The system is designed to be boring so powerful vehicles aren't pulled much. It's worked very well in the game to balance grunt and vehicle combat outdoors.

but I want to be able to drive and shoot a prowler at the same time and then repair it and then heal myself!!!!!!!!!! change!!!!!!!!
Not what I suggested. Troll elsewhere.

[Talek Krell]

Having said that - a little solo/specialization should be there as well.
Wanting to operate solo is perfectly reasonable, and there are a number of vehicles and equipment loadouts designed for that purpose. Wanting all vehicles to be solo operable so that they better fit your own play style is not, and Sirisian has long been making it clear, in this thread and others, that that is what he wants.

Some cats need to get their Manginas waxed 'round here.
Are you posting this from the 80's? :huh:

Instantly no. two second wait, yes. How many times do you hear people screaming " WE NEED A GUNNER "
Now it would require limitations to ground vehicles only.. but hell... in terms of "realism" I've driven hummers and it is fairly easy to jump in the turret.. and that is with gear on....
You've successfully avoided most of the issues that come up with seat switching in, say, Battlefield and that's good. But you're still trying to make a multi person vehicle into a single person vehicle. There are already lightnings. If you pull an MBT and leave base without a gunner, there's no reason you shouldn't suffer in measure with your impatience.

[Malorn]

Stand back and look at the game. The reason you didn't see a lot of vehicles was because driving is boring.
I saw lots of vehicles, and I thoroughly enjoy driving. Not everything needs a gun.

[nathanebht]

I prefer being able to quickly switch seats (as in the BF series). But it is no big deal. Really enjoy driving a Lightning.

It is significant that some PS1 vehicles required teamwork. Remember it being quite enjoyable if I lucked into a good MBT gunner.

[Headrattle]

Sirisian: I remember you posting something similar before. Again, we say no.
Stand back and look at the game. The reason you didn't see a lot of vehicles was because driving is boring.
It isn't boring for drivers. Good drivers are sought after, and pampered. It is actually harder to find a good driver then a good gunner. We drivers love to drive. It is obvious that you do not love to drive. You want to gun. Then gun. Stop trying to change something that works.


Probably one of the better arguments against what I proposed. The system is designed to be boring so powerful vehicles aren't pulled much. It's worked very well in the game to balance grunt and vehicle combat outdoors.


Close. The vehicles are powerful because they require teamwork. This is why the BFRs are hated so much. High soloing ability, less teamwork. yes, you could have a gunner, but you didn't need one to do very well in a vehicle that was very tough (especially at first.)

Skeeters and Reavers can be solo, because, while they have lots of firepower, they are fragile and require a lot of certs. For example. This should carry on to the next game. Small aircraft and vehicles can be solo, as long as their ability or survivability is low. However, when you get into the tougher more powerful vehicles, they need to be team based. Why?

Because if they aren't few people would pick the less powerful weapons.
If they aren't infantry have a much lower survival rate.
If they aren't the game gets too many powerful tanks and not enough of anything else.

Like I said, if you think that driving is boring. Don't drive. I am ok with giving the driver a small gun, but in my experience with PS1, if I see a Magrider with the driver gun going off a lot it means one thing... Crappy driver. If the driver is more interested in getting personal kills rather then staying alive helping the empire and giving the team kills you have a crappy driver.

This is a team game. You would reward team play whenever you can. One of the ways you can do that is if you allow high powered vehicles to be accessed as long as there is teamplay.

[Zulthus]

Stand back and look at the game. The reason you didn't see a lot of vehicles was because driving is boring.


This is your opinion; not a fact. Driving was very fun in PS1 especially when you had a good gunner(s). I can see you don't want or like to drive, you want to gun. That's perfectly fine. Don't change driving, because it's perfect how it is. Many others feel this way.

I didn't see alot of vehicles? There were so many I didn't know who to shoot at back in the day.

[Graywolves]

Honestly the only reason I don't pull a Raider or Bus anymore is because we're either using galaxies or there's no one to gun it.

So I guess gunning is boring? Informal Fallacy?

[Sirisian]

Honestly the only reason I don't pull a Raider or Bus anymore is because we're either using galaxies or there's no one to gun it.

So I guess gunning is boring? Informal Fallacy?
I want to say that's more of a population thing, but I'm honestly not sure. I remember when I used to be in an outfit back in the good days and we'd pull an Aurora over and over. Then again that was just a 3 person vehicle. Sometimes it makes more sense with 2 people to just to pull a tank.

The key will probably to vary their usefulness. Maneuverability was a big thing that differentiated vehicles. You had things like the buggies that could zip around the map. That's kind of why I suggested the changes to the tank. I imagine it having slower acceleration and turning radius in order to compensate for a larger main cannon.

Also how would you guys feel if the main gun on the tank rotated slower? Like not painfully slow, but just to the point if a vehicle went flying past a tank it can't whip around and hit it?

Basically I'm more for heavy hitting where each shell counts. Limiting the tank to like 40 shells for instance might be interesting. I think limited ammunition isn't something the game really tried yet and could be something that sets vehicles apart. This could also be applicable for say AI rockets on the tank I proposed. Making each battery fire of the rockets amazing, but more of a "do I want to use 20 of my rockets or switch to single fire since I only have 200 of them".

[Chaff]

I think the MBT in PS are pretty damn good as is. When any other vehicle happens on one unexpectedly - your ass should pucker - if the main gunner sucks - consider yourself lucky.

That's how a tank should be on the battlefield.

I like the ammo loadouts where they are.