The issue with realism in games

People tend to, as far as I can tell, called Planetside "unrealistic", especially with bullet/shell velocities, without seeming to grasp that this game has no necessary basis on real life. In real life, tanks should engage each other over miles of distance while infantry stays far away from each other. The Railjack should fire at Mach 6, and rocket launchers should be about 20x faster. Infantry should be disabled or killed after only a few shots past shields, and tank armor would be binary- either it doesn't penetrate the armor and nothing happens, or it does and the tank dies.

However, if all of these things were implemented into the game, it would be a huge failure, both in terms of computation and fun. Nobody wants to plink away from each other at render distance- we want close fights and charges across plains, where one man can change the tide of the war. If Planetside was as realistic as possible, none of these would exist.

Furthermore, it's a game. The purpose is not to be realistic, but have fun. There are far more realistic games out there like ARMA. People call for realism when they want their aspect of the game buffed, but don't consider the rest of the game.

There are two main issues with making the game more realistic.

First, the game is simply too infantry-centric because vehicles have been unrealistically nerfed. You can see from Server Smashes and alerts where tanks only account for about 0.22% of casualties... vehicles (apart from the Sunderer and ESF) simply have no role in the game. This is a gameplay flaw that can be fixed by making the game more realistic. This can include tank durability, tank damage, and logistical changes to the game. Essentially tanks are neutered precisely because the game is so unrealistic, and this is bad for the game.

Second, although all elements of the game are unrealistic, tanks have been treated especially unfairly. In every field, from HP to damage to velocity to optics, tanks have been nerfed much more than infantry counterparts. This represents unfair and uneven treatment. If you need to nerf velocity for range compression reasons, do it proportionally. If you need to nerf explosive radius to avoid explosive spam, do it proportionally. But if you unfairly favour infantry, you wind up with ridiculous situations where sniper rifles have higher velocities than tank shells and hand grenades do more explosive damage than 120mm HE shells.

So making the game more realistic can properly balance vehicles (especially tanks) versus infantry, as well as to be more objectively fair to vehicles (which are treated very poorly in PS2's game design).

Actually making the game more realistic can do wonders to improve the game, mainly increasing the combined arms skill necessary to win.

I mean currently what does it take to grab a base? Just a handful of Sunderers and infantry. You don't need anything else, and if the enemy is bringing in tanks or Liberators those are largely ignorable. Not like they can blow up buildings or cover.

That's a terrible game, especially when you have what could be a rich ecosystem of vehicles in the game. It'd be as if Starcraft was made and you really only needed Overlords and Zerglings to win and all other units were completely pointless. That's not a good game at all. Very one-dimensional and repetitive.

So how do we make sure that air, armour, and infantry all have a role?

Well how about we look at another place where air, armour, and infantry all have a role... the real world.

If we take real world elements and put them in PS2, this would greatly improve the game because all sorts of units would have an indispensable role. Unlike now, where only infantry and infantry transports have a role.

That's how realism can save PS2.

All the fault of not having propper bases with more indoor fighting. If the bases were more internal....so vehicles were used to siege the base and break into the courtyard then leave the rest of the fight to the infantry...then I would be cool with them being more deadly. Sadly...you can get sundies on control points....tanks can fire into towers....Aircraft can camp spawn doors....it's all silly. PS1 did bases right....vehicles were feared outside....but they were useful for gaining ground and making assaults into bases and courtyards around the base. They weren't used for protecting points. Until you take that away....vehicles need to stay where they are in terms of strength but that is all just my opinion.

But the real world has several very different requirements. For one, nothing is expendable. If a soldier dies, that's a massive problem. In Planetside, if a soldier dies, he respawns in 5s. The same problem applies for tanks. Higher velocities/accuracy means that engagement ranges increase. This is directly at odds with our current rapid-respawn system. While increasing respawn times or adding a resource cost might fix this, it adds its own problems, mostly by reducing "fun".

I agree that tanks are too squishy, but this game, at its core, caters to infantry. Most casual players don't have the certs or the motivation to learn to fly/tank, and the game reflects that. If the game was changed to promote combined arms and thus nerfed infantry, then this would alienate the majority of the population. It might not satisfy the pros, but to Daybreak, those don't matter that much. It's not a perfect solution, but this game is about money, not the pros.

The issue with this idea is that, again, this alienates the infantry when they aren't in bases. They don't have anything to do but sit in sundies or pull uncerted tanks when they're out of the bases, by your idea.

And what's wrong with that? why are these players neglecting their Vehicles when, if under this supposed change where Vehicles could reliably dominate the untamed spaces between bases if left unchecked, they would become a necessity?

That is good! It forces people to stick together more. AV is pretty strong. In PS1 vehicles were WAAAAY more powerful against infantry then this game. But they still gave them a wide birth. One or two infantry guys could be engaged with out to much fear. There was still a threat but not like the c4 mechanics and tank mine issues we have now.

They had many more opions at hand. For example one engineer could create an anti-tank mine field. They could put out lik 10 mines. 15 if they were Defensive engies. So you would see three or four engies make a large mine field all around open fields andapproaches to bases. It took more than 2 mines to kill tanks. Usually around 8 or so. BUT it had a much larger effect. Tanks would avoid them like the plague. They did enough damage to scare them and it took away their maneuverability. Infantry AV weapons still hurt quite a bit. They could deply tank traps to limit their approach *tank traps on bridges and between trees a tank could normally fit between.

Heck Infiltrators could hack vehicles out from under people camping and not paying attention. Of course if they didn't have the cert to drive it all they could do was get in the gun and shoot...but it happened often enough. One of the the things that was always hilarious was seeing how ANGRY and agressive people would get when they saw a VS prowler or a TR Magrider! People would throw themselves at it to destroy that abomination!

And in the end would seeing four sundies rolling down the road full of random players be a bad thing? Personally I think it would make them more effective. Botht he infantry and the Players. Now they have a safe ride with out worry of sniper fire/ESF/ATV problems. AND they get more fire support when they reach location not to mention spawn locations. You might even see more non-outfit gal drops like you did in PS1.

PS1 balanced infantry out by giving them more run and cover places. Large forests that were usually death traps to tanks. Bunkers around bases, and all that stuff. PS2 just...doesn't have anyplace safe. Other then spawn rooms...but then even those aren't really safe because two steps out the door you can get hit by every manner of vehicle. Imagin if an AMP station had a roof over the whole base...Or if the Tech plant had catwalks and covered hallways connecting many of the buildings together like a large industrial complex? What about the crown? What if that bunker entrance by C actually led to a tunnel up in the buildings near the tower?

Infantry just lacks places it can fight with out threat of constant vehicle threat. And as someone who spends most of their time in vehicles even I think that is lame. Once you take a base's outer walls or gate...it should be time to get out and ground pound. OR protect the outside of the base from enemy counter attack. Perstonally I think this would also slow down the Zerg effect. It will still be there. But when you don't have libs hovering over a spawn room with ten ESFs and a few locked down prowlers and they are relying on infantry only inside it gives defenders a better chance.

Speaking from the perspective of a Planetside 1 player - this is not true. In Planetside 1 infantry would advance in support of the armor and it would likely be the actions of an infantry group that changed the tide of a pivotal open-field battle. In Planetside 1 these battles were usually "the only roads" - bridges and other infrastructure that could not be circumvented easily.

It could very easily come to pass, in a bridge battle for example, that the forces would stalemate. One sides tanks couldn't advance enough to establish a beach head, and neither could the others, and so both would exchange shots then fall back to rearm/repair. However, in these situations infantry filled many roles. For example, snipers could gun down vehicle crews trying to repair - or the enemies snipers trying to do the same. Infiltrators could infiltrate across the bridge and hack enemy vehicles, equipment, or kill targets of interest. Infiltrators could also sneak into nearby towers or bases and start hacks - that would force the enemy to split their focus. Other troops would be dedicated to stopping this.

Furthermore, some troops might load into a Deliverer (a smaller capacity, amphibious, Sunderer) and establish a minor beachhead on valuable realestate overlooking the enemies end of the bridge - raining down AI and AV fire and forcing the enemy to split focus. Especially organized groups could load into Galaxies and fly around the fight - inserting directly into the next base. Again pulling necessary troops. Galaxies could also carry light vehicles (Like Harassers, their ES variants, or some other vehicles) allowing them to deliver not only troops, but some vehicles to increase their staying power, or they could use a Lodestar to carry in an AMS and circumvent the fight.

This ignores the epic field battles Planetside 1 had, particularly on forested continents. While vehicles ruled the open spaces, infantry could get into clusters of trees and shelter. A vehicle can't kill you if it doesn't know you are there, for instance. And two infantry forces would often clash in these woods as both sides tried to flank.

Planetside 2 certainly looks better, and has a much more modern shooter feel than Planetside 1 - but it doesn't hold a torch to Planetside 1 in terms of depth.

Everyone seems to be missing the fact that this is Planetside 2, not 1. This isn't a discussion on how PS1 was a great game, or how you like it more than PS2. This is a discussion about realism, particularly velocities, in Planetside 2.

Well said, sir. Well said.

It is less "Planetside 1 is awesome" and more a continuation of an argument by presentation of relevant evidence. The argument was that providing more realistic implementation of certain aspects would leave Infantry without anything to do and alienate players. The counter-argument, using Planetside 1 as evidence, was that Infantry has just as relevant a role in that situation.

Except people were talking about vehicle hacking, new vehicles, PS1 terrain, changing the whole vehicle-infantry dynamic to PS1, etc...

Especially since PS1 failed and PS2 picked up the slack. Seriously if PS1 was so good, it'd pull an Everquest 1 and still have expansions. EQ1 has 21. Released one this year.. not bad for a game released in 1999.

But to the point... realism could be more evident IF they increase the capped visual ranges. Right now its 300 for infantry and 600 for vehicles. If it was 6000 for both we could get rid of some bases, have realistic velocities and even have non-LOS weapons (mortars and artillery).

But that is the first step to attaining it. Is pushing Daybreak to lift the cap (and to do so they need to readjust their server hardware/software).

Most realism arguments are typically also made in complete disregard of realism in other areas.

Sure a real tank can survive a lot more than the ones in this game but a real tank cost a "bit" more than 9 grenades.

In this game a tank can be repaired from being hit by a rocket in about 5 sec. In real life, expect it to be gone for about a month.

In real life tanks are tough, expensive, and a logistic headache. In this game tanks are cheap, disposable, and flimsy.

The m/s muzzle velocity of most weapons in this game are decent airsoft guns. No rifle in the game comes near military rifle velocity. Why? The continents are the size of a medium city IRL (which is still pretty impressive for a FPS game) and mostly for balance.

decent air soft guns are gonna have trouble hitting 200m/s let alone the velocities in this game, so I have no idea why you would even compare them other then maybe the effective range (which in the games case is more a function of COF/bloom/recoil/ then velocity). not as fast as a real bullet sure, but still faster then air soft or paint ball. (which sit at field velocities of 300-450 FEET per second)

For video games you want aspects to be realistic but don't want to sacrifice game play which make it fun.

Did you just read the title only? You're response is looking that way. I'll help you out. Try to explain why lower velocities, some sub-sonic, makes for fun gameplay? Before you answer, think about some of the complaints players have had:

1. Too many Bases.
2. Bases too close to each other.
3. Players being hit by others they cannot see.

All are caused by the reasoning for lower unrealistic velocities on weapons. That reason being the limit of what the sever allows to be rendered in a distance around you at any given time. If this was raised to 6000m from 300/600m then some bases around larger bases could be removed (or returned back to spawn sites and not true bases), this would move bases further out. And best of all, no longer would players be hit by things they couldn't see.

And best of all, they could increase the velocities to normal realistic values, they'd have to since combat would happen a further ranges. Might even be a good idea to remove COF from ADS as well.

My statement wasn't made to argue or debate the topic. I was just backing up the main subject of the topic that true realism in all aspects of a game isn't ideal for making a game fun. Why did my statement provoke a defense response in you? But I do agree with what you said. I like all those ideas. But, I think perhaps some of them might not work out in a technical sense.

Because what you did was state the obvious. Most of us have been playing video games for a good while, long before any realism could even be thought possible. So I doubt many would say no realism = no fun. So with that said, you basically said the sky was blue. Which didn't add anything to the discussion.

That's why you got the response you did.