3D spotting

[Stardouser]

I did find a similar thread to this, but I wanted to attack this issue specifically plus make a poll. I want to mention that killcam would have been part of this discussion, but my understanding is that it won't really be a killcam but really a killer's profile view.

So, 3D spotting. From my experience with Battlefield, this is a major noobification with extreme consequences if included. In Bad Company 2, the 3D spot showed through anything, and this allowed people to be shot through for example trees, even though the trees might have been so thick you couldn't be seen. It also allowed people so far away that they couldn't be seen to be fired at.

In BAttlefield 3, it disappears if there is solid cover (ie, a building) between you and another player, however, it still allows you to be seen and fired at if you are too far away to be seen.

And also, it is my opinion, that even though BF3 took out the wallhack aspect from BC2, having 3D spots pop up causes players to spend more time chasing after them and less time capturing objectives.

And so, this is a feature that should not be in the game. It shows you exactly where to aim, by the way, I forgot to mention that. Most people in BF3 spot for themselves, because once the big bright triangle is up over the enemy's head, it's easier to shoot at that - they are NOT spotting for teammates.

So, this feature removes skill(you just place your sight on it, without seeing the actual player), and distracts players from playing the objectives. Now, objectives in Planetside are a bit different, and while we aren't going to be running KDR players out of town on a rail, we don't want to encourage KDR play, surely, and 3D spotting is one way of doing that.

And so to the poll, how do you want your spotting?
1. Full - 3D spotting and on the minimap
2. Partial -2D spots on the minimap only
3. None - Note: No spotting does not mean the minimap wouldn't exist, just that it won't show enemies. It can still be there showing friendlies and terrain.
4. Static markers only that do not follow the spotted enemy
5. Other

[BorisBlade]

Sadly these devs are waaaaay too into the awful mechanics in bf3/cod, they will keep this crap despite its bad affect on gameplay.

I dont mind marking for minimap only if its short-ish duration, aka 15-20 secs before it fades.

Real life style spotting would only mark your initial position, so the idea of magical bullseye beacons over everyones head that follows you magically everywhere you go is completely idiotic and just adds to the braindead zergy ADHD feel of some boring run of the mill console shooter rather than the imemersive unique world that PS1 had.

Seriously, if they cant get rid of the 3d markers entirely then limit it to one target per person that only lasts 15-20 secs tops, and that means no unlocks to allow for more of either. And make it only work at shorter ranges, no long range spotting (as far as marking and as far as how far away the mark shows up), and make terrain hide it such as buildings, ground terrain, anything that breaks LoS.

The thing i just dont get is this feature is not needed in the first place and just adds lameness, why do we even need a cheezy feature like this in the first place? Why do we even get character models since we will all focus on the giant glowing neon arrow rather than character models anyway? Got camo or think you are hiding in good cover? who cares, you now have a giant flashing arrow above your head saying here i am come kill me please. Yeah, terrible gameplay idea.

[NEWSKIS]

I'd rather they keep it the way PS1 is now. Their name/health pops up above them with direct line of sight only. Show people as dots on the minimap only with some sort of base radar or audio amp like implant. I guess that would fall under "other"? It's helpful, but doesnt make spotting people in cover stupidly easy. In BFBC2 it was awful and BF3 had the same with a band-aid on top of it. Also don't have a spot button that you can spam.

[NCLynx]

I voted 2d. Although I don't like the 3d option, I also feel like this is just another topic where we'll have to wait until beta to see if it truly is gamebreaking.

[Captain1nsaneo]

PS handled its spotting mechanic by making it automatic and mini-map only. When you looked at an enemy they showed up on everyone's mini-map. Conversely when people stopped looking at you you were no longer shown on the mini-map. The spotting mechanic in the BF games I played always seemed to slow down combat. If you have a reason why the spotting mechanic is good I'm open to hearing it.

[Skitrel]

It should be duly noted that this poll will only show the beliefs and opinions of the hardcore of the serious PS players, as that's all there is here on this board. It in no way will reflect the opinions of the majority.

That and people here need to stop talking objectively as if their opinions are fact. It's an annoying trope of gamers.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

PS handled its spotting mechanic by making it automatic and mini-map only. When you looked at an enemy they showed up on everyone's mini-map. Conversely when people stopped looking at you you were no longer shown on the mini-map. The spotting mechanic in the BF games I played always seemed to slow down combat. If you have a reason why the spotting mechanic is good I'm open to hearing it.

The spotting mechanic in BF3 speeds up combat and not in a good way.

The spotting mechanic in BF2 didn't slow down combat, there simply was no spot unless someone actually hit their spot button. That means they had to actually see the enemy to spot them, which is appropriate gameplay. Even if it slows things down, you shouldn't be automatically notified of enemies by the game.

Another thing about BF3 spotting is that even if you can't see enemies, just hit Q. Anyone within 2 monitor-inches of your aiming sight will be usually be spotted. Actually seeing them isn't needed.

Originally Posted by Skitrel

It should be duly noted that this poll will only show the beliefs and opinions of the hardcore of the serious PS players, as that's all there is here on this board. It in no way will reflect the opinions of the majority.

That and people here need to stop talking objectively as if their opinions are fact. It's an annoying trope of gamers.

It is a fact that in 155h of BF3 and in however many hundreds of hours of BC2, it has always led to spotting for one's self and going after kills instead of playing the objective. I've done it, and observed it in others. Could it be completely different for every other round that I didn't take part in? Sure, just not likely.

[Brusi]

I noticed in the vid that the 3D spotting goes away when the enemy dodges behind cover. If it's works like that, is not automatic (like just cause your crosshead is over them, everyone around you gets sees the marker over your targets head) so that you have to actually press the SPOT key and the duration is quite limited, then i don't mind 3D spotting really.

I wouldn't be happy with it the way it currently is in BF3, where you just aim at the dorito, not the guy...

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

It is a fact that in 155h of BF3 and in however many hundreds of hours of BC2, it has always led to spotting for one's self and going after kills instead of playing the objective. I've done it, and observed it in others. Could it be completely different for every other round that I didn't take part in? Sure, just not likely.

That may be your perceived experience, it's not true though, in 155h of battlefield you can't possibly suggest that you've never been on a team where someone other than yourself is running a MAV.

Having played with large groups of players with regularity, spotting is an invaluable mechanic that adds to teamplay, it allows organised groups to ludicrously dominate. Outside of organised play the odd spot WILL save a person's life, and does. You may not recognise it, but it seriously benefits play. Jump in hardcore for a little while if you're a normal player, take a look at the difference, it can be a nightmare with the long sight lines and lack of teamwork occurring through spots.

That said, if you're referring to the wide arc spotting has in BF3 that makes it relatively easy to hit q randomly all the time and pick up enemies you might otherwise have missed, I agree, that shit needs to stop, spotting needs to work through extremely thin cones, and have maximum distances that don't highlight enemies further than combat range for the class one is playing, 150m for standard infantry(average maximum effective combat range in BF3 at least), larger for aiming down a scoped weapon. Spotting becomes a crutch when people can run around with complete visibility of everything miles away, or spot as they turn every corner to get easy wide cones of doritos on people for targeting. Making it so cursors have to be accurately on targets to mark them would remove that crutch.

It should be noted, while I have no problem playing without 3D spotting I support it's placement in game, we here don't represent the majority of gamers, I don't think anyone here would stop playing the game as a result of 3D spotting not being in game, the hardcore will enjoy the game with or without it. I think the issue stands that a number of the casual crowd that'll sign up will be overwhelmed without it, it serves them well, and it will significantly help in increasing the player base.

I support it because I support anything that increases the number of players that will play the game. I don't believe anyone here will say "Fuck this game. Not playing it because it has 3D spotting", many people WILL however not play a game because they can't see or find the enemies. At the very least it helps a new player know what and where he should be pointing his gun.

I think based on this logic, some people will at least understand my support.

[Stardouser]

"spotting" is a valuable addition to teamplay. That means 2D spotting. 3D spotting goes beyond spotting and is a noobification that has no place in the game. It is also an aiming aid, and that can't be denied.

It doesn't matter whether 3D spots are coming from MAVs or from players spotting. It is an aiming aid, and players chase them instead of objectives.

And I completely disagree that the casuals need it. They need it NOW because Bad Company 2 and beyond got them used to it. Battlefield at least didn't have it before and people got along just fine. But now they are accustomed to it and will claim that they need it but that doesn't make it true.

This isn't about hardcore vs casual anyway. It's about the game not providing Robin Hood assistance.

True enough, most of us won't quit over it, but if we don't fight this battle here and now, games will continue to casualize until this is will be a drop in the bucket. Even Planetside's game world size could be considered "too complex" (wrongly, of course) and while Planetside as a franchise may never lose it, giving in to casualizations now will help ensure we never get anything like it in any other franchise.

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

"spotting" is a valuable addition to teamplay. That means 2D spotting. 3D spotting goes beyond spotting and is a noobification that has no place in the game. It is also an aiming aid, and that can't be denied.

It doesn't matter whether 3D spots are coming from MAVs or from players spotting. It is an aiming aid, and players chase them instead of objectives.

And I completely disagree that the casuals need it. They need it NOW because Bad Company 2 and beyond got them used to it. Battlefield at least didn't have it before and people got along just fine. But now they are accustomed to it and will claim that they need it but that doesn't make it true.

This isn't about hardcore vs casual anyway. It's about the game not providing Robin Hood assistance.

True enough, most of us won't quit over it, but if we don't fight this battle here and now, games will continue to casualize until this is will be a drop in the bucket. Even Planetside's game world size could be considered "too complex" (wrongly, of course) and while Planetside as a franchise may never lose it, giving in to casualizations now will help ensure we never get anything like it in any other franchise.

Games will continue to "casualize" (as you put it) because they need to. That's a fairly abstract concept though, it's simply doing something that makes the game more enjoyable for the majority. If it increases player counts and the success of the game, I support it, and so should anybody else.

Calling it a casualization is playing the elitist card, and it's also a "stop liking things I don't like" card. While I may, in part, agree with you, I'm not going to play those arguments, and I'm going to side with the bigger picture here, I am much more supportive of a successful game than a hardcore game when it comes to something as important as the scale of Planetside. If the game fails, say goodbye to any future attempts by SOE at massive scale games that cost a fortune to produce, and say goodbye to any other publisher trying a genre that's clearly shown itself to be a failure, twice.

As much as I like Project Reality, and enjoy playing it regularly, and as much as I enjoyed the original Planetside, they're not successes at showing super serious combat can be mainstream, and Planetside wasn't a success at showing super scale combat can be mainstream. I want Planetside 2 to change that, I want it to see much larger success than Battlefield 3 has shown, I think it has the potential for that. I want to see it turn a success for SOE, and I want to see it supported and well maintained with a good budget for at least 5 years. I also don't want to not see a Planetside 3. All of that hinges on the success of the game, so any mechanic that has the potential to enlarge the number of players gets the okay from me.

[Stardouser]

I am talking about middle ground here. Not wanting 3D spotting should not in any way conjure up visions of Project Reality. But apparently, some people think not pouring in every possible casualization means it's hardcore. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Well, why stop at 3D spotting? Let's throw in everything that could possibly exist, guided lock-on bullets, for example. Let's completely sterilize the game of any pretense toward skill being able to affect the outcome. Because that's where this road leads.

It's not elitism. And as I say, if people need this stuff, it's because they were given it back during a time when they didn't need it. It should never have been done.

And pulling out the "stop liking things I don't like" argument never goes well, because by definition you're doing the opposite, which is "stop not liking things I like". Or in this case, not you directly, but you're defending the 3D spot lovers by arguing that 3D spot should be forced on everyone for the greater good of getting more players, and yet there is no proof that these features get more players in. Consequences including but not limited to distraction of teammates, inability to use stealth, skill being sterilized out of the game, and so on.

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Well, why stop at 3D spotting? Let's throw in everything that could possibly exist, guided lock-on bullets, for example. Let's completely sterilize the game of any pretense toward skill being able to affect the outcome. Because that's where this road leads.

Slippery slope argument. This is a fallacy.

Anyway, I don't disagree with you on all points, I think we've said everything that needs saying of each of these sides of my particular argument. You're right, there is no evidence. I know what playing extremely large landscape games is like, with plenty of cover, when you can't see enemies and the game has a high ttk, it's a frustration fest in terms of speedy arcade play. Unless of course you're playing for that kind of hardcore gameplay. In short, I don't see any harm to the game in a spot mechanic that at least helps the lower skilled players and improves upon the gaming problem of not everybody treating voip as a game mechanic but as an addition to the game. I feel like it'll improve the size of the playerbase, you don't. That's alright.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Slippery slope argument. This is a fallacy.

Anyway, I don't disagree with you on all points, I think we've said everything that needs saying of each of these sides of my particular argument. You're right, there is no evidence. I know what playing extremely large landscape games is like, with plenty of cover, when you can't see enemies and the game has a high ttk, it's a frustration fest in terms of speedy arcade play. Unless of course you're playing for that kind of hardcore gameplay. In short, I don't see any harm to the game in a spot mechanic that at least helps the lower skilled players and improves upon the gaming problem of not everybody treating voip as a game mechanic but as an addition to the game. I feel like it'll improve the size of the playerbase, you don't. That's alright.

Helping the lower skilled players is a Robin Hood argument. It's not fair. And as far as that argument goes, I'll only buy it if the crutches like this fall off and stop after a player has 50 hours of play.

2D spotting is a perfectly acceptable replacement for VOIP, if, indeed, there must be a replacement. I don't understand the greed here - 2D spotting tells you that enemies are nearby, even which direction to face to search for them, it just doesn't show you where to aim, so truly I don't understand the greed for even more help from the game.

Not being able to see enemies that are either far away, behind cover, or in some way hidden is not hardcore, it just plain makes sense. Indeed, at worst, 2D spotting is "middle ground", not hardcore. Yet people act as if 2D spotting was no spotting at all. It's greed, pure and simple, for many players who want 3D spots. And there's another thing - is this Deathmatch? Play the objective and you'll find the enemy.

[moosepoop]

no for performance issues and sheer number of players.

dozens to hundreds of those little pop ups on screen at the same time will look ugly.