Driver/Gunners... NO! - Page 4 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: Fatality!
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Reply
Click here to go to the first VIP post in this thread.  
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2012-07-10, 03:49 PM   [Ignore Me] #46
Soothsayer
Contributor
Sergeant Major
 
Soothsayer's Avatar
 
Re: Driver/Gunners... NO!


Originally Posted by Gandhi View Post
Aircav = Lightning
Liberator = MBT

Or did I just blow your mind?
*Golf Clap*

Right on.

If you were in an armour outfit in PS1 you will remember that the synergy created by a good MBT (Main battle tank) crew far outweighed the effectiveness of a pair of Lightning drivers.

Planetside 2 should be able facilitating cool stuff to happen when people get together to accomplish more than they would be able to when working independently. This is a design philosophy that I am putting onto the game.

What use is a dedicated vehicle VOIP channel if all the guy you're talking to has is a crappy little pea shooter. He is a glorified spotter at that point.

Why have a multi-person crewed vehicle if it won't increase your combat effectiveness? Sounds a whole lot like the failed design philosophy of the TR in PS1 which was to increase the number of gunners while decreasing the potency of weapons.

The raider wasn't awesome, the prowler could just as easily have had a weapon toggle for the gunner between the mains and the MG.

If you can't include the option of assigning primary weapons to a dedicated driver you are essentially just adding a passenger seat to the MBT that will serve little to no purpose other having backup for when you get to your destination, get out of the tank and cap that point you drove them to.

Last edited by Soothsayer; 2012-07-10 at 03:50 PM.
Soothsayer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 03:50 PM   [Ignore Me] #47
Gandhi
First Lieutenant
 
Re: Driver/Gunners... NO!


Originally Posted by wasdie View Post
I think that's all I needed to know. They aren't trying to make a game that caters to a small community. If you want that, go play WWII Online. They've been bending over backwards to their community and the community's vision of "better quality" and it has nearly ruined that game.
CCP also made a game to cater to a small community and it's subscription base has been growing steadily for the last 10 years. I think they're over 400,000 active subs by now.
Gandhi is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 03:50 PM   [Ignore Me] #48
MrKWalmsley
First Sergeant
 
MrKWalmsley's Avatar
 
Re: Driver/Gunners... NO!


Originally Posted by Aberdash View Post
Making things harder just to make things harder is not good design.
But making things fun is, and if that means making it harder then that is the route that should be taken. But still, this is just my opinion, I do not think it should be implemented if the majority disagree with it.

Although I could just say the opposite:
Making things easier just to make things easier is not good design.
It's a ridiculous observation of my position.
__________________
MrKWalmsley is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 03:52 PM   [Ignore Me] #49
rhilir
Private
 
Re: Driver/Gunners... NO!


so i think this is a great idea. that means you need more skill really. I love my lightening driving full speed and killing stuff too. It only takes practice really.
rhilir is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 03:52 PM   [Ignore Me] #50
Aberdash
Corporal
 
Re: Driver/Gunners... NO!


Originally Posted by MrKWalmsley View Post
But making things fun is, and if that means making it harder then that is the route that should be taken. But still, this is just my opinion, I do not think it should be implemented if the majority disagree with it.

Although I could just say the opposite:
Making things easier just to make things easier is not good design.
It's a ridiculous observation of my position.
Making things easier makes it less frustrating and more accessible. The fewer number of times you have to yell at someone to shoot something the better.
Aberdash is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 03:56 PM   [Ignore Me] #51
vVRedOctoberVv
First Lieutenant
 
vVRedOctoberVv's Avatar
 
Re: Driver/Gunners... NO!


Originally Posted by Gandhi View Post
CCP also made a game to cater to a small community and it's subscription base has been growing steadily for the last 10 years. I think they're over 400,000 active subs by now.
That was the example I was thinking of while writing. And LOTS of people hate Eve because it's so hardass about losing your gear in a world where most people are used to respawning and taking off at a full run again.

It all boils down to what the devs are after and how they view life, in a way. Are the making games cause they hope to "make it big" and each have a Ferrarri and a beach house, or are they making games because they love games and want to make something they can be proud of? I realise the devs need to make a profit, and they have to make concessions in order to make a living.

By all means, I support this. I intend to subcribe to PS2 for the sake of supporting it long term, if nothing else. I like F2P as an option, but if everybody does that, no more games. They NEED money, and I WANT them to have money. But Higby doesn't need a Porsche. Know what I mean?

It's like the difference between having a wife and having a prostitute. And too many people take the prostitute route.

This is all OffTopic, to an extent though. We're talking about tanks, not Higby's delusions of convertibles

Last edited by vVRedOctoberVv; 2012-07-10 at 03:57 PM.
vVRedOctoberVv is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 03:57 PM   [Ignore Me] #52
LordReaver
First Sergeant
 
LordReaver's Avatar
 
Re: Driver/Gunners... NO!


Damn people.. It's such a simple solution.

Driver gets control of gun.
Driver has option of letting another player control gun.

Done.. Everybody is happy and problem is solved.


Do keep in mind, that if only the driver gets the primary gun on the MBT, nobody will ever mount the secondary gun. They will just go get another MBT and have two primary guns.
__________________
LordReaver is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 03:57 PM   [Ignore Me] #53
Sephirex
Major
 
Sephirex's Avatar
 
Re: Driver/Gunners... NO!


I personally found all the new shooters lacking in map design, not in shooting mechanics. Seemed like every part of the maps now are designed to funnel you towards the enemy.

Also, they've gotten boring because no one's pushed the limits recently. Battle's started getting bigger and more exciting starting with Tribes and Battlefield 1942 but now they've completely flat-lined with BF3 and COD.

Very excited about the persistence, map size and player count Planetside is bringing back to the table, this time with more functional mechanics. Couldn't care less if driving/firing requires one seat or two, and not sure why BF3/CoD needs to be included in the discussion of such.
Sephirex is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 03:59 PM   [Ignore Me] #54
Soothsayer
Contributor
Sergeant Major
 
Soothsayer's Avatar
 
Re: Driver/Gunners... NO!


Originally Posted by LordReaver View Post
Damn people.. It's such a simple solution.

Driver gets control of gun.
Driver has option of letting another player control gun.

Done.. Everybody is happy and problem is solved.
Yeah man, that's all I want.
Soothsayer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 04:00 PM   [Ignore Me] #55
vVRedOctoberVv
First Lieutenant
 
vVRedOctoberVv's Avatar
 
Re: Driver/Gunners... NO!


Originally Posted by Sephirex View Post
not sure why BF3/CoD needs to be included in the discussion of such.
Mostly mentioned from the standpoint that this is the crowd SOE is trying so hard to draw into their game. As someone pointed out earlier, it is inevitable, unavoidable.... perhaps even necessary (shudder). But I don't have to like it
vVRedOctoberVv is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 04:00 PM   [Ignore Me] #56
wasdie
Second Lieutenant
 
wasdie's Avatar
 
Re: Driver/Gunners... NO!


Originally Posted by KaB View Post
A successful game is a game that you start many years after its start (considering that you played at lot at its start) and you realize this game is still awesome. In the case that you still find players to play with of course.

What I'm saying is that BF was on a good way to become better. They got vehicles into games with BF1942, then other crazy games went into the fight like ArmA (let's say OpF HD), PS1, later RO1, and Project Reality of BF2. Im not only talking about these games because they have two seats in the tanks, but making a u-turn like in PS2 from PS1 is a terrible mistake. BF3 didnt bring two seats in the tank, but everything else got worse. BC2 became so boring, and this is what's BF3 going to be in few months.

And how much from you did play PS1 ? Was this feature bad for you ? Why didnt you complain about it already ? You dont really know what you want dont you. You just want big awesome graphics, big guns, big vehicles, end of the story. Smart.
No, what you're saying here is that you like realistic games. You started with games like BF1942 but found that you like games like Red Orchestra and ArmA. I am an avid player of military sims myself, but I am not going to try to mix the two and I can still find plenty of fun in arcade shooters. You should also know that OFP came out before BF1942, so the combined warfare thing didn't start with Battlefield. Tribes also had vehicles that had gunner and drivers spots too, but they were more along the lines of transport vehicles.

I've played enough PS1 to know that the tank mechanics lead to a lot of frustration. As much fun as it can be, it often ended up getting me killed because a gunner couldn't see the target right in front of the tank, nor could he hit it when aiming.

For the rest of your post you're just assuming the kind of games I like. Of which you're completely incorrect on.

The separate driver and gunner game mechanics have a lot core issues when it comes to communication. When a game needs to appeal to a much larger audience than the first, they need to make some changes that will appeal to a broader audience. They have to do this without alienating the original audience or they will end up pissing off both groups, kind of like Red Orchestra 2 did. Here they are making a pretty big change because they've noted the problems with it. They've realized that it won't work well on a larger scale geared to a wider audience. Game mechanics that rely that heavily on direct communication have way more problems to the average players.
wasdie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 04:02 PM   [Ignore Me] #57
KaB
Corporal
 
Re: Driver/Gunners... NO!


Too much easiness kills the game.
Too much hardness kills the game.
Too much players kills the game.
Too less players kills the game.

We already had enough games to figure that having two seats in tanks like in reality is not too hard, it improves the game and the teamplay and let players having some good times and good meetings (also bad sometimes) etc.
KaB is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 04:07 PM   [Ignore Me] #58
Dloan
Private
 
Re: Driver/Gunners... NO!


Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv View Post
It's not elitist to acknowledge that human society at all levels is screwed up. Turn on the news if you don't believe me.
You're absolutely right! A handful of crazy people appearing on the news must be representative of a few hundred million! Talk about dumb masses...
Dloan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 04:08 PM   [Ignore Me] #59
wasdie
Second Lieutenant
 
wasdie's Avatar
 
Re: Driver/Gunners... NO!


Originally Posted by Gandhi View Post
CCP also made a game to cater to a small community and it's subscription base has been growing steadily for the last 10 years. I think they're over 400,000 active subs by now.
That is true, but name a game that competes against EVE online... you can't. There is far less competition against EVE. There is the Freelancer series and the X series that are single player versions, but neither of them have the scale or the persistence. All of them rely on AI. The whole draw of EVE is the economy is pretty much 100% player driven and cannot be manipulated and broken easily by exploiting flaws in game mechanics or AI.

The only thing that Planetside 2 really has going for it compared to other FPSs is the scale. This was an issue in 2003 and it's going to be an issue in 2012. The game being F2P is going to help a bit, but there is still far more games on the market competing for a slice. It's harder to keep players interested in a genre that constantly has new games and new competition being released on a yearly basis.

So it's in SOE's best interest to follow the standard conventions and play to its strengths.

As I said before, the ability to have both a driver and a gunner would be a great cert. I just don't want that to be the base gameplay of the MBTs. I would prefer the base gameplay to be a single driver/gunner with the ability to cert for a separate driver gunner.

There are a lot of advantages to having a separate driver and gunner. If you do the certs right, there could be even more.

Even Battlefield 3 has a "cert" for the tank which allows a 3rd player to man a laser sight in the tank. He does nothing else but paints targets. I see people use that all of the time because of the advantage it gives them in battle. PS2 could follow something like that and it would be fine.
wasdie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 04:15 PM   [Ignore Me] #60
SgtExo
Staff Sergeant
 
Re: Driver/Gunners... NO!


Originally Posted by Sephirex View Post
I personally found all the new shooters lacking in map design, not in shooting mechanics. Seemed like every part of the maps now are designed to funnel you towards the enemy.

Also, they've gotten boring because no one's pushed the limits recently. Battle's started getting bigger and more exciting starting with Tribes and Battlefield 1942 but now they've completely flat-lined with BF3 and COD.

Very excited about the persistence, map size and player count Planetside is bringing back to the table, this time with more functional mechanics. Couldn't care less if driving/firing requires one seat or two, and not sure why BF3/CoD needs to be included in the discussion of such.
If not for the boring, console centered map design (meaning primarily for infantry), i would have played BF3 for a lot longer. I have never before BF3, primarily played a BF game for its infantry combat (it was always too rigid and awkward, I played COD 1 and 2 for that). Other then its map design, BF3 feels great all around. The first BF was my favorite because it had some almost vehicle maps only, and i never had to work with other ppl in 1 vehicle to be effective, but work alongside other vehicles.

Last edited by SgtExo; 2012-07-10 at 04:17 PM.
SgtExo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
  PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Bookmarks

Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:31 AM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.