Ultimate Vehicle Thread- "Vehicles kind of suck to play; We should change that" [+Base Overhaul]

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by MrNature72, Jun 26, 2014.

  1. MrNature72

    Which one was the 'third one'? It's been forever, I've forgotten the order.
  2. Frostiken

    Because you're too thick to think of a way to balance it except the absurdly badly balanced Flash method? Make it work like the Magburner does - a single shot non-toggleable burns-to-exhaustion ability with a long recharge.

    I like how your argument that this would be a horrible idea is because there's like six bases in this game where they could get onto a cliff and shoot at a spawn room. OH NO, HOW HORRIBLE.

    Hey smart-one, you know what can shoot out of a spawn room? ROCKETS. Like the Phoenix and the Striker and the Annihilator and the Decimator. A tank camping the spawn room is a dead tank.

    Climbing hills isn't "maneuverability" and I dare you to show me actual gameplay where it matters whatsoever.
  3. CrazyCanadian24

    And you can't fire while cloaked anyways. Even if a Swagrider pilot found a nice spot for raining plasma down, he'd have to reveal himself to actually do so. So there's that to consider.
  4. TheStonehawk

    I love this thread.
  5. f0d

    imo the vehicle game needs a few things to make it more awesome (i have said similar to this a year or so ago but here it goes)

    more space in between bases
    right now you can literally run from base to base and not ever have to use transport if you dont want which doesnt give vehicles much of a use as transport and makes them more immoble farming machines once you get to that next base

    wouldnt it be fun to actually have vehicle battles out in the open instead of shooting the next spawnroom or just inside the next base? I DONT WANT TO DO THAT

    we need big wide open areas in between bases to travel and to have great vehicle battles, this is why most vehicle players actually love northern indar, some bases there are slightly further apart and there is some great wide open areas to have some really fun vehicle battles

    problem is that the actual continents are too small so i think we need to remove some bases or with the next major continent that gets released we need both less bases and a bigger continent

    either way continent design is one of the reasons that tankers farm bases and dont have much vehicle battles
    look at this nice open area for battles in ps1's cyssor (the greatest continent ever created)

    a tank that has separate driver and gunner
    now i know some people like their drivergunner tanks so im not going to ask for them to change but we DO need a tank where you can be more mobile while shooting

    most tank battles now are vehicles moving back and forth in the same spot in and out of cover or not even moving at all and just slugging it out between them and thats not a tank battle thats boring

    with a separate driver and separate gunner you can have one person concentrating on evading and maneuvering and keeping on the move while the other concentrates on firing and being on target hitting the vehicle - now this can be done currently but it is no where near as efficient as a separate driver and separate gunner can be and if you are looking at what you are firing at you cant always be looking at where you are going

    notice the vehicles in this battle rarely stop moving? (i know i know not tanks but you get the idea)

    base design is still mostly horrible for infantry to defend against vehicles and to retake the base as a defender
    base design has changed a lot since release but its just the same bases with some walls around them - most of the time the spawn area is still visible to vehicles and bases are still VERY inferior to planetside 1 bases where you dont have a chance in hell of getting a tank shell near a spawn room

    amp station - tanks can spam the spawn room with shells and when the infantry take the underground route they dont have much options as its just the area around the scu and to the vehicle room and its all wide open and small and vehicles can get into the vehicle area and deny infantry access to the cap point

    tech plant - again a similar situation where tanks spam the spawn room and if they take the underground route they pop up in the vehicle bay where you guessed it vehicle can still get to and deny the infantry access to the cap point

    bio lab - woohoo the best bases for infantry as they have more options than any other base in ps2, its no surprise that infantry love bio labs where they cant be interfered with by vehicles and they have plenty of options to fight back against vehicles, they can defend against them from the airpads they can teleport into the vehicle room which can still be reached by vehicles but they usually dont last very long there so i dont see it as too much of an issue and they have freedom to move around in the base without vehicles interfering

    here is a planetside 1 base
    here is the main level floorplan (there are multiple levels)
    notice how vehicles cant shoot anywhere near where people spawn? and they have enough room to have infantry fights without vehicles interfering

    gamesradar even mentions ps1's tech plant as one of the greatest multiplayer maps of all time.!

    anyways thats just my main ideas on how to fix vehicle gameplay and vehicle/infantry interaction - there are definitely more but those 3 would change the fun for all people drastically
    • Up x 3
  6. RaidsRUs

    Someone explain to me again why MrNature isn't on the design team?
  7. CrazyCanadian24

    • Up x 2
  8. Enguzrad

    I can agree that vehicles aren't that much important, most of the fight is concentrated inside of the base, where vehicles won't fit and where they are easily destroyed by infantry. But a lot of changes suggested here would require too much work to do.

    • I would definitely not like destructible gates in bases. That would only tease you with thought of how awsome it would be to level down the whole base. Also I think there is enough of things in bases which are locked by lattice. I don't even get why some of the generators are locked, you can destroy towers anytime and noone minds that.
    • On the other hand, support towers would be nice, but because they would be probably inside the base, they are something that infatry should worry about. Of course, some destroyable/hackable/repairable base radar, orbit spawn or enemy radar jammer would be nice addition.
    • I would definitely like to see bases with better defenses.
    • Better vehicle radars, maybe even with rockets locking on them sounds good too.
      Can't comment much on vehicle stat changes, but I know that I would be for more noticable difference between factions and higher shot velocity. Some of the ideas sounds nice too, that railgun reminded me, how much I would like to see some beam weapons in VS.
    • Addaptive prices are a great idea. It's true that unlike infantry, vehicles gets significant advantage over one another. Stronger vehicles would cost more to pull out, and despite that new players would be still able to spawn huge amount of vehicles, actually good plaers could not swarm as easily.

    The problem is that, except for the radars and better towers, I think it wouldn't do much to make vehicles matter more then now.
    Here is what I would suggest:

    Considering the talk about putting NPCs into the game. Automated towers would have bigger impact then just making them stronger. (there should be more of them around too)
    Automated towers, given they are strong enough, should be able to keep any infantry and their transporters at bay, unless there is a lot of them, or they bring tanks/liberators.
    It would require some redesigns of bases, for these automated defences to be actually effective, but at least on larger bases, especially on Amp station, it could hold enemies out.

    All three kinds of towers would have to cover all of the ground around base, or they would just be ignored, unless of course there would be some anti infantry towers placed inside the base as well, at least around the point.
    There is also the problem with infiltrators. Easiest counter to this problem would be to make automated turrets be able to see cloaked infantry or addition of some kind of destroyable equipment, which would grant towers this abbility.

    Towers should still be accessible by players, and manned towers should be much stronger than just automated ones.
    And how would hacking of towers work? I'm thinking a piece of equipment, a supercomputer of some sort, which could be hacked or destroyed like terminals. If you hack a tower, you can use it manually, If you destroy the computer towers can't operate on their own, If you hack the computer hacked towers in the base are automated, while the enemy has to use them manually or hack back the computer.

    That would make vehicles needed to actually get into a base, and to keep your teammates on foot from getting shredded by chaingun towers. It is still not much though and would still need a lot of effort to make, but I've got one more idea, which would not only move more of the battle outside, but I think it would also lessen a bit the problem with redeploy traveling:

    First, all bases would get their own SCU generator.
    Then all bases, or at least all small bases, would have their SCU accesible for overload even if your territory is not adjacent to this territory on lattice.
    Players could redeploy on any base (no jumping around adjacent bases), but only if there is uninterrupted chain of SCUs leading from warpgate to base they want to redeploy.

    What consequences would this have?
    Players could still redeploy on nearest bases, given that their SCUs are online. They could also redeploy on warpgate any time.
    Because SCUs would be easier to destroy, defenders would have to spawn elsewhere more.
    Additionaly players can now send teams deep into enemy territory, where they can disable and hold an SCU, which will cut off reinforcements to particular branch of lattice via redeploy. Which means that if you manage to destroy the SCU in adjacent base before enemies start to fall back to that base, they will be forced to redeploy on warpgate and pull some sunderers.

    More sunderers means more things to destroy for tanks, and suderers are even more important then before. They should be protected... by tanks. There you go, a tank battle between bases where one side wants to quickly get back spawns to base before it is captured and the other side tries to stop them. It might stop massive redeploys from base to base too, squad leader would have to drive to that base, which gives enemy an opportunity to stop him.

    It shouldn't be too hard to implement and it might be effective, at least I hope so.
    It wouldn't work with most bases we have now though, because it would be just too easy to capture a base. Defenders would have to get easier access to control points, they should be able to hold points fine, but they should be worried about their SCU.
    Right now, quite a number of bases have control points on one side and spawn room on opposite side. Half of players will die before they cross the base to get to that point.
    • Up x 1
  9. 7 Drunk Midgets

    1. Why would anyone use this? Cloak is meant for the user to be able to sneak around undetected, but if all you get is a short burst of invisibility, what's the point? It's a broken idea, and something that should not be on an MBT. The Wraith Flash is balanced. Flashes and their operators are squishy, spray your favorite automatic weapon of choice at the infiltrator's exposed head whilst he's uncloaked, and he's dead. If you must, you can expend another magazine or two to destroy the flash as well. The Magrider is not subject to these flaws, and Flashes cannot strafe, and have a very hard time climbing hills.

    2. Six? Do you play on Esamir? Admittedly, after the PPA nerf (which even I think was a bit much), this would be less of a problem, but Magriders do camp often still.

    3. What good will a rocket be against an enemy you can't see? The Magrider fires onto the spawnroom, and when he takes a decent amount of damage, cloaks and dips behind whatever hill he climbed and repairs. Wash, rinse, repeat. (lol, Striker)

    4. K.

    How, then, would you define maneuverability? Also, saw a clip similar to the first one presented in the video, but the Magrider driver burned over an even steeper hill, and was fighting a Prowler. Couldn't find it again, unfortunately, so it's fine if you don't take my anecdote seriously.

    Also, your salty attitude is priceless.
  10. MrNature72

    Wait, what are you two even arguing about? Where did I ever mention invisibility?

    In the list of 'better stealth options', invisibility is just one of many. Here, have a taste of this.

    Anti-Radar Systems: Stealth based systems that prevent the tank from showing up on radar.

    Anti-Lock Systems: Prevent missiles from locking onto the tank.

    Semi-Cloak: Cloak that's more effective at distance (probably my favorite), enemies far away won't be able to see you very well but close up you're pretty obvious. Trade off is you can cloak for a long time.

    Chameleon Cloak: Cloak that simply changes the color of the vehicle to match its surroundings. Firing wouldn't destroy the cloak, but it would cause it to shift and become less apparent and stealth-y. Longest use time.

    Exterior Trimming: Trade off armor for a much smaller physical signature.

    False Signal: Appear as an infantry unit on radar until you are marked by an enemy.

    Burrow: Hide in the ground and cover yourself with a camouflaged netting. You can't fire or move, but you're basically 100% invisible, it lasts forever, and people can even drive and walk over you. My second favorite, because it would be hilarious to have a bunch of maggies burrowed underground, only to pop up when the army is literally over them.

    See? You don't need to have straight up invisibility to be stealthy. There are a ton of other options. Frankly, pure invisibility for the magrider would be pretty lame in terms of stealth. If any other Vanu unit got invisibility, I'd say it should be the Sunderer. It would allow for some pretty interesting stealth insertions.

    Pretty awesome, right?

    Because I'm so expensive.

    Nah just kidding, I would actually work for the price of $0. I would love to just help out and get this thing on the right design track, you know? That would be enough payment for me, no money needed. Although a lifetime membership would be nice. :3

    Also, if you like this thread, look at my signature and check out all the others! Replies are the best thing you can do to those threads right now, as that keeps them on the top of the subforum, where they need to be!
    • Up x 3
  11. TriumphantJelly

    Burrowing and Camo seem funny and just really useful, I'd love to see this!
  12. MrNature72

    I know right? I really hate the current Vanu. They're such a boring faction. Giving them weird and quirky stuff like that would be awesome.

    As for Camo, which Camo are you talking about?
  13. \m/SLAYER\m/

    tanks outdated, now we have aircraft.
    you expecting killing machine, but you will end like[IMG]

    even most armored modern tank vulnerable to RPG.
    so you must keep infantry far away, using main cannon to ruin buildings and other infantry cover.
  14. MrNature72

    This is also a videogame, where everything should be fun and balanced.

    Making tanks weak for the sake of making takes weak, even when it makes them super boring to play, is really, really dumb. And I study military hardware a ton. But I don't want my knowledge of cold-war hardware and modern military tech to ruin the fun of my game.

    I mean, if we were going with realism, these tanks should be able to easily shoot at least 2,500meters with pinpoint accuracy, move about 70kmh, and require a full crew of four people.

    But they don't.

    Now let's get back to videogame world and not let all this realism invade our fun.
  15. CrazyCanadian24

    I think he was implying the opposite; that tanks shouldn't be made tougher, but be given much more powerful weapons, instead (which actually sounds pretty good to me).

    Also, MFW reading this page and seeing everyone call the VS "Vanu":


    The Vanu are the aliens, guise. The VS sure look Human to me. Just sayin'.
  16. MrNature72

    They're calling them the Vanu because VS stands for the Vanu Sovereignty.

    Kind of like how they call the Terran Republic the Terrans, and the New Conglomerate... well, I don't know. Never had someone call us the News or the Conglomerates. I have heard people just call it the Conglomerate though.

    But yeah. Vanu is part of the actual name. Also, if you read the original post, I've already made huge amounts of effort on creating new weapons for the vehicles.
  17. TriumphantJelly

    Whoops, meant chameleon! :p
  18. MrNature72

    Yeah I really like the idea of Chameleon. It makes it entirely reliant on enemy recon: Someone could spot a horde of Chameleon Magriders, or they could literally crawl right up to your *ss and make you eat plasma, depending on how attentive the players are.

    Way better than just "HOIP A DOIP, I'M INVISIBLE, LOOK AT ME! Oh too bad YOU CAN'T!"
    • Up x 1
  19. CrazyCanadian24

    It is, yes, but being a Grammar **** it is required that I get obscenely technical and note that while "Terrans" and "Conglomerate" both function as standalone terms, "Vanu" does not as it does not describe the VS.

    It's been a while since I read the OP, guess I forgot about that bit.
  20. TriumphantJelly

    I suggest we start a political party and then do a Putsch. It'd be cool, if nothing else. "WE ARE THE GRAMMER ****S, OBEY US AND OUR INCESSANT CORRECTIONS"!

Share This Page