Mines

[Cogburn]

In some other thread somewhere I proposed 3 types of mines:

Anti-Armor
Anti-Infantry (bouncing betty style)
EMP

Infantry could not detonate Anti-Armor mines, vehicles could not detonate anti-infantry mines.

EMP mines could be set off by anything but have the strictest rules on placement radius.

Discuss.

[ChayzB]

i like!

are we going with EMP mines having the same effect as Jammers do in PS?

[abathur]

Depends on their visibility. I see mines as one of the few advantages an infantry force can have on an incoming vehicle force. Traditionally, AI mines were only really developed to keep infantry from disabling AV mines. This use I don't really see a huge problem with. Running into invisible or nearly so gibbing betty mines all the time much less so, and would be much less towards the goal of helping... (which is why I proposed AV specific and multi-purpose mines (especially if we're going to have light vehicles and mechanized armour units which would be an unnecessary (and unfair) waste of an AV mine. (another reason I proposed multi-purpose mines similar to current with AV mines that only really blow up on light tank + sized vehicles.)

Not that I don't think AI mines can be balanced and work well, just making sure our motives are honest and noble going into this (perhaps AI mines could only be laid within the no-deploy radius of an AV mine and other offensive deployables could take the job of anti-infantry

[Aftiel]

vehicles could not detonate anti-infantry mines.


Negative ghostrider. Vehicles can and should be able to detonate AI mines, tanks rolling forward over an AI only field should be cheered by their follow on infantry; with a few laughs at the defenders for not installing AT mines.

[Cogburn]

Depends on their visibility. I see mines as one of the few advantages an infantry force can have on an incoming vehicle force. Traditionally, AI mines were only really developed to keep infantry from disabling AV mines. This use I don't really see a huge problem with. Running into invisible or nearly so gibbing betty mines all the time much less so, and would be much less towards the goal of helping... (which is why I proposed AV specific and multi-purpose mines (especially if we're going to have light vehicles and mechanized armour units which would be an unnecessary (and unfair) waste of an AV mine. (another reason I proposed multi-purpose mines similar to current with AV mines that only really blow up on light tank + sized vehicles.)

Not that I don't think AI mines can be balanced and work well, just making sure our motives are honest and noble going into this (perhaps AI mines could only be laid within the no-deploy radius of an AV mine and other offensive deployables could take the job of anti-infantry


Given the above....



vehicles could not detonate anti-infantry mines.


Negative ghostrider. Vehicles can and should be able to detonate AI mines, tanks rolling forward over an AI only field should be cheered by their follow on infantry; with a few laughs at the defenders for not installing AT mines.


This does tend to make more sense.

If charging armor can clear anti-infantry mines and sustain minimal damage, that would force balance via gameplay. IE:* If you dont want your nice AI minefield to get wtfpwnd you should probably put some AV mines around and inside of it.

It kinda forces you to mix AI and AV or you could just be wasting your time. While it is the EXACT opposite of the doctrine Abathur proposed, the net effect is the same.

[abathur]

I would also encourage our mines (at least) being easier on "inventory" space than in PS. Possibly even upping layable numbers. Low carriable inventory and a low overall usable number encourages people using them only at points they can practically guarantee will at some point see action (which results in passes, bridges, bases really only seeing mines) instead of encouraging infantry to use mines to help defend themselves in the field. That is to say, my goal is for a decent infantry force to be able to practically maintain a CE field with them as they advance from point A to point B.

The biggest reason I might continue objecting to vehicles mowing through AI mines with minimal damage: this has a negative net effect to providing rigidity for field forces. Assuming mowing isn't already going to be rather lethal, add in numberous AI mine explosions and AT mines or not there's the potential for effective suicide runs on infantry/light vehicle field forces attempting to "stick together." I don't really mind vehicles blowing them up, it makes sense. But we can write ourselves out of it, and doing so make make balance sense.

[Aftiel]

Yes you could potentially suicide with a heavier vehicle against lighter vehicles/softies but at the same time in PS you can toss a jammer/EMP and do basically the same thing. Hint: If you are sitting on top of a minefield you deserve to die.

[Cogburn]

Exactly. If you run all hell bent along side tanks through a minefield... well that's been quite a few scenes in WWII movies... and it rarely ends well.

While I don't think mines should instagib, I DO think they should be a bit more menacing. AI mines would have a small splash radius, as it would be designed to do near-lethal damage to a single target (the poor fool who stepped on it).

AV mines would have a splash radius slightly larger, but still consistant with something designed to stop armor. Let's face it... 6 mines to kill a tank is kinda silly. How many mines does it take to disable/destroy modern armor? 2? 3?

I think the odd damage behavior of mines in PS is directly related to the fact it is one weapon trying to fulfill two battlefield roles, AV and AI.

Going back to the point about how many deployables one person can lay at a time, I think that goes back to how long it takes to do things in order to maintain a certain pace of combat. On the surface I don't disagree.... Much. I just think that there should be options. Perhaps one infantry can only carry enough deployables to lay 10 deployables per "load"... Then provide a vehicle that will allow the same person to lay 30 in half the time, a "deployable deployment vehicle".

Furthermore, I think each mine type should have its own limitations... perhaps a 2:1:1 scenario, where you could have 10 AI mines, 5 AV mines and 5 EMP mines. This would balance against the added lethalness this system provides.

Deployables should move with the front. There's nothing worse than dying to some ancient spitfire or mine and KNOWING that no one even got credit for it. Rather than allowing leftover deployables, I'd rather see us come up with some PERSISTANT and DESTROYABLE backbase defenses. This way you need not worry about the lack of deployables on backbases and is a good tradeoff for reducing the number permitted.

[Kyraal]

[...]Perhaps one infantry can only carry enough deployables to lay 10 deployables per "load"... Then provide a vehicle that will allow the same person to lay 30 in half the time, a "deployable deployment vehicle".

This is what I do, when playing PS, and I have CE certed (which isn't too often these day). I have a Harasser, which I fill up with ACEs, and drive out into the field, and lay the deployables in my inventory. Then I go back to my Harasser, re-supply, and keep laying out deployables until I reach my limit, at which time I pull back and observe what happens, and then when necessary drive back and re-deploy.

This is the same thing I do when repairing vehicles out in the field. Load my Harasser up with juice for my gluegun, drive out and park somewhere strategically (near a Lodestar is good, as everyone appreciate the extra repair-rate they get), and providing the Lodestar isn't bombed, I can stay out there for as long as it takes.

[abathur]

Deployables should move with the front.* There's nothing worse than dying to some ancient spitfire or mine and KNOWING that no one even got credit for it.* Rather than allowing leftover deployables, I'd rather see us come up with some PERSISTANT and DESTROYABLE backbase defenses.* This way you need not worry about the lack of deployables on backbases and is a good tradeoff for reducing the number permitted.


Proposed! Basically, yes. My point (aftiel) isn't that everyone should hide into a minefield, but rather, low AV damage AI mines without also a significant and lethal layable number of high AV damage AV mines will remove reasons to give pause when plunging headlong into a group of infantry. "So what if there's a minefield, the AI mines I blow up will probably kill them all before I take enough AV mines to die..."

[Kyraal]

What about burying the mines? This just popped to mind. What if when placed on a soft surface, the mine 'sinks' down, with only the little button thingie showing? If placed on a hard surface, like concrete, the whole mine will be above surface, making it easier to spot.

Might even open up the possibility of having to take a little extra time, to get the mine buried, unless you're just lazy and toss it down on the ground.

http://www.davidostman.com/psalt/burying_mines.jpg

[Aftiel]

Deployables should move with the front. There's nothing worse than dying to some ancient spitfire or mine and KNOWING that no one even got credit for it. Rather than allowing leftover deployables, I'd rather see us come up with some PERSISTANT and DESTROYABLE backbase defenses. This way you need not worry about the lack of deployables on backbases and is a good tradeoff for reducing the number permitted.


Proposed! Basically, yes. My point (aftiel) isn't that everyone should hide into a minefield, but rather, low AV damage AI mines without also a significant and lethal layable number of high AV damage AV mines will remove reasons to give pause when plunging headlong into a group of infantry. "So what if there's a minefield, the AI mines I blow up will probably kill them all before I take enough AV mines to die..."


So give AI mines minor AV damage? Also Cog depending on what drives over a modern AT mine and what AT mine it is exactly 1-2 is really all it takes. We probably would want to have small vehicles (buggies/etc) dying to one with tanks taking 2 and if we have any sort of heavy tank then maybe 3 for it. Also if we are making mines this much more deadly vs. vehicles we need to examine if cloakers should be able to plant AT mines since if you gave a cloaker this in PS without changing anything else they would be able to blow up lots of enemy vehicles in CYs and such.

How about to fix that (just thought of this while typing), the AT mines have a very directional blast set to a split-second timer. This means that after a tank trips the mine (3-4 meters) it waits about half a second (changeable based on how fast our vehicles end up moving) then explodes in a very upwards direction. This means a mine placed by a cloaker next to a non-moving tank will only do say 1/4 damage but if that tank runs over that mine it will take the full force right through the middle and be ripped to shreds.

Thoughts?

[abathur]

Well, buggie balance is a large part of WHY I suggested high AV damage on AV mines, but pressure sensitive and only set off by "heavy" vehicles, with middle of the road "all purpose" mines that would be somewhat like PS mines (6ish) on large vehicles, 1-3 on smaller vehicles and 1-2 on infantry.

I don't think light vehicles should have free-reign, but I don't think it's any more fair for them to suffer the full AV necessary to deal with tanks than it was to force the skeeter to deal with the AA necessary to handle the reaver. It doesn't have to be my way, but it does make logical sense (from a pressure based detonation mindset, and a light/heavy vehicle balance mindset) so I don't really think it should be quickly tabled. Personally I would make 2 mine types with a more anti-vehicular purpose in mind while leaving anti-infantry tasks "mostly" to other types of weaponry (for example, I would have automated AI turrets hiding under armoured caps that would be extremely hard to see and hit at range (if not impossible) and popping up when the target is already within 1/2 of the full firing radius.

Ultimately, the control infantry have over movement will usually require 1 mine kills with invisible mines to be effective. Invisible mines require minesweepers to deal with unless we want things to get pointlessly frustrating (taking time to clear mines IRL is "smart" because you aren't "dead" but it isn't "fun." I think needing minesweepers around to move infantry anywhere would get monotonous--especially since the minesweeper would likely outrun the infantry and they wouldn't even really know what it had cleared for them.) With vehicles and momentum, however, visible mines can be reacted to in time to save the vehicle if you're skillful, and mean certain death if you aren't. AV mines can require being detonated or manually defused by infantry. It takes a moment to clear, but not like a mixed field of invisible AV/AI mines (which require some bored sod to be dedicated to a not-that-fun task and requiring everyone to wait for him to do so.) A vehicle crew can get out--greatly exposing themselves to clear a few AV or multipurpose mines as a fair tradeoff.

Meh, if I'm still not making sense, harass me with questions until I do. If I'm making perfect sense and you still think I'm a fucking idiot, so be it.

[NasyVealisanoob]

Just dont make them like the homo TK mines in BF2 >:( Make sure only enemies can set them off.

Also Im going to assume they will be countered by an emp nade that anyone can carry? Because if you need to do something fancy to get rid of them then they will be over powered (like in BF2 there is not jack shit you can do about a claymore ontop of a latter even if you know its there)

Also I think armor should set off anti infatry mines but infantry should not set off AV mines. (AI works off motion/heat/whatever, AV works off of metal/magnetic field) Infatry have enough to worry about outside, if the vehcles go in first they should clear all the AI mines.

To be honest I allways thought mines/CE was kind of dumb anyways. Its an FPS, if you wanna defend a base, use your gun, dont rely on ce to do it for you. Not saying there should be no CE, but the massive amounts of CE + interlink benefits in PS really sucked especialy as a cloaker.

[abathur]

In my version of things, at least, AV mines would require direct disabling by infantry, multi-purpose would be disabled by some EMP like device. (the logic being a pressure sensitive mine is more likely made of a material that breaks, rather than bends, such as wood, glass or ceramic...) AV mines would be far more restricted, however, not being placed as closely together nor in as great a number as multi-purpose mines (5 a person?)

[NasyVealisanoob]

In my version of things, at least, AV mines would require direct disabling by infantry, multi-purpose would be disabled by some EMP like device. (the logic being a pressure sensitive mine is more likely made of a material that breaks, rather than bends, such as wood, glass or ceramic...) AV mines would be far more restricted, however, not being placed as closely together nor in as great a number as multi-purpose mines (5 a person?)


Yeah that sound good. Just didnt want the counter to the AI mine to be infatry like it is in BF2 which is retarded. Im all for having an engi defuse an AV mine that wont blow up on him, but having the same engi responsible for disarming a claymore ( that if placed right, he cant approch without getting instagibed) is just dumb.

Id much rather have a low level of mines and have them do high dammage, then a high level of mines that do just so/so dammage. Its better to have someone put some thought into where they are gonna set up their few boobie traps then to just cover an entire base in CE. Nothing more annoying then not being able to set foot in the soi of a back base because they have interlink benefits and a few CE's went mine/spit crazy.

I think it all depends on the power of the mines, but Id like to see people with maybe 2 AI mines and 4-5 AV mines and have them be instagib. No burrying them though, you would have to use the terrain and brush to hind them. If the AI mines are bouncing betties, they will have a large area of effect and a pretty big kill zone so I think 2 is more then enough if you are smart about the pacement of them.

[YourBestIsMyWorst]

What about burying the mines? This just popped to mind. What if when placed on a soft surface, the mine 'sinks' down, with only the little button thingie showing? If placed on a hard surface, like concrete, the whole mine will be above surface, making it easier to spot.

Might even open up the possibility of having to take a little extra time, to get the mine buried, unless you're just lazy and toss it down on the ground.

http://www.davidostman.com/psalt/burying_mines.jpg


ROFL! I love the curious worm.

- YourBestIsMyWorst

[dynamic]

What about burying the mines? This just popped to mind. What if when placed on a soft surface, the mine 'sinks' down, with only the little button thingie showing? If placed on a hard surface, like concrete, the whole mine will be above surface, making it easier to spot.

Might even open up the possibility of having to take a little extra time, to get the mine buried, unless you're just lazy and toss it down on the ground.

http://www.davidostman.com/psalt/burying_mines.jpg

<3 the drawing, nice work man. You look like you should be a sketch artist. Also i like that idea, i used to sink sensors and spitfires into the ground until only the firing part had shown. I thought it worked well, and probably will rock with mines. Nice thinking.

[Cogburn]

Hmmmm... good shit in here.

So we're agreed that one type of mine is insufficent.

We also agree that there should be one "big" mine that targets vehicles.

Rather than bouncing betties the prevailing line of thought is a lower damage mine that will activate on anything.

Heavy mines will be severely restricted based on the number of mines the ComEng can lay, while the light mines will have a significantly greater number... Perhaps even 5:1.

fyi: Putting mines IN terrain (like Kyraal's Happy Worm scene) is not quite so complex. You simply indicate to the engine that the placement of the mine is slightly lower than the terrain. Part of the mine will still stick through the top and provide the desired effect.

[OverDose]

True Cog... but wouldnt it also require a "Material" system (like in HL2) as opposed to a simple texture system with object flags in order to determine what is loam/soil/clay/rock/cement?

Forgive me if sush a system is in place.

[Cogburn]

Are you referring to explosion particles based on terrain texture?

That's a little beyond the scope of an MMOFPS IMHO and is more suited to FPS games like FarCry or, as you stated, HL2.

While there IS a texture mapping system integrated into the engine, the amount of development time with multiple explosion types (while cool) is a little excessive given the full scope of the project.

[OverDose]

No... I mean in order to determine whether the mine gets buried or not.

[Cogburn]

Self-boring mines that position themselves into the ground using a form of transmutation of the substance beneath it, therefore the type of material in which the mine rests is irrelevant.

Welcome to the future. :)

[UGoBoy]

I have to ask...

Would anyone's feelings be hurt if there were *no* specific anti-infantry mines, just pressure-fired AV mines that infantry could also detonate? Leave AI work to pop-up turrets and such?

I know it wouldn't hurt mine just too much...

[abathur]

*will continue pushing for all purpose, and AV mines--NOT AV and AI mines. *

*will not be hurt by a lack of AI mines.*

[aWarlikeDonkey]

any boomers ?

[Aftiel]

any boomers ?


That's really a seperate topic (although I can see you relating the two cuz of ACEs), but from what's been discussed so far there will most likely be some kind of C4/Boomer something.

[aWarlikeDonkey]

cool

[Cogburn]

We can have one mine type for all I care, but what I wanted to avoid was the un-realism of some douche stepping on a mine and not at least being maimed.

I think my issue is really that armor types in PlanetSide absorb more damage from mines than I think they should.

[Aftiel]

We can have one mine type for all I care, but what I wanted to avoid was the un-realism of some douche stepping on a mine and not at least being maimed.

I think my issue is really that armor types in PlanetSide absorb more damage from mines than I think they should.


For an interesting tidbit, did you know that for instance in Vietnam if a solider wearing combat boots stepped on a mine he'd most likely get it taken off above the boot? Whereas a sandal wearing native would just lose their foot? Path of least resistance...but anyway it's kinda irrelevant since we won't be having localized damage but I just wanted to tell the story. Umm so yeah to get back on track, whatever the basic mine ends up being (and somewhat tying into the above story) it should probably kill in two hits? Obviously we can tweak it all later...

[Stream|ine]

Not sure if this was discussed as part of another topic. But what about creating mines as though they went threw some type of history.

Example: The first type of mine we had detonates instantly. So with new advances in military tactics and engineeering one side eventually created a blast shield for their heavier vehicles. This blast shield sets off a certain number of mines that could be relatively high with all/most of the damage going to the blast shield. But not adding anymore armor overall to the vehicle equipt. So long as you arn't just shooting it right in the blast shield it won't be anymore difficult to to destroy with the proper weapons, from the proper angle of attack.

then the idea was copied by rival faction and is now a standard across the board. So, in order to get past the blast shield we had to put a delay timer on a mine to give the tank or heavy vehicles blast shield time to pass over and detonate under the actual vehicle.

So now we have one type of mine that has an optional delay timer. Faster moving vehicles can potentailly clear time delayed mines. While heavier vehicles cannot move fast enough to clear them before detonation. But can be equipt with a blast shield as defense against non-time delayed mines.

Additionally, slower moving infantry that trigger delayed mines may or may not make it. Whereas if the mine had no delay infantry would perish without subsequent armor and whatnot. Most certainlly become seriously crippled.