Tailspin from damage - Page 3

Toppopia · 2012-06-20, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Wayside

I'd like to see them dial the flight model closer to realistic across the board from what I saw in the E3 footage. Adding a more dynamic damage model would be nice as well (would LOVE to see a mosquito or reaver lose an engine and spiral its way into a cliff wall from the now unbalanced thrust imparted by its remaining engine

) - but I'm fully expecting to see that kind of thing develop over the course of the beta.

It would be cool to have hitboxes, and such, and it wouldn't be random as someone above just said, it would allow for strategic targeting of certain parts of the aircraft and such.

Toppopia · 2012-06-20, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by Zulthus

And if we shot a soldier in the legs, they couldn't walk anymore, if we shot a Prowler on it's barrel, it can't shoot anymore...

That would add realism, but thats going too far, for infantry. Someone mentioned in the idea thread about tanks getting locational damage, and it can still shoot and such, just maybe slower or something.

Zulthus · 2012-06-20, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Toppopia

That would add realism, but thats going too far, for infantry. Someone mentioned in the idea thread about tanks getting locational damage, and it can still shoot and such, just maybe slower or something.

Why is it going to far? I mean, it's the same exact thing. You want locational damage effects, why stop at aircraft? It makes gameplay more... challenging.

Toppopia · 2012-06-20, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Zulthus

Why is it going to far? I mean, it's the same exact thing. You want locational damage effects, why stop at aircraft? It makes gameplay more... challenging.

I wouldn't mind too much, would be rather funny just to wound people and watch them roll on the ground in pain and wait for friends to come help, then bang, another person rolling on the ground in pain. i wouldn't mind for tanks having locational damage, and i have wanted in games that if you get shot in the arm, its harder to aim, shot in leg, slower movement, so i actually wouldn't mind.

Xaine · 2012-06-20, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

You should email John Smedley about this.

Be less of a cunt.

I like the idea, but it seems a bit too much like 'Fluff' and not really needed.

Nice idea none the less.

Wayside · 2012-06-20, 06:33 PM

Given some of the things Higby and company have said about the overall pacing they're aiming for with PS2, and the footage we've seen thus far, I feel like this kind of feature begins to cross the line as they envision it between quick-paced arcadeish play-style and slower, tactical simulation style play.

If Call of Duty is at one end of the "realism" or "pacing" spectrum, and Arma is at the other, they certainly seem to be leaning more towards CoD with their design choices. And that may be fine. It may be that this generation of gamers favor that kind of game-play and as such its the smart business decision for SOE.

Take the class system for example. You're no longer free to spec your character out with the freedom you had in PS1. Now you have to confine yourself to a class. Granted, you get some choices within that class, but it is unmistakably more restrictive and streamlined when compared to PS1. That seems to be a step towards CoD style pacing.

And the removal of tactical elements like inventory for players and vehicles, which allowed (and in a sense forced) players to make decisions about what they'd bring with them into a fight in terms of logistics and supplies for themselves and their squad mates. That kind of feature prolongs a player's life span. Slows the pacing down. By comparison PS2 feels more like "Pick your class and GOGOGO OMG YOU DIED RESPAWN AND GOGOGOGOGOGO!!!". Again, a decision that supports a faster paced, less cerebral game.

Bit of a rant, but back to the topic I suspect the design mentality behind PS2 is going to make this kind of feature less likely to be implemented than it might have been if they were more focused on the simulation end of the spectrum. Still, its a great suggestion and everything I've seen of the PS2 dev team indicates they're fully capable of pulling it off.

Because I know someone is going to have a comprehension failure, I'm not saying PS2 is a CoD clone. Just establishing a means of comparing the pacing and levels of realism seen among the various modern shooters.

Otleaz · 2012-06-20, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by lolroflroflcake

How is killing, a vehicle 10 to 15% earlier then it should good game design. You may as well just nerf the health of the vehicle directly and skip the ridiculous and annoying "feature".

Are you really whining about numbers?

In case you were wondering, the TTK for an air vehicle is not set in stone. Every vehicle in the game isn't all the sudden going to be gimped just because they crash at 15% health. Can you guess why? The HP can be raised by 15% at the press of a button

Gasp!

Originally Posted by Xaine

I like the idea, but it seems a bit too much like 'Fluff' and not really needed.

Nice idea none the less.

A lot of ideas are fluff and not really needed. For the game to be fun, immersive and unpredictable you need things like this though. The change to the world and how the player feels should be what you look at.

How would you feel seeing a galaxy full of troops slowly fall to the earth, exploding and killing all who weren't able to get away?
Now how would you feel seeing a galaxy explode in the air into a cloud of debris, killing all inside?

The impact is huge on all who witness it and immerses them in the battlefield. It makes you feel like you are a soldier fighting your own small little battle while a war is going on around you.

thegreekboy · 2012-06-20, 06:42 PM

to add to this, can SOE please make it so that you don't smoke unless you are at 25% or below health? I would hate getting hit twice and have to fly around trailing smoke for 15 minutes.

thegreekboy · 2012-06-20, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Zulthus

Why is it going to far? I mean, it's the same exact thing. You want locational damage effects, why stop at aircraft? It makes gameplay more... challenging.

Well its cool and all.....until YOU fall victim of it. Then you're just completely helpless and pissed off.

Toppopia · 2012-06-20, 06:49 PM

If anyone has played Combat Flight Simulator games, then the fun part is getting damaged and having to fight to keep control of your aircraft, that made it more fun in my opinion. Slowly drifting towards the ground with your fuel leaking away rapidly and trying to extend your landing and find it got damaged so it only extends 60% of the way down, so you have to do a proper crash landing, come in to fast, and you exploded, come in to slow, and you dropped faster causing explosion, it was an art to crash successfully.

Wayside · 2012-06-20, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by thegreekboy

Well its cool and all.....until YOU fall victim of it. Then you're just completely helpless and pissed off.

Running out of ammunition is cool and all.....until YOU fall victim to it. Then you're just completely helpless and pissed off.

Being able to kill players is cool and all.....until YOU fall victim to it. Then you're just completely helpless and pissed off.

Fall damage is cool and all.....until YOU fall victim to it. Then you're just completely helpless and pissed off.

Just sayin

Not everything in a game has to be roses and kittens. Its the risks and dangers that make gameplay interesting. The more varied the risks and dangers, the more interesting the gameplay.

AzK · 2012-06-20, 06:51 PM

No thanks, it's one of those "reality" things that doesn't translate in ANY fun when applied to the game. It would just be needlessly frustrating.

If they make it like in ps1 (at the beginning cause then they removed it), where sometimes instead of exploding your aircraft on like 1% hp would simply lose control and go down no matter what and you had to eject, then FINE. But making it like on bf3 where every time at 20-30% they become nearly impossible to control and on top of that they just explode after a bit if not repaired, would just be frustrating.

Wayside · 2012-06-20, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by AzK

No thanks, it's one of those "reality" things that doesn't translate in ANY fun when applied to the game. It would just be needlessly frustrating.

If they make it like in ps1 (at the beginning cause then they removed it), where sometimes instead of exploding your aircraft on like 1% hp would simply lose control and go down no matter what and you had to eject, then FINE. But making it like on bf3 where every time at 20-30% they become nearly impossible to control and on top of that they just explode after a bit if not repaired, would just be frustrating.

I think most people would agree. Its fun if there's a chance of something going wrong. Less fun if its so completely predictable that you effectively lose 20-30% of the effective HP of an aircraft due to the guaranteed crash and burn.

Toppopia · 2012-06-20, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Wayside

Running out of ammunition is cool and all.....until YOU fall victim to it. Then you're just completely helpless and pissed off.

i have a solution to that very circumstance.
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=41911

And I wouldn't want the damage mechanic copied directly from BF3, i would rather it be refined and made better, because it was annoying at times. The idea was good, how it was implemented, not so much.

Otleaz · 2012-06-20, 06:59 PM

With ejector seats you would see a reason to finish off your target. Other than that, you just need to find a good balance between "might as well finish him off" and "screw it hes dead already"