Please remove Vehicle seat swapping. - Page 14

Diddy Mao · 2012-07-18, 09:35 AM

Seat swapping is a minor issue on the grand scale of things, this shouldn't be such a hot button issue.

Aurmanite · 2012-07-18, 09:37 AM

How exactly did you kill the driver/gunner in Planetside? They were invulnerable while inside the tank. If you did it when they got out to repair, you will be able to do the same thing in #2. Jammers are also making a comback.

MrBloodworth · 2012-07-18, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

First off, there can be real and meaningful teamplay in both Call of Duty and Battlefield. I have some experience with organised team play in BF3, and it is definately not based around the idea of a "disposable experience" where nobody cares about long term impact of any decition.
On the contrary, teamwork in these games is all about coordination, communication and hrasp of game mechanics.

There can absolutely be meaningful team-play in those titles. However its an exception, not a rule. Its also quite effective, that does not mean the game design does not focus on "Playing alone, together".

I contest that they are focused on team-play, they are Not ET:QW a game with high reliance on team play. They are the antithesis of it.

Aurmanite · 2012-07-18, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

There can absolutely be meaningful team-play in those titles. However its an exception, not a rule. Its also quite effective, that does not mean the game design does not focus on "Playing alone, together".

I contest that they are focused on team-play, they are Not ET:QW a game with high reliance on team play. They are the antithesis of it.

This post makes it seem like you have a split personality.

"Teamwork exists in these games. But that doesn't mean that teamwork exists in these games."

EisenKreutzer · 2012-07-18, 09:45 AM

Thanks for not being confrontational about this. I appreciate a good debate, but I hate arguing over the internet. ^^

Originally Posted by sylphaen

In terms of depth and variety in gameplay, something is lost in translation and it feels like devs are forcing hard on the resource drain by favoring vehicle destruction (see how long a PS2 vehicle lasts).

I agree with this. The devs have been more than willing to listen to the communityregarding base capture, and I am certain that it would be possible to bring more variety into the way we deal with vehicles. Good point.

I believe they are a terrible idea mainly because I feel the amount of benefits they bring is disproportionate when you consider the low risk they involve (and not because they are different than PS1).

Understood. I disagree with you, mainly about the risk factor and it's importance. This ties into my previous statement about the possibility of adding more variety in how we deal with vehicles. But I won't try to change your mind on it.

I think you are right saying that transposing exactly the PS1 vehicle mechanics to PS2 is a terrible idea. I also think you are wrong saying everything instant is a good idea. As mentionned earlier, a middle ground could be a decent solution.

Agreed.

EVILoHOMER · 2012-07-18, 09:46 AM

Erm keep it...

In real life you can swap positions from inside the vehicle.

Klockan · 2012-07-18, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

There can absolutely be meaningful team-play in those titles. However its an exception, not a rule. Its also quite effective, that does not mean the game design does not focus on "Playing alone, together".

I contest that they are focused on team-play, they are Not ET:QW a game with high reliance on team play. They are the antithesis of it.

But why would teamplay have anything to do with seatswapping? People didn't teamplay less in BF games because they could swap seats, tanks and helicopters were still usually fully manned etc and it is not like the tank driver would wait for a machinegunner if he couldn't swap, he would just solely rely on the maingun just like he had to do in BF2 where the machinegunner was a suicide position. Having a large persistent world is what creates the teamwork, not the fact that you were unable to hotswap vehicles or making certain vehicles only viable with multiple crew members. Any group of solo player will be heavily disadvantaged against coordinated teams anyway, why do you want to make that gap larger than necessary? I am not really against being unable to hotswap positions, but I don't really get why it would destroy teamplay in any way.

EisenKreutzer · 2012-07-18, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

There can absolutely be meaningful team-play in those titles. However its an exception, not a rule. Its also quite effective, that does not mean the game design does not focus on "Playing alone, together".

I contest that they are focused on team-play, they are Not ET:QW a game with high reliance on team play. They are the antithesis of it.

I am sorry, but IMO you are wrong. The games are absolutely designed with teamplay in mind, simply because a large portion of the player-base wishes to play like this. While you will see lone wolves a good portion of the time, you do not have to join many random games until you end up facing a highly organised, communicating Clan who know how to play and how to cooperate.

I agree that there are many players with the "Playing alone, together" mindset, but there are just as many strong tam players, and the game caters to this even with instant seat-swapping, driver/gunners and instant respawns.

EDIT: Can I just say that I love the wording "Playing alone, together?" It perfectly illustrates the mentality!

sylphaen · 2012-07-18, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

How exactly did you kill the driver/gunner in Planetside? They were invulnerable while inside the tank. If you did it when they got out to repair, you will be able to do the same thing in #2. Jammers are also making a comback.

#2 is very good news.

#1 yes, when they were out to repair. The time it took to unequip the repair gun was enough to kill someone (of course, if you shot the engi with a vanguard shell, no chance for him to get back inside but we were talking about cloakers). This forced to go farther away from battle for safer repairs.

What I was referring to is that in PS2, from the videos we've seen, you can instantly enter the vehicle, from anywhere, weapon equipped or not. Repairing looks also super fast. Essentially, it's a shorter window of opportunity and much harder to achieve the kill.

That's why I conclude that it would be much easier to just destroy the vehicle (-> with C4 for example (which is a new PS2 mechanic)).

Oh, and unless quicknife is instakill ! (and grenades too)

I find that the choice between safety and getting back in the fight asap was a nice balance. Repairing a vehicle in the middle of a battlezone was a heartpumping experience. If there is no risk, there is no fun for me !

Edit: you can call me crazy for liking tension and feeling vulnerable when hacking/repairing/healing/.... I just... enjoy it.
^^

Badjuju · 2012-07-18, 09:51 AM

I was unaware that vehicles were compartmentalized. Must be some new high tech super genius strategy that us primitive 2012 folks just cant grasp yet. Seriously though, this is something that can happen in real life for the most part. Sure not quite as quickly but the game play is actually faster than RL combat so I don't see that as a too convincing argument. I don't see any reason to burden some one who whats to go out solo. They won't be any where near as powerful as a full vehicle operating all weapons and moving at the same time. If they switch to the secondary gun on a tank for example, they wont be moving and provide for a huge target. They also wont be using their most powerful weapon. With so many people on the battlefield they will be hard pressed to properly defend themselves if not fully manned. Sure it was cool seeing the enter/exit animations in PS1 but the game play is faster and less forgiving in PS2. I think this is a nostalgia thing again. People simply have a hard time accepting change. It is a game that emphasizes the benefit of team game play, but that dosn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to play solo at times if they want. Doing a Chinese fire drill around a massive vehicle every time they want to switch weapons, or two people want to switch seats, seams like the opposite of tactical if you ask me. Wouldn't they just swap within the vehicle? I think it should be instant, or creating a short timer even is fine with me. Getting out of the vehicle to switch seats just seems silly to me.

MrBloodworth · 2012-07-18, 09:52 AM

Aurmanite, I will respond to you if you actually read someones post, take the time to understand what they are saying, and not just use that time to come up with your next aggressive attack. Until then, see you on the battlefield.

fvdham · 2012-07-18, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

How exactly did you kill the driver/gunner in Planetside?

Most of the time while they were repairing.
Driving a tank in PlanetSide 1 meant spending half the time repairing.
Usually the driver would repair and the gunner would cover or help repairing.

One situation would be if the driver had stopped to clear a minefield.
You could put 10 mines on the road and wait near it.
The enemy tank would maybe get damaged by some of the mines and stop.
The driver would get out for mine clearing and repairing.
If you killed the driver, the gunner would be stuck there if he had no driving licence.

Another situation would be if some1 operated the 2 men AA vehicle on its own.
If you arrived in the light tank and he wanted to flee by switching from gunner seat
to driver seat, he may be machine gunned down while trying so.

EisenKreutzer · 2012-07-18, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by sylphaen

.

#1 yes, when they were out to repair. The time it took to unequip the repair gun was enough to kill someone (of course, if you shot the engi with a vanguard shell, no chance for him to get back inside but we were talking about cloakers). This forced to go farther away from battle for safer repairs.

All of which can be fine-tuned or changed in the beta, without adding exit animations or removing seat swapping. ^^

MrBloodworth · 2012-07-18, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

I am sorry, but IMO you are wrong. The games are absolutely designed with teamplay in mind, simply because a large portion of the player-base wishes to play like this. While you will see lone wolves a good portion of the time, you do not have to join many random games until you end up facing a highly organised, communicating Clan who know how to play and how to cooperate.

I agree that there are many players with the "Playing alone, together" mindset, but there are just as many strong tam players, and the game caters to this even with instant seat-swapping, driver/gunners and instant respawns.

EDIT: Can I just say that I love the wording "Playing alone, together?" It perfectly illustrates the mentality!

The design documents, design features, and progression of that design say otherwise. "Playing alone, together" is an industry design theory. There are many articles and papers about it, mostly coming from the more modern age of gaming, and the advent of MMO style games ( MMO style games that FPS have been moving towards for a while now ).

Team play is facilitated by some aspects of the design, but not required in any way. Exception of course, is like minded groups, but you mostly find those on private servers, or the ArmA community. Planetside for all intents is a public server equivalent.

It ( PS2 ) should be progressing the standard, not emulating the contemporary in all aspects.

I'm not arguing "reality" I'm arguing two different schools of thought/design, however they may intersect in some areas.

Originally Posted by Klockan

But why would teamplay have anything to do with seatswapping?

Pace. Connection to the world. Ownership. Connection to that equipment. Rebuking of the idea its disposable. Removal of the idea that its just another armor pool you are temporarily wearing. Lots of this is not a quantifiable except in feel and use cases. But its important.

Originally Posted by Badjuju

Doing a Chinese fire drill around a massive vehicle every time they want to switch weapons, or two people want to switch seats, seams like the opposite of tactical if you ask me.

You can't have a tactical possibility with out the possibility of venerability of the target.

EisenKreutzer · 2012-07-18, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Team play is facilitated by some aspects of the design, but not required in any way.

Sorry for reducing your post to one sentence.

This is where we differ. You see, when I hear "teamplay is fascilitated, but not required," my immediate conclusion is that this is good game design.

And I guess this is what this whole debate, as well as their counterparts have been about. One camp wants to heavy-handedly regulate what decisions players can make in the game, while the other camp wants the teamplay emerge naturally.

IMO, fascilitating but not demanding, leaving the actual meaningful choices to the players, is what good game design is all about.