Vehicle Crew vs. Functionality Discussion

[Baron]

I am in the middle of nowhere for business and my internet isn't the best so forgive me for not searching the entire forum if this is a repost.

I'd like to get thoughts / ideas flowing discussing vehicle's functionality vs. crew size. Personally, I love multi-crew vehicles as I think they focus on one of the core aspects of PS...team work. I really like the idea of Liberators/Vultures and other vehicles that are very powerful but balance this in crew size. (a perfect example of what not-to-do is BFRs which made the most powerful tank/aa/vehicle in the game a solo-machine)

I am saddened to see the Reaver go from a 2 person crew to a 1 person. Perhaps there will be a higher level "variant" type that is more powerful but requires two people (example):

PS2 Reaver:

* Two person craft

* Pilot Weapon - Dumbfire rockets (much like current version)

* Gunner Weapon 1 - 360 degree chaingun

* Gunner Weapon 2 - Single shot guided rocket

* Only gunner position can fire in hover mode


The theoretical reaver is just an idea to get some thoughts going. Let's talk vehicles!

Function vs Firepower vs Crew

[Bags]

Was it ever confirmed to be two person?

[Baron]

Only the 2 seater concept art as far as I know, thought someone else may have more details about the original idea.

[opticalshadow]

honestly i liked the reaver as it was in psu, provided the mossy was liek it was at launch (useless for anything but flying and scouting) as a step up from rever i like your idea, something about the size of a libby, but instead of bombing its more for blanket fireing areas (similure to a gal gunship, but more of a tactical assult craft rather then a warship. great as a support for a tank brigade being able to defend air assults while assist anti armor fights)

the downside of these types of vehicles though is it requires each crew mate to be good to be effective, and it requries so many people to use properly. which isnt a problem if we have a huge pop.

[CutterJohn]

Was it ever confirmed to be two person?

The concept is quite obviously 2 seater.

Hamma asked someone at fan fair, and they said it was 1 seater.


So, either there is confusion, or the concept has changed. Hopefully it remains a 2 seater.. I love chin turret seats. :D



Per the OP, I would like to see more optional turrets on vehicles that can either be used by the driver(to the obvious detriment to his driving/flying ability) or by a gunner(or extra 2nd gunner). Not tank cannons, but lighter turrets.

This would give vehicles the option of going one or two man, or tanks the option of being 2 or 3 man, without directly nerfing the vehicle.. A good driver could make it work.

[Senyu]

I do like the idea of having less powerful turrets for more people inside the vehicle. You can take it a step further and make it so the driver can still say control a main cannon or one of them. But when someone takes the gunner position for it it switches control of the cannon to the gunner. Leaving the driver only able to drive. With something like this all parts can be utilized with smaller crew, but having a full crew thats competent will be far better each able to focus on their role

[Azren]

Reaver was confirmed to be a one seater in PS2. The concept was from PS:Next, probably changed since then.

Would be nice though, and real simple to make them two seaters. Pilot gets to fly the caft, while the gunner gets to use air to ground dumb fire missiles and a chaingun, both with limited targeting area (rotation). Works for tanks and libs, should work here too.

[kaffis]

I like vehicles with lots of crew, too. I was always an advocate of letting the MAXes aboard a Sunderer be in kind of a half-height socket, so they could fire in maybe a 120 degree arc with their MAX equipment (along with trunk access, probably, to reload).

I loved all the three-man vehicles, and despaired at the selfishness and uncooperation of my fellow man when I saw them with only 1 or 2 seats manned.

The key, though, is that in a multi-crew vehicle, everybody needs to have a fun job. I never want to see a crew position added to load shells for a tank's main gun, for instance.

[Sirisian]

I'm on the opposite spectrum usually. I hate vehicles with a lot of crew members. I prefer single person vehicles like the Mosquito, Reaver, and Lightning. (Never really used the mossy or reaver though). I'm hoping they change the Liberator to a single person vehicle and make it an alternative playstyle to the Reaver.

As for variants with more people I'm fine with that. The reason I usually hate two person vehicle is because they split up the roles for no other reason than to split them up which invariably splits up the fun of using the vehicle.

[NapalmEnima]

I'm on the opposite spectrum usually. I hate vehicles with a lot of crew members.

I pray you're in the minority. Yes, everyone wants to kick as much ass as they possibly can. But this is a MMO shooter.

No single-player combat vehicle should be more powerful than a 2+ player combat vehicle in a similar role. Evar. Lightnings shouldn't be more effective than MBTs, at much of anything (running away? okay, I'll give you that one :p ). A PS2 Lightning with a pilot who's skills are all dedicated to improving a certain aspect of that lightning MIGHT be on par with an untrained crew in an MBT, but even that is pushing it a bit.

That's why I... err... disliked the BFRs so much back in the day. It let a single player dedicated ground combat vehicle (bfr) beat the crap out of a two-player dedicated ground combat vehicle (the MBTs).

And you need to have some degree of balance between infantry and vehicles. You can't just ramp up all vehicles Moar. Some number of AV troops/MAXes should be on an equal footing with a given ground combat vehicle. That number might vary from one empire to the next (TR AV better against air, Vanu AV dishes out the DPS against slow moving targets, NC: don't bother trying to run, you'll just die tired).

Your opinion seems to reflect more your style of play than a good design concept to me. Specifically, it looks like you "pub" a lot, and never really got in with a good Outfit.

Do So.

Seriously.

When you know you've got a competent crew, and are all in voice communication with each other, being in a 2+ crew vehicle can ROCK. Particularly when you've played together several times before. You simply KNOW GuNnErX is crazy accurate with that cannon, and don't need to worry about trying to smooth out the ride so much to let him bring the hurt. If he spots an incoming reaver, he's going to TELL YOU so you can commence to dodging all those incoming rockets. GuNnErX knows YOU can dodge reavers all day until they get close enough for those 20mm cannons to start really chewing on them. He knows when he calls out a distant target that you'll give him a stable firing platform for maximum pwnage.

I'm partial to "a full squad of tanks" myself. Woe betide the poor pub tank that runs into us, fully crewed or not. They'll die faster than they thought a tank COULD die. 5 x 150mm adds up in a big hurry. :evil:

A group of liberators flying in some semblance of formation over a base must be pretty epic too. Clear the courtyard indeed.

A couple squads of infantry rolling in a couple leviathans can probably spew pain like you wouldn't believe. Blow through those deployables some poor engy spent half an hour deploying, bitch slap the wall guns, and fall out to take the tower in short order.

Teamwork is good. GOOD teamwork is simply amazing. Seek it out. You won't regret it.

It is THAT experience that makes PS unique. You can't get it anywhere else. And that is why I keep coming back. (that and the free 45 days... :p)

[NapalmEnima]

The theoretical reaver is just an idea to get some thoughts going. Let's talk vehicles!

Function vs Firepower vs Crew

I'm wondering if its even possible to make a ECW/ECCW crew position fun.

Painting targets might be vaguely interesting (particularly when there are artillery about and you get to see the shells blow the stuffing out of whatever it was you painted), but jamming/unjamming/etc? Sounds pretty dull, which is a pity.

"Intel" is a facet of warfare that is largely missing from PS. Radar and motion detectors are about the extent of it. With command rank granting radar sweeps, enemy heat maps and so forth, there's a lot that could be done to block that kind of information, but not a lot to do to make that blocking fun.

[Talek Krell]

If they make my beloved Lib into a one man vehicle, I will reach through the internet and punch the devs in the face. All of them. Simultaneously.

invariably splits up the fun of using the vehicle.

This allows you to share fun with other people. I don't understand your logic.

[Soothsayer]

"Intel" is a facet of warfare that is largely missing from PS. Radar and motion detectors are about the extent of it. With command rank granting radar sweeps, enemy heat maps and so forth, there's a lot that could be done to block that kind of information, but not a lot to do to make that blocking fun.

BC2 comes to mind where intel became a useful role that anybody could play in the field with spotting.

With the mission system, a recon unit could essentially take a screenshot of their view. Depending on whether it is a squad moving to a base or a full on armor column, a mission could be generated with an XP kickback to the scout who flagged the enemy movement as something the mission system might want to generate a mission for. The better the screenshot (more enemies seen in view) the better the payoff pending mission completion.

Kind of like what little I saw from Dead Rising where you take photos of zombies that gives points for various criteria (I only played that game briefly though).

Sorry to OP that is getting off topic.

I'm all about adding function, whether at the expense of firepower or not. I think that its a valid topic to pursue, regardless of the fact that it's likely that some other game has had any given ability (Stun, Mezz, Debuff, Slow... the list goes on). I believe that Higby said that they want to have a predictable system where any given source of damage can be predicted and not random.

I don't know how to interpret that, given weapon customization. Its a given that that means no crits (he def said that) but what does that mean for things like target painting (in the sense of an effect on a target that causes them to take more damage or resist less)? I'd love to see some utility stuff like webifiers (makes target move slowly).

What degree are the devs willing to let another player take control from them over how they experience the game? Like the jockey from L4D2, or the TF2 Scout's Sandman stun, the line has to get drawn somewhere (there's a direct or indirect mechanism in both games to prevent either from being excessively spammed).

[Sirisian]

This allows you to share fun with other people. I don't understand your logic.
I find it boring assisting in bomber kills. I usually just use the front gun of my liberator more often than not. Even when I was racking up vehicle pad kills I found it kind of boring assisting in kills.

I pray you're in the minority. Yes, everyone wants to kick as much ass as they possibly can. But this is a MMO shooter.
Extreme minority actually (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36707). I believe a group of vehicles can work together and be just as team oriented as multi-crew vehicles. The outfit I was in used to use a group of magriders. We all certed Reavers for fun once. Just as fun. I actually don't mind driving the magrider in a big battle as long as I'm not perpetually sitting back from the battle letting my gunner hit things. (The front gun doesn't see much use that way).

I like where each vehicle is epic and the driver has weapons. When there is a crew member they too should have weapons. :cool:

[opticalshadow]

i think the best vehicles to implement such things should be support crafts that offer the primary owner a role even without a crew. these are vehicles that on their own should not have guns (ams) but what if we offered additinal seating for defence. lets role with the AMS example.

the ams alone is a one seater, and without guns, what if we could add a second seat for positinal defence, a turret of sorts that fires out rader bursts to sweep for mine fields (beyond visable range) and reveal moving enemies on the minimap, a third seat could be added as a pure defence role. a chain gun or something that would be good at close range to infantry. when the ams is being attacked (hacked assulted camped) it would allow a spawner or close soldire to hop in and give some last ditch defence.

support vehicles which are already a not combat role would actually work well with a function add mindset. the more people that are used, the more functions they can have. because their role is out of direct combat already, it helps keep a power balance in that an assult craft could not gain powerful abilites, but it also allows players who are not focused on combat (medics, engies) somethign they can do in open plains fights who otehrwise only have supressers and sweepers.

[opticalshadow]

edit: double post.

[Sirisian]

Okay, I was talking with some other people in IRC I got them to switch over or not be against a single person vehicle strategy. So maybe I can get others to agree.

Currently tanks are two person vehicles where the driver is separated from the gunner. Now the driver is the person pulling the vehicle and putting all the upgrades into it for better cannons and other bonuses. Now what if instead having the gunner control the main cannon the driver is given that responsibility. The gunner would then be given a secondary weapon like a anti-infantry chain gun or AA flak, or AV gun/rockets. (I'm not sure I'd want a three person tank honestly since it might make a single vehicle too powerful). The idea being though that the main cannon would be slower and more of a heavy hitter (imagine a real tank how the turning isn't instant). If they got caught off guard they'd be more vulnerable so the secondary gunner would help them.

The idea being that every role in the game should be epic by itself. I know what you're thinking that the driver/gunner separation is to support teamwork. However it makes the driver position dull especially when they're putting their certs into the tank and the gunner ends up using it.

When you see a tank I want each shot to be powerful. Like push the tank back a bit with dust particles and such. I think it would definitely make them more cool.

The lightning would in turn be a weak tank with the dual cannon and machine gun making it lack the weakness of the bigger tanks but it's obviously less armored.

[Quovatis]

All combat vehicles should have some kind of weak gun for the drive to have fun with. I really don't want to see the common practice in games of allowing the driver to instantly switch to any gunner position. I like that the current PS requires some teamwork. Of course I've always driven a mag for most of my PS days, so driving has always been a little more fun for me. The prowler/vanguard should have a fixed forward 20mm gun or something so they aren't so eager to try to run someone over and blow up in a mine field trying.

[Headrattle]

Currently tanks are two person vehicles where the driver is separated from the gunner. Now the driver is the person pulling the vehicle and putting all the upgrades into it for better cannons and other bonuses. Now what if instead having the gunner control the main cannon the driver is given that responsibility. The gunner would then be given a secondary weapon like a anti-infantry chain gun or AA flak, or AV gun/rockets. (I'm not sure I'd want a three person tank honestly since it might make a single vehicle too powerful). The idea being though that the main cannon would be slower and more of a heavy hitter (imagine a real tank how the turning isn't instant). If they got caught off guard they'd be more vulnerable so the secondary gunner would help them.

The idea being that every role in the game should be epic by itself. I know what you're thinking that the driver/gunner separation is to support teamwork. However it makes the driver position dull especially when they're putting their certs into the tank and the gunner ends up using it.

The lightning would in turn be a weak tank with the dual cannon and machine gun making it lack the weakness of the bigger tanks but it's obviously less armored.
No, No, God no!

The Driver position is not "dull" to us drivers. We like it. We assist in kills, and we are doing something that is in many ways more challenging then just shooting a gun. We are keeping the tank alive, and we are trying to get the gunner more kills. It is challenging, fun, and though you don't get many kills, you do get plenty of assists and exp.

What you are asking for is a single player with a large powerful gun in a lot of armor. How is that balanced? Giving the driver a big main gun will kill the game for many players. Why drive anything else, when you can drive around a big gun on treads... alone... with lots of armor. In order to make it balanced, you would have to get rid of the power involved with that tank.

Bad idea.

I am not opposed to having a small gun in front. Fine. But the big guns should be crewed by a dedicated gunner while the driver drives. If you think that isn't fun, don't do it. The lightning is right there. Sure it doesn't have as much power, but it shouldn't.


When you see a tank I want each shot to be powerful. Like push the tank back a bit with dust particles and such. I think it would definitely make them more cool.
This is the only good idea. That would be cool.

[Raymac]

Good discussion here, and I don't want to sidetrack it, but I gotta stick up for my Reaver. Yes, the Reaver is a powerful vehicle, but if you don't like dying to them, I have a pro tip for you....just have 1 AA unit. Just 1. Skyguard, AA Max, hell even a single person with a Striker can be enough to chase them away. Reavers melt pretty damn quick to AA, which means if you don't start running when you see the 'Lock On', then you probably arn't going to be flying much longer. I know this isn't really about the reaver balance, but I just had to give my 2 cents.

As for the actual topic, multi-crew vehicles are part of what make Planetside what it is. I really like Quovatis' idea of letting the driver have a weak forward facing gun, just to give them something. You rarely see a Mag with just a driver, and when you do, you drool over the easy target, so I like the idea alot. The way vehicles are crewed in PS1 is just fine, and I see no reason to change that.

[Headrattle]

Good discussion here, and I don't want to sidetrack it, but I gotta stick up for my Reaver. Yes, the Reaver is a powerful vehicle, but if you don't like dying to them, I have a pro tip for you....just have 1 AA unit. Just 1. Skyguard, AA Max, hell even a single person with a Striker can be enough to chase them away. Reavers melt pretty damn quick to AA, which means if you don't start running when you see the 'Lock On', then you probably arn't going to be flying much longer. I know this isn't really about the reaver balance, but I just had to give my 2 cents.


I agree. I never hated Reavers as much as a lot of people. I think it is because I have gotten in one AA max and cleared the skies. They are powerful, have one crewman, but very fragile and the counters to them usually lock on, and when they don't they fill the skies with black clouds of doom.

So I never had a complaint with any of them. Even as a tank driver when Reavers are the main threat other then other tanks.

[Talek Krell]

I gotta stick up for my Reaver.

I confess that I mostly loved the two man reaver because I was looking forward to flying one with a friend. I don't have any particular problem with the reaver's current implementation. I'm hoping that if it remains one man, they'll add a module to the lib that replaces the bomb bay with a turreted gun.

I know what you're thinking that the driver/gunner separation is to support teamwork. However it makes the driver position dull especially when they're putting their certs into the tank and the gunner ends up using it.

I am thinking that I have had years of good fun driving a mag, and that both I and my gunner are waiting for its new incarnation with bated breath. And I don't want people that think like you going and cocking it up with this Battlefield drivel.

I'm amused by the support for more driver guns. I don't mind, but I can't help but think that the most important thing I learned about driving a mag is to never waste time trying to shoot things.

[Headrattle]

I'm amused by the support for more driver guns. I don't mind, but I can't help but think that the most important thing I learned about driving a mag is to never waste time trying to shoot things.

That is a good point. I wouldn't use it either, as a driver I am too busy driving. Stopping to shoot stuff is bad in a tank battle, but I can see the usefulness when killing infantry. However, with the big guns, it seems superfluous.