Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2

[Azren]

1) let's first play beta and discuss more about this.
I'm afraid that is not good enough. This is a core gameplay issue, something that will not be changed after beta. They may remove/rebalance some guns, but this would take too much work. We need to make it clear to the devs that PS 1 style tanks are preferred, not the new nonsence concept.
The devs stated that beta will be a stress test mostly, basic gameplay will not be changed afterwards. Same with class system, anyone honestly thinks that it will be removed if we don't like it? It is a core part of the game by now, it would take too much redesigning to be changed, so it stays.

[Draep]

I'm afraid that is not good enough. This is a core gameplay issue, something that will not be changed after beta. They may remove/rebalance some guns, but this would take too much work. We need to make it clear to the devs that PS 1 style tanks are preferred, not the new nonsence concept.
The devs stated that beta will be a stress test mostly, basic gameplay will not be changed afterwards. Same with class system, anyone honestly thinks that it will be removed if we don't like it? It is a core part of the game by now, it would take too much redesigning to be changed, so it stays.

If anyone played APB, they would see the truth in this. APB beta changed nothing about the gameplay and therefore at launch, it was the exact same, broken game.

[moosepoop]

I'm afraid that is not good enough. This is a core gameplay issue, something that will not be changed after beta. They may remove/rebalance some guns, but this would take too much work. We need to make it clear to the devs that PS 1 style tanks are preferred, not the new nonsence concept.
The devs stated that beta will be a stress test mostly, basic gameplay will not be changed afterwards. Same with class system, anyone honestly thinks that it will be removed if we don't like it? It is a core part of the game by now, it would take too much redesigning to be changed, so it stays.

THIS. wake up guys. if they actually go through with this the game is gonna die, fast.

[Bags]

THIS. wake up guys. if they actually go through with this the game is gonna die, fast.

Not sure if troll or just alarmist.

[dsi]

I'm afraid that is not good enough. This is a core gameplay issue, something that will not be changed after beta. They may remove/rebalance some guns, but this would take too much work. We need to make it clear to the devs that PS 1 style tanks are preferred, not the new nonsence concept.
The devs stated that beta will be a stress test mostly, basic gameplay will not be changed afterwards. Same with class system, anyone honestly thinks that it will be removed if we don't like it? It is a core part of the game by now, it would take too much redesigning to be changed, so it stays.

This, the community has to be as vocal as possible about bad ideas like removal of a full inventory system and two man tanks, removing these things is taking out fundamental supports of the core of Planetside, teamwork.

[Sirisian]

This, the community has to be as vocal as possible about bad ideas like removal of a full inventory system and two man tanks, removing these things is taking out fundamental supports of the core of Planetside, teamwork.
Not sure if sarcastic or seriously believes the inventory system affected teamwork. :lol:

Also Azren you're overreacting to change. You'll see in beta how well it works.

[Xyntech]

I don't think you can force teamwork and expect a successful game. All you can do is make teamwork superior to solo play in effectiveness, which it almost always is.

Tanks aren't some uber twitch kinda of vehicle in most games, you will never have one single manned tank pwning a half dozen other single man tanks. Two tanks will probably be better than one, but two tanks coordinating with each other are going to be better than two tanks soloing it up.

Will a skilled one man tank beat a skilled 2 man tank half the time given an otherwise level playing field in PS2? I don't know, but it seems likely. That doesn't negate team play, it just means we don't get to have the old dynamic. Remember that we're not just talking about that gunner position being a liability due to the fact that on solo tank could potentially take on a 2 man tank 1on1, we also have to factor in non tank based threats.

I note a lot of comparisons to BFR's, but that's absurd. BFR's were wrong in so many ways, being a solo vehicle was barely on the map. A better comparison is the reaver. The reaver has had it's buffs and nerfs, but even in it's prime reaverside days it wasn't the clear dominating force on the battlefield. Any schmuck (me) could cert it and fly it around solo (me) and rack up some kills, but despite that, not everyone was flying it, nor were the people who had it flying it all the time. The reaver was (relatively) fast, but it had appropriately weak armor. Deadly AA systems also kept it in check (even more so later on). Why wouldn't this work with tanks? Tanks may have more armor, but they are slow as shit. Put in some effective AV options from both sky and land and it should balance a solo tank.

As for team work, reavers and mosquitoes always become a lot more deadly in coordinated numbers (also me). Teamwork wins in most games, even ones that aren't design around it. Now, consider the fact that a fighter can almost only team up with other fighters (aside from running guard duty on a gal or something) due to their speed. Fighters don't get a secondary gunner seat (as far as we currently know) as an additional team work option.

PS2's teamwork may not be the teamwork you want or remember, but having an on board AA or AI gunner to protect you from those threats that are most deadly to a tank (concealed AV infantry or AV aircraft) is still a great way to promote team work and make team play more deadly. Given the faster TTK's they are going for, even if a tank still has a lot of armor it will probably go down quick to a few AV infantry hitting it from behind and I wouldn't be surprised if your main cannon had to choose between doing a lot of damage to armored vehicles, or doing a larger splash damage to infantry, so if you want your tank to be effective against another tank, you had better rely on that AI turret (with it's undoubtedly extremely short TTK against infantry) to keep you safe from infantry.

So what you will probably end up with, teamwork-wise for tanks, are groups of mostly solo tanks with every few having an AI gunner (depending on the environment) and every 5th or 6th having an AA gunner (again, depending on environment). It will be different than what we are used to, but it will certainly still be team work.

Getting back to my original point, team work will dominate, but solo players will also have a chance to have fun. I liked switching between solo play and team play in Planetside 1 and I remember trying out the lightning early on. It wasn't a good experience. The lightning isn't worthless, but it's only really effective in coordinated groups. Compare that with reavers and mosquitos who have the OPTION of solo play and you can see how people wanting a more solo experience wouldn't have much fun in the ground vehicle combat of Planetside. Why push those people away? Don't we want as many players to play with as possible? Not at the expense of a good game, I'm with everyone on that, but how is the option of a solo tank going to destroy the entire game? If the game is balanced against it (unlike BFR's, who were not balanced), it can still be a good game, It may not be the same game, but I think the most important aspect is still the massive persistent scale.

Team play is the best, but solo play should really be an option, as an infantryman, as a pilot and as a driver. I sincerely hope the devs find a way include game mechanics that make those of you who just want to drive or just gun and still be an option and a viable force on the battlefield, but don't shit on the solo play. If people enjoy playing solo enough, they will be more likely to gravitate towards team play which is where the real fun is at.

[NapalmEnima]

Not sure if sarcastic or seriously believes the inventory system affected teamwork. :lol:

I think he's referring to the niche where MAXes load up with glue and health so support folks don't run out while doing something like holding a generator or command console.

That's nice, I'd like to see them preserve it. But a grid inventory isn't a prerequisite to "MAXes bring stuff along to help everyone else resupply". I proposed something in my "resupply" thread on this very subject.

There are ways, it's just a matter of whether or not they choose to go that route (and have the time to do so).

[Captain B]

No one is arguing that two-manned vehicles will be inferior to single-manned tanks.

What people are saying is that the possibility of seeing 100 single-manned tanks is real, and that should you (in a vacuum) have equal amount tankers split between 100 tanks or 50 tanks but with two crew, the single-manned tanks will have a significant advantage.

Keep in mind you could theoretically do the same with Lightnings, but they don't have the punch of Vanguards nor do they have the armor to suck up MBTs' kicks in the face. It really is an impasse at this point: people will either see the situation or they won't. I don't personally believe talk on either end is going to further persuade, dissuade or inform people one way or the other.

[Xyntech]

No one is arguing that two-manned vehicles will be inferior to single-manned tanks.

What people are saying is that the possibility of seeing 100 single-manned tanks is real, and that should you (in a vacuum) have equal amount tankers split between 100 tanks or 50 tanks but with two crew, the single-manned tanks will have a significant advantage.

Keep in mind you could theoretically do the same with Lightnings, but they don't have the punch of Vanguards nor do they have the armor to suck up MBTs' kicks in the face. It really is an impasse at this point: people will either see the situation or they won't. I don't personally believe talk on either end is going to further persuade, dissuade or inform people one way or the other.


But the way I see it, they will all be one man tanks. The only difference is that they also act as mobile AI or AA sentry positions that someone else can happen to ride around in. This is significantly different than before, but may not be inherently bad or anti team work in and of itself.

I understand that change isn't always pleasant and if there ends up leaving no place for some old planetside players who just want to drive, I won't be happy about that, but if it makes a better game over all, so be it. You can't please everyone.

Again, ideally there will be a place for everyone. Let's hope the devs listen and come up with some good compromises. It sounds like some people won't be happy unless it is exactly like Planetside, which is a very niche and extremely outdated game. I want more players more than I want every planetside player to have their dream sequel. I think that will only benefit the game. Sure Planetside 1 has lasted longer than most games, but it has been a shadow of it's former self for the majority of that run. What's the use of having all of that awesome potential if there is almost no one to play it with?

[cellinaire]

I'm afraid that is not good enough. This is a core gameplay issue, something that will not be changed after beta. They may remove/rebalance some guns, but this would take too much work. We need to make it clear to the devs that PS 1 style tanks are preferred, not the new nonsence concept.
The devs stated that beta will be a stress test mostly, basic gameplay will not be changed afterwards. Same with class system, anyone honestly thinks that it will be removed if we don't like it? It is a core part of the game by now, it would take too much redesigning to be changed, so it stays.


...Have you ever heard about the Blizzard's development philosophy? ;)
well anyway..

SOE, however, isn't Blizzard so they're looking at compromise instead. I for one can live with their compromise plan, so I wrote that. In addition to this, I'm currently very skeptical about our dev team completely averting this decision given SOE's track record, but I say let's just hope this isn't the case.

and yeah, I know it's several months before we can even get our hands on Beta, but things can't be changed that easily already I guess. ('Cause from what I've observed from the mmo devs in general, they tend to say "plz at least try once before saying like the sky is falling. We'll make sure this is changed if it affects the overall gameplay in a negative way" )

[Captain B]

Oh I definitely agree, Xyntech. It's just without information (and quite honestly, the beta) to really flesh out the details, it isn't just teamwork/community facilitation (issue #1) but also the stats of vehicles with one-man crews (issue #2) that has me wondering where all of this will end up come launch. Being someone who's looking forward to running an air outfit, it does actually have implications outside of the "tank vs. tank" scenarios, and I'm curious as how it will impact the rest of the game (infantry/MAXes, air combat, engineers/turrets, etc.) as well.

Overall, my concerns aren't doomsday rhetoric but simply concerns as there are great things from PS1 that aren't broken, but seemingly being fixed anyway (although a lot of broken things ARE getting fixed, which is good too).

[Vash02]

The change puts the mag at a severe disadvantage to the other 2 tanks. With its main gun being fixed forward it cannot shoot behind at tanks pursuing it or do hit and runs effectively. Unless MBTs are just going be heavy fire support the VS have really gotten the short end of the stick on this one.

Yeah thinking about this change its just worse overall. Just imagine all the PS2 tanks concentraiting more on what they are shooting at rather than where they are going, its going to be hell for people on the ground being run over by their team mates all the time.

sucky change.

[Xyntech]

Unfortunately, I think some non broken elements may be collateral in fixing other issues.

Insuring a (slightly) faster pace of game play as well as giving solo players something to do are obviously important to the developers. Keeping the long time fans happy should also be an important concern, so we'll see how they react to this kind of feedback.

I guess I just haven't personally felt the same feeling as some that a one man tank will destroy the balance or team play of the game. Obviously stats and balance are a big factor, but unlike core gameplay mechanics, those can be tweaked extensively and on multiple fronts.

Unless a fixed gun is some sort of unalterable design philosophy of the new magrider, I do hope they change it to a turret, if only for the fact that it would be difficult to make it a turret later on and, if all of the tanks had a turret, it would be easier to make larger compromises for players who only wanted to drive the tank, not gun.

[kaffis]

The change puts the mag at a severe disadvantage to the other 2 tanks. With its main gun being fixed forward it cannot shoot behind at tanks pursuing it or do hit and runs effectively. Unless MBTs are just going be heavy fire support the VS have really gotten the short end of the stick on this one.
While we don't know enough to definitively rule this out, I don't understand why people are so panicky about this aspect of it.

Vanu-specific vehicles can strafe. That makes the entire tank a turret, provided the handling allows for it. "Fixed forward" is meaningless when you can drive sideways to begin with.

[Xyntech]

The change puts the mag at a severe disadvantage to the other 2 tanks. With its main gun being fixed forward it cannot shoot behind at tanks pursuing it or do hit and runs effectively. Unless MBTs are just going be heavy fire support the VS have really gotten the short end of the stick on this one.

Any tank being shot from behind is gonna get that exposed ass of theirs handed to them, so shooting at a tank behind you may not be such a good idea for any of the three. Options are always nice of course, but...

The Magrider has always been the lightest armored MBT though, with it's faster speed, maneuverability, hovering and direct fire weapon making up for it. This is pure speculation (but what else can we do with so little information!), but what if they buff the strafing speed and the turning speed of the Magrider? Suddenly it is strafing the sides of superior armored tanks, keeping moving, it's gun trained on them and it's strongest forward armor pointing at them, all while the enemy tank is either stationary and turning to keep it's front armor facing the Magrider, or it's moving around with it's weaker sides exposed to attack.

If they fuck up our tank, there will be hell to pay and quite frankly I would prefer the magrider had it's main gun on a turret, but I just don't believe they would gimp it that badly compared to the other two tanks and not have some sort of positive feature that makes up for it. Why would they do that? I know everyone loves to gimp the VS, but that would be insane. I don't think TRay would agree to design a vehicle that gimped for us. Unless he is a masochist. Hmmm, something new to speculate on ;)

[cellinaire]

And to those who are continuously saying '1manned/2manned vehicle thing' is core gameplay mechanic(or system) and can't be changed forever, yeah it'll severely affect overall gameplay but I think it's not core-level. Between core-level and small feature, it's tucked in the middleground. Of course I know bad decision mustn't see the light of day from day one.

And to those who says this decision will totally annihilate, devastate teamplay nature of this game. well, I think it won't be that as severe as you guys might think. Just not that extreme. But we will see. I personally prefer PS1's way, though.

[Azren]

The Magrider has always been the lightest armored MBT though, with it's faster speed, maneuverability, hovering and direct fire weapon making up for it. This is pure speculation (but what else can we do with so little information!), but what if they buff the strafing speed and the turning speed of the Magrider? Suddenly it is strafing the sides of superior armored tanks, keeping moving, it's gun trained on them and it's strongest forward armor pointing at them, all while the enemy tank is either stationary and turning to keep it's front armor facing the Magrider, or it's moving around with it's weaker sides exposed to attack.

If it strafes and turns too fast, aiming will be hard. Well as long as the magrider is concerned, I think that having the main gun for driver and AI gun on turret will be much more effective than the current setup is (main gun does not need that precise aiming, since the targets are much bigger). The issue with the other tanks is more problematic.

[Kalbuth]

But the way I see it, they will all be one man tanks. The only difference is that they also act as mobile AI or AA sentry positions that someone else can happen to ride around in. This is significantly different than before, but may not be inherently bad or anti team work in and of itself.

Sorry, but this is a huge, huge change and it can be game-breaking.

Taking AA/AV vehicles situation as an example :
In the current situation, AA and AV jobs are separated, and can be dealt with separately. You can kill the AA easily with AV infantry as the armor is not great, and you can kill the AV easily with Air because the AV cannot retaliate. You cannot kill the AV easily with AV infantry because it takes much time and you are very fragile to him.
You can coordinate your AV infantry and Air to take out separately and in order first AA then AV

If in PS2, both jobs, through upgrades to tanks, are devoted to the same vehicle, you have to counter a vehicle that has great armor (ie, can't be countered by AV infantry, if I make it quick) and can deal with Air, all in one kit. This is a huge difference.
Giving interest to secondary guns by pushing all weapons on a single vehicle is going to bring huge balance issues in the battlefield, making armor the only viable solution in the field.

It is anti-teamwork in the sense that it breaks the teamwork used to counter it.
It is also going to lower variety in the field

[Xyntech]

Giving interest to secondary guns by pushing all weapons on a single vehicle is going to bring huge balance issues in the battlefield, making armor the only viable solution in the field.

Vehicles are the only real solution for open terrain combat as it stands and as long as you have a skyguard for support, there isn't much that can stop a tank in the open these days anyway.

Tanks should dominate open space, so I don't see the problem there. Aircraft should be able to pick them off freely if they have no AA support, but the skyguard already provides that option. This is pretty much just removes the superfluous driver position on the skyguard and puts the turret on a tank.

Mind you, the tank will need a gunner for that AA and it will not be able to mount an AI turret while doing so.

The machine guns on tanks in Planetside aren't so great. Due to the over powerd main cannons and the longish TTK's on the machine guns, it's generally more useful for the gunner to just spam some shells and one shot an infantryman or two. If they hope to balance the soloable tanks, they will have to make the main gun either weaker against infantry, or at least make it a choice between high AV damage or a large AI splash. This is speculation, but it is also totally viable.

So if the developers aren't completely inept, a tank with no AA gun will die easily to aircraft, a tank with no AI gun will die relatively easily to concealed infantry and, if there is an option to make the main cannon an AI cannon, a tank with an AI main gun and an AA secondary gun will die easily to other tanks.

So what you would end up with is either a bunch of tanks who are easy prey for one type of enemy or another, or with a little team work you would end up with a group of coordinated tanks, some solo, some with AI weaponry and a few with AA weaponry, who would dominate open spaces. How is this so different than a dozen tanks with a couple of skyguards today?

Different yes, but it could easily be balanced.

[Aractain]

[Good points and lots of awesome]

Different yes, but it could easily be balanced.

Balanced and in my opinion more fun because you can still do that teamwork awesomsauce while you have many more vehicles around you than in PS1. Requireing teamwork will always reduce numbers and that is counter productive to the game.

It could be very good.

[TheRagingGerbil]

Vehicles are the only real solution for open terrain combat as it stands and as long as you have a skyguard for support, there isn't much that can stop a tank in the open these days anyway.

Tanks should dominate open space, so I don't see the problem there. Aircraft should be able to pick them off freely if they have no AA support, but the skyguard already provides that option. This is pretty much just removes the superfluous driver position on the skyguard and puts the turret on a tank.

Mind you, the tank will need a gunner for that AA and it will not be able to mount an AI turret while doing so.

The machine guns on tanks in Planetside aren't so great. Due to the over powerd main cannons and the longish TTK's on the machine guns, it's generally more useful for the gunner to just spam some shells and one shot an infantryman or two. If they hope to balance the soloable tanks, they will have to make the main gun either weaker against infantry, or at least make it a choice between high AV damage or a large AI splash. This is speculation, but it is also totally viable.

So if the developers aren't completely inept, a tank with no AA gun will die easily to aircraft, a tank with no AI gun will die relatively easily to concealed infantry and, if there is an option to make the main cannon an AI cannon, a tank with an AI main gun and an AA secondary gun will die easily to other tanks.

So what you would end up with is either a bunch of tanks who are easy prey for one type of enemy or another, or with a little team work you would end up with a group of coordinated tanks, some solo, some with AI weaponry and a few with AA weaponry, who would dominate open spaces. How is this so different than a dozen tanks with a couple of skyguards today?

Different yes, but it could easily be balanced.

QFT.

[Kalbuth]

Vehicles are the only real solution for open terrain combat as it stands and as long as you have a skyguard for support, there isn't much that can stop a tank in the open these days anyway.

Tanks should dominate open space, so I don't see the problem there. Aircraft should be able to pick them off freely if they have no AA support, but the skyguard already provides that option. This is pretty much just removes the superfluous driver position on the skyguard and puts the turret on a tank.

Mind you, the tank will need a gunner for that AA and it will not be able to mount an AI turret while doing so.

The machine guns on tanks in Planetside aren't so great. Due to the over powerd main cannons and the longish TTK's on the machine guns, it's generally more useful for the gunner to just spam some shells and one shot an infantryman or two. If they hope to balance the soloable tanks, they will have to make the main gun either weaker against infantry, or at least make it a choice between high AV damage or a large AI splash. This is speculation, but it is also totally viable.

So if the developers aren't completely inept, a tank with no AA gun will die easily to aircraft, a tank with no AI gun will die relatively easily to concealed infantry and, if there is an option to make the main cannon an AI cannon, a tank with an AI main gun and an AA secondary gun will die easily to other tanks.

So what you would end up with is either a bunch of tanks who are easy prey for one type of enemy or another, or with a little team work you would end up with a group of coordinated tanks, some solo, some with AI weaponry and a few with AA weaponry, who would dominate open spaces. How is this so different than a dozen tanks with a couple of skyguards today?

Different yes, but it could easily be balanced.

I think you missed my point :
the difference is that currently, you can kill the SG independantly from the tank, using different mean than the one used to kill the tank.
You cannot kill the AA threat independantly if it is part of the same vehicle than the tank. You need a way to kill all at once.
In a tank vs tank battle in PS1, the SG in the middle can be targeted specifically and killed faster than the tanks.
In PS2, you won't be able to kill the AA threat specifically (any better than killing normal tanks) for your air vehicles to be usefull. Your air guys would far better be in tanks themselves.

[Xyntech]

I think you missed my point :
the difference is that currently, you can kill the SG independantly from the tank, using different mean than the one used to kill the tank.
You cannot kill the AA threat independantly if it is part of the same vehicle than the tank. You need a way to kill all at once.
In a tank vs tank battle in PS1, the SG in the middle can be targeted specifically and killed faster than the tanks.
In PS2, you won't be able to kill the AA threat specifically (any better than killing normal tanks) for your air vehicles to be usefull. Your air guys would far better be in tanks themselves.

I hear you and as a pilot, this certainly hits close to home for me. My hope would be that the faster TTK philosophy along with the weaker locational armor on some parts of the tank will still allow a surprise AV aircraft loadout to get the drop on a tank, the same way I can sometimes get the drop on a skyguard.

The point still stands however that with just a couple skyguards and/or other AA, there isn't much that any air craft can do to a tank column now anyways, barring overwhelming air power (which just means there will be obscene aircraft losses as well). Maybe, depending on balance and flight mechanics, a good pilot will actually be able to harass the new tanks effectively, even if they don't outright destroy the tanks. I just don't see the new system making things any worse for pilots than things currently are, but again, I think there will be more than enough room to tweak things for balance if they aren't working. That's just me.

Hopefully these threads are very much on the developers radar, so if they are playing with the new tank concept and are checking if these potential problems can be avoided. Unfortunately, they are the only ones who can know for sure right now, as long as they don't have blinders on in favor of the new design.

[Kalbuth]

Well, in my view, in a kind of rock/paper/scissor system, if the air is still good at destroying tanks, air counter (AA) should be destroyable by something else than air, let's say, some other tank or infantry
In ideal PS1 (which is not played ;) ), in a tank battle with 1 team SG equipped and the other air equipped, the air equipped team's tanks should synchro with their pilots and target SG as priority, even if they get some losses to enemy tanks in the process. Once SG are gone, the aircrafts are going to handle enemy tanks.
You can even defeat superior tanks with this

If AA and tank is the same, once you have defeated the AA, so that your air buddies can come kill the tanks, you have de facto also destroyed the tanks. Why have aircraft at all in the first place in this case? :) => people will only use their multipurpose tank platform, you're actually reducing the variety on the battlefield

So this doesn't go well imho with a rock/paper/scissor philosophy. You'd need, like you explain, the natural prey (aircraft) to be able to kill its natural killer (the AA) because it is also its natural prey (a tank)... A little weird for my tastes :D

[Xyntech]

In PS1, an aircraft could kill land vehicles, infantry and other aircraft. An infantryman could kill aircraft, within reason they could kill land vehicles and they could kill other infantry. A vehicle could kill infantry, to varying degrees (depending on the vehicle) could kill aircraft and could kill other land vehicles.

In my mind, it's a little less rock paper scissors than it is situational effectiveness.

Infantry are good in tight places or where there is a lot of cover and rough terrain. They are easy to kill but hard to spot.

Land vehicles are big old targets that are easy to find and shoot at, but they mount the heaviest weaponry and have the most armor. They can survive unlike anyone else out in plain site, but are too big to get a lot of places and are sitting ducks for sneakier enemies.

Aircraft are somewhere in between. They aren't always so hard to spot, but they are hard to catch due to their speed. They die pretty quick like infantry but they can pack a punch like a vehicle.

Infantry belong in one type of environment and vehicles belong in another. There will be areas where both are effective due to a balance of moderate cover and moderate open space, but for the most part you will probably have one or the other dominating. As for aircraft, I suspect that almost every terrain will be welcoming to them, except for areas saturated in AA.

Edit: The rock paper scissors is in my mind more of a matter of a combination of what you are and what your weapons are good against. AA, AV or AI equipment on aircraft, vehicles or infantry.

[Traak]

Selectable proximity-fused ammo for tank weapons. The German WWII 88s had such ammo flexibility. Why not tanks in AWII?

Sorry, I didn't mention this was for AA defense purposes.

[MasterChief096]

No one complained about tanks having to have gunners at all over the 8 years of PlanetSide. It seems like right now people are (upon having found out about this new system) are fabricating reasons to complain about it. If you're a solo player and want to gun a tank, go find another solo player and gun his tank for him, don't whine for SOE to dumb down one of the most important aspects of PlanetSide. You're still "solo'ing", you aren't communicating with the driver, he isn't telling you what to shoot, you just have to rely on him not to be a suicidal maniac.

I can't even think of any instances in which people complained about gunning for any of the vehicles.

Oh but wait, I can. People complained that BFRs DIDN'T get gunners often enough, and that BFR pilots were "solo-whoring" too often in a game that required "teamwork". I remember how this upset a lot of people.

Oh but chill out right? SOE said its in the game so they know what they are doing.

The only way I foresee one-manned tanks is if the customization allows you to slice off half the armor of the standard 2-man variant (with a significant change in appearance in the tank to be able to differentiate), and have 1-man tank SPECIFIC weapons that aren't as effective as 2-man tank ones.

Solo play shouldn't have a distinct advantage in an MMOFPS. Granted a lot of MMOs try to offer options for solo guys to have fun, but I never had any problem soloing in PlanetSide. Being a lone infantry, finding random vehicle drivers, or piloting aircraft provided enough solo experience for me.

[Xyntech]

No one complained about tanks having to have gunners at all over the 8 years of PlanetSide. It seems like right now people are (upon having found out about this new system) are fabricating reasons to complain about it. If you're a solo player and want to gun a tank, go find another solo player and gun his tank for him, don't whine for SOE to dumb down one of the most important aspects of PlanetSide. You're still "solo'ing", you aren't communicating with the driver, he isn't telling you what to shoot, you just have to rely on him not to be a suicidal maniac.

I can't even think of any instances in which people complained about gunning for any of the vehicles.

Oh but wait, I can. People complained that BFRs DIDN'T get gunners often enough, and that BFR pilots were "solo-whoring" too often in a game that required "teamwork". I remember how this upset a lot of people.

Oh but chill out right? SOE said its in the game so they know what they are doing.

The only way I foresee one-manned tanks is if the customization allows you to slice off half the armor of the standard 2-man variant (with a significant change in appearance in the tank to be able to differentiate), and have 1-man tank SPECIFIC weapons that aren't as effective as 2-man tank ones.

Solo play shouldn't have a distinct advantage in an MMOFPS. Granted a lot of MMOs try to offer options for solo guys to have fun, but I never had any problem soloing in PlanetSide. Being a lone infantry, finding random vehicle drivers, or piloting aircraft provided enough solo experience for me.

Nobody here is complaining about the old system. The devs have said that the driver will control the main gun in Planetside 2 and the argument is about whether this is going to destroy the game or not.

I don't think either option is going to be bad. All I'm arguing is that the new system will work if the devs decide to keep it.

I still think the solution of being able to install a second, bigger anti vehicle cannon in the gunner position and replace the drivers cannon with heavier armor would be a fair compromise.

[Aractain]

There was a hell of a lot of threads about tank balance due to the gunner requirement and how that effects the game and how aircraft don't need such a penalty.

The devs have now evened up that imbalance without making tanks one man only, they still have teamwork options within the vehicle (which is useful for people who don't have tanks upgraded). They simply removed the required teamwork element to get more tanks on the field.

[Traak]

What was the biggest demotivator to pulling a tank? If it was finding a gunner, see my thread about semi-automatic VNG seat filling.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37429

[Aractain]

Its never about one issue, its about all the issues stacked together. Back in PS1 if you were unorganised (a luxury only some can afford unfortunately, a tiny porportion of the game) you were faced with either no gunners or idiot gunners and even with a good gunner a one man reaver would pop up and annhiliate you before you even got to the combat zone meaning you also needed 2 more people in a skyguard to protect you (which would die to a mine just as you enter battle).

Finaly the stars have aligned and you get to the edge of a battle and for once in the last 3 hours you are having fun, you help push the battle to the base. Its an NC base. Your vehicle blows up in a stream of phantom missiles that you can't do anything about apart from tear up as the pheonix cruely removes the last drop of fun from the game.

"Welcome to Planetside newbie; the cert aircav button is there and the cancel sub button is over there, make your choice."

[Azren]

Aractain, in the old days of PS, finding a gunner was no problem. In fact there were always like 10 guys staning at the vpad exit, waiting for someone to roll a vehicle that needs a gunner.
There is a reason why you can lock the gunner position, something you don't really need to use these days anymore.

Getting a tank used to cost a lot of cert points, if you wanted engineer skills too (which is a must), your character was pretty much maxed out. No rexo, no heavy assault, just your tank and engi. Of course not many people wanted to get stuck with just that, so not everyone had a tank. Same is true for air cav. The problem is that nowadays the cert points needed for vehicles is much lower than it used to be, so one guy can have tank, air cav, and a load of other stuff too.

Now about your experience in PS: if you started recently, than that is exactly what you would experience. Getting blown up by reavers, or AV rockets, or biffers. This is what it all comes down to: join an outfit. If you join a reasonable outfit you will have a great time driving tanks. For example just yesterday we had a tank column of 5 mags and one SG weraking havoc on the TR and NC. Nothing beats the joy of destroying a biffer in your tank :)

Tanks do not need a driver gun, but if any, it should be an AI gun with limited turn (30° or so).

[Talek Krell]

A load of bullshit.I don't know what sort of Chinese knockoff Planetside you've been playing, but you should try mine. The MBTs work great.

[Aractain]

I played since 2003 dawg, I usualy had a friend gun (prefered buggys actually) but the times when I played solo was just like... no.

If you look at a Vterm even early in the game it was mostly air. Maybe they want to change that in PS2?

I think maybe part of the problem here is that most of you guys had nice outfits to run with so don't have the experinces of what the lonewolf (who probably will account for 60% of the game if it does well) will go through. With out the support structure of a guild or ar least a few friends MMOs are usualy terrible experinces.

Making it fun to play the game solo does not mean the game is broken or less fun to play the game with friends. Indeed a well done solo game will keep people playing who might then end up with a nice outfit as a result of that.

[Talek Krell]

Do you play it now?

And how exactly would driver/gunners encourage people to pull more tanks? They'll have to be weaker to account for the lower manpower requirements, and according to you they rarely survive long enough to actually reach the battle.

[Malorn]

The point of the AA being not on the tank is that you create vehicles with different strengths and weaknesses and require a good balanced force to be the most effective.

Buggies are frail but fast, and the skyguard uses its speed and maneuverability to be very good against aircraft, but the speed is also its only survivability against that which can completely ruin it - infantry and tanks. Some buggies are bad against aircraft but good against infantry as light suppression vehicles. Also a tradeoff for speed & rexo vs armor and some firepower. Tanks have weak AA and moderate speed, but are otherwise the kings of the ground engagement.

By combining these concepts the game is dumbed down. Of course it will work. I dont' think anyone questioned whether it could work, but it's a step backwards from the richness of vehicle combat that we enjoyed in planetside. It would just end up as a bunch of BFRs with tank chassis running around with different weapon configs covering each other. No paper-rock-scissors aspect, no variety. Its dull.

Much rather see vehicle designs built around teamwork with inherent strengths and weaknesses that both encourages and rewards variety and cooperation. Then we have rich combat with tactical options to overcome the enemy as opposed to just brute force of tanks. I liked how PS1 wasn't reduced to who had more numbers but you could overcome with the right vehicle combinations to push the enemy back. It would be a real shame not to have that aspect carried over into PS2.

[Aractain]

Lightnings, loads of lightings were in PS1. I drove one quite a bit. Very weak but its cool to be able to support other vehicles in the area and do a little bit of shooty at the air with the 12mm.

Im hoping there will be exclusive-ish AA vehicles on tank chassis or buggys (also one man gunable) since several of those will be supporting the one man tanks. :)
Edit: like Malorn says, but I want both solo capable vehicles and teamwork options for different roles. Secondary gunner is cool (means something to do outside for infantry only players for example).

I don't play PS anymore. Just makes me really sad when I remind my self of the faliure of my favourite game. Which is why I want PS2 to be a success and not just PlanetSide: Again.

[Aractain]

Maybe it would help make my view more obvious if I put a list of stuff I want to see.

I want tanks to be weaker but more common, I don't want people standing around waiting. I want everyone who wants to play on the front line fighting and dieing. I want teamwork rewarded by being more deadly so a teamwork vehicle is prioritised or avoided. I want different vehicles for different playstyles (tanks, buggys, air etc) but all vehicles capable of all roles (with different setups like AtG and AtA for aircraft, a buggy with a anti-tank missile or a rocket rack). I want solo players to enjoy themselves and form natural indirect teamwork by helping each other out without the need for communication or orginisation.

[Traak]

If you join a reasonable outfit you will have a great time driving tanks.

Ah, but what if you don't gel with the little Hitlers that run outfits? Tanks should intrinsically be set up to reward being manned and being certed, without any external and extremely unreliable third persons, aka, outfits, being necessary.

PS is about teamwork, yes. But it also needs to be conducive to people who have no desire to be the fawning sycophant of some idiot hierarchy to be able to find others who are like-minded, team up, and play effectively.

[Traak]

Im hoping there will be exclusive-ish AA vehicles on tank chassis or buggys (also one man gunable) since several of those will be supporting the one man tanks. :)
Edit: like Malorn says, but I want both solo capable vehicles and teamwork options for different roles. Secondary gunner is cool (means something to do outside for infantry only players for example).


How about an AA setup on a turret on a tank chassis that is separately destructible? People can either try to blow the tank chassis, which is an easy hit, or the turret, which is smaller and not as heavily armored?

This would prevent too-indestructible AA-equipped uber-tanks from dominating.

[DaSwede]

Driver as a gunner is a bad idea, period

[Azren]

Ah, but what if you don't gel with the little Hitlers that run outfits? Tanks should intrinsically be set up to reward being manned and being certed, without any external and extremely unreliable third persons, aka, outfits, being necessary.

PS is about teamwork, yes. But it also needs to be conducive to people who have no desire to be the fawning sycophant of some idiot hierarchy to be able to find others who are like-minded, team up, and play effectively.

Every outfit is different - you really need to be special not to find one that suits you.

Some vehicles should be setup to reward teamplay, and some to reward solo play. Do not want to put these two together, it will not end well.

The way is to allow soloers to pull weak tanks and aircraft that do reasonable damage and to allow team players to pull 2+ manned vehicles.

There has to be a line between the two, or everyone would be flying around in one manned Gunships...

At any rate, we will end up with a silly "do-it-all" tank because the devs do not have the time needed to implement all the other vehicles.

[Azren]

I played since 2003 dawg, I usualy had a friend gun (prefered buggys actually) but the times when I played solo was just like... no.

I too hate soloing in this game, but not for your reasons. If I wanted I could cert reaver and kill stray infantry all day long (in fact, I have done so before), but there are far better games to do just that. What keeps me in PS is the fun of driving or gunning a multi man vehicle.


If you look at a Vterm even early in the game it was mostly air. Maybe they want to change that in PS2?


No, in fact we will see more of them now. Why? Simple: the tanks will be much weaker (can not have same armor for a 1 manned vehicle as a 2 manned, now can we?). The tanks will only have any AA capability with a gunner, which they will usually lack (here's to one man tanks), so little Timmy will keep rolling reavers to do a number on those poor tanks.

Oh yea, since everyone can cert everything now, after the tank driver gets blown up, he will right away switch to air cav too.

This is simply a very bad dev. decision forced by the very tight time schedule they are working with. Nothing more, just not enough time to implement the various vehicles needed.


I think maybe part of the problem here is that most of you guys had nice outfits to run with so don't have the experinces of what the lonewolf (who probably will account for 60% of the game if it does well) will go through. With out the support structure of a guild or ar least a few friends MMOs are usualy terrible experinces.


I would hardly call it a problem to be in a good outfit. Everyone can find a good outfit, and if not, start one. If you can not make any friends in an MMO, why play an MMO at all?


Making it fun to play the game solo does not mean the game is broken or less fun to play the game with friends. Indeed a well done solo game will keep people playing who might then end up with a nice outfit as a result of that.

It does for the MBT, and that is what this topic is about. PS always rewarded solo play; just look at the reavers and biffers. But at the same time it rewarded team play too in the form of MBT/buggy/deliverer/GG. All of which will be missing in PS 2.

[Baron]

I know we have limited information, however it just seems that for ground vehicle combat: PS2 = Tank-side.

A vehicle "richness" was mentioned in an earlier post and that's what we have seen for PS2 air cav and air support...it seems marvelous. We're a little light on ground vehicle information though. Think about PS1 at launch and the diversity you had on the ground

1) empire specific MBT
2) lightning
3) empire specific buggy
4) harasser
5) 2 ATVs
6) sunderer
7) deliverer
8) ams
9) ant

It SEEMS a though they are combining the old roles of the lightning/buggies into MBT upgrades. In addition, we know the AMS is no longer around so already a large part of ground vehicle combat dynamics has changed (not for the better, IMO).

(caveat: This post, much like all the others is of course based on what we know currently)

[Azren]

We will have MBT, ANT and bang bus at start. They will probably add buggies sometime along the road.

So yes, MBT becomes jack of all trades due to this.

[Kalbuth]

No more Deliverers run? No more Thresher uniqueness?
No very different vehicle handling and behaviors making each unique?

Bad.

[Azren]

Not at the start.

[Raymac]

I believe T-Ray confirmed that all buggies will return eventually.

[NapalmEnima]

No very different vehicle handling and behaviors making each unique?

Bad.


Err... wait... what? Of course they'll be different. The MagRider is a hover tank for crying out loud. The mossy, reaver, and dyson will all be different. There's probably another type of empire-specific vehicle we don't know of yet.

We also know there will be empire-specific upgrades. These upgrades may affect handling in one way or another.

Alarmist post is alarmist.

[Kalbuth]

I meant, inside 1 empire, as we'll be playing 1 empire only. If we only have tanks and bang bus as ground vecs, that's a serious change from PS1 variety, and yes, in terms on vehicle handling too.
Bangbus, tank, buggies. That is 3 ground vehicles. Excuse me to find that poor compared to PS1, and saying that weapon/armor addons on tanks won't change much of the flavor of the vehicle :)
I just find that bad for variety

[Xyntech]

I meant, inside 1 empire, as we'll be playing 1 empire only. If we only have tanks and bang bus as ground vecs, that's a serious change from PS1 variety, and yes, in terms on vehicle handling too.
Bangbus, tank, buggies. That is 3 ground vehicles. Excuse me to find that poor compared to PS1, and saying that weapon/armor addons on tanks won't change much of the flavor of the vehicle :)
I just find that bad for variety

Don't foret ATV's. Higby said he would bring up the idea of a cloak module for ATV's, so I assume that means that they will be in at launch, although that is not at all officially confirmed.

Hopefully buggies will make it in shortly after launch. Maybe we can vote them up in the 3 year plan.

I hope that the new buggies act like miniature sunderers, with more than one passenger slot to get people around in (aside from the TR). Maybe 3 or 4 passengers in addition to the driver. Just make them be really fast, but with light armor and no windows so that the occupants can be shot at.

I wonder if it would be at all possible to balance the ability to shoot standard infantry guns from the passenger positions of a buggy. That could make buggies be very interesting and unique.

How about 1 driver with either no gun or a forward facing light gun, 1 gunner who sits next to him who controls a turret on the top of the buggy and 2 passenger slots behind them who can use their infantry weapons to shoot out the sides of the vehicle.

You could restrict which types of weapons could be used if it helped with the balance concern. Maybe some weapons such as HA are too large and unwieldy to fire from that position.

[kaffis]

I wonder if it would be at all possible to balance the ability to shoot standard infantry guns from the passenger positions of a buggy. That could make buggies be very interesting and unique.
Well, it would be very unique except that Higby mentioned that one of the ideas for the Sunderer under consideration was to allow passengers to fire their infantry weapons from firing ports.

[Xyntech]

Well, it would be very unique except that Higby mentioned that one of the ideas for the Sunderer under consideration was to allow passengers to fire their infantry weapons from firing ports.

Totally spaced on that. :D My bad, just forgot.

Still, that would make buggies even more of a mini Sunderer. Give Sunderers a ton of armor but make them slower like a tank. Meanwhile the buggies can't carry as many people and the riders may even be exposed to damage while inside, but they could be zipping around at high speed, maybe faster than in PS1. It could be a great way of moving a lot of troops around if speed is of the essence and the air space isn't safe enough for a Galaxy.

I think buggies should not only be included in Planetside 2, I think they should be even more useful than in PS1. Part of the whole point of this thread is about how 2 people together in 1 tank should be at least as powerful as 1 person each in 2 separate tanks. Buggies deserve this same level of consideration, considering that a buggy driver + gunner took the same amount of coordination and team work to be effective as a MBT took, but were nowhere near as decisive on the battlefield.

I'm not saying a buggy should be as deadly as a tank, just as useful.

[Azren]

How about 1 driver with either no gun or a forward facing light gun, 1 gunner who sits next to him who controls a turret on the top of the buggy and 2 passenger slots behind them who can use their infantry weapons to shoot out the sides of the vehicle.

Forget this drivergunner idea already, MTBs are already messed up, no need to expand it to buggies. Fireing out of the vehicle? Would be way too powerful (EMP SA guy anyone?).

[Xyntech]

Forget this drivergunner idea already, MTBs are already messed up, no need to expand it to buggies. Fireing out of the vehicle? Would be way too powerful (EMP SA guy anyone?).

That could easily be handled by carefully limiting which weapons can be fire from inside the vehicle.

If you have a HA or any other weapon that can't be fire from within, you could still probably bring along a pistol, to take some pot shots at least.

[Raymac]

Do Lightnings have less that half the armor and less than half the firepower of an MBT in PS1? So, I'm asking are 2 Lightings > 1 MBT.

It's a sincere question, because I don't know the answer to it.

[2coolforu]

In a prowler I could easily kill more than two lightnings, the MBT's had way more dps and even more armor/hp.

A lightning would kill a prowler in 36 shots, so that's 18 shots for two. A prowler killed a lightning in 5 100mm shots. So yeah, I'm pretty certain most MBT's could deal with multiple lightnings fairly easily. The guns on the MBT's also had flatter arcs.

I'll assume that a prowler fires about the same rate as a lightning (from memory it felt about the same), given that value of shots taken to kill a vehicle I reckon a 2-man MBT could kill 3 Lightnings given the advantage the MBT would have with seperate driver/gunners [not driving into trees, can fire behind etc].

[Raymac]

In a prowler I could easily kill more than two lightnings, the MBT's had way more dps and even more armor/hp.

Oh yeah. I definitely know they had more, but was it twice as much? Obviously I'm asking because it would be a good frame of reference for the current discussion. I'm guessing they had less than half considering how easy they were to kill with my Reaver, but I'm wondering if anyone crunched the numbers.

EDIT: You ninja'd me there. Thanks for the info. That sounds about right.

[kaffis]

Oh yeah. I definitely know they had more, but was it twice as much? Obviously I'm asking because it would be a good frame of reference for the current discussion. I'm guessing they had less than half considering how easy they were to kill with my Reaver, but I'm wondering if anyone crunched the numbers.

EDIT: You ninja'd me there. Thanks for the info. That sounds about right.
MMOs are pretty good examples of fostering emergent gameplay and the most effective playstyles floating to the top and being adopted universally.

If it were the case that 2 lightnings were more effective than MBTs, you would have seen the lightning vs. MBT ratio in outfit play reflect that. Since we all remember outfits rolling columns of MBTs instead of bigger columns of Lightnings, it's pretty safe to say that answers our own question.

[Raymac]

MMOs are pretty good examples of fostering emergent gameplay and the most effective playstyles floating to the top and being adopted universally.

If it were the case that 2 lightnings were more effective than MBTs, you would have seen the lightning vs. MBT ratio in outfit play reflect that. Since we all remember outfits rolling columns of MBTs instead of bigger columns of Lightnings, it's pretty safe to say that answers our own question.

That's an excellent point. 1 variable I can see in that though is the ease of coordination of 1 MBT versus trying to coordinate 2 Lightnings. That could affect the overall effectiveness of the 2 vehicles in a "real world" situation. For example, I think we all would agree that HA/AV/Med/Eng is the ideal loadout, however Max Crash Teams are used with great results.

[Azren]

PS 1 math is easy regarding tanks. 1 + 1 = 3
That about sums it up. The game rewarded the MBTs with far supirior armor and firepower to single man tanks, while the lightnings still stayed useable (well at the beginning amyway, nowadays everyone has AV, so they do not amount to much anymore).

From the experience I have as a driver and gunner for magriders I can state with certainty that in PS 1 if drivers got the main gun all MBTs would be close to worthless. The biggest weakness the magrider has is it's driver gun. This might not be obvious, but it really is only a newbie trap. Any good driver knows to only use it when we are forced in close combat with other vehicles, and occasionally to fend off AV grunts. If you try to use the vehicle's maximum potential, and get in close enough for that gun to be accurate, you die fast. This is what will probably happen in PS 2; all little Timmys will rush ahead with their main guns blasing, getting blown up by mines and other tanks because they get too caught up in the battle.
The driver needs to be able to keep a clear head and know when to retreat, something that is made much harder if you need to shoot a gun too.

Well the devs will do it this way either way, because they simply mix all of the current vehicles into one, the MBT. Well, it sure is economic; they just need to make one model per empire and add a bunch of weapon models on the turret. Much faster than modelling several different vehicles, as it should have been done. Here's for rushed developement!

[2coolforu]

That's an excellent point. 1 variable I can see in that though is the ease of coordination of 1 MBT versus trying to coordinate 2 Lightnings. That could affect the overall effectiveness of the 2 vehicles in a "real world" situation. For example, I think we all would agree that HA/AV/Med/Eng is the ideal loadout, however Max Crash Teams are used with great results.

There's also the psychological component, even with 4 lightnings you are probably going to lose 2 while taking down an MBT. That's a lot of effort in logistics/regrouping to maintain. With 2 men in one tank you simplify the logistics and gain a benefit from that. Another thing to note is that the weaker tank is gonna take alot of damage, at least almost twice that of which the MBT is taking. That causes people to panic, in the case of the prowler you will lose half your lightning health in 2-3 shots, this causes most drivers to attempt to flee which effectively pisses away DPS and gives the advantage to the MBT.

Anyway I do not see one-man-army tanks working or being Planetside in the slightest, I think a one man tank should be a cert tree of the normal tank which sacrifices damage and armor for speed and convenience. The two man tank should have its main gun operated by the passenger and the secondary weapon operated by the driver or possible the passenger as well. You simply cannot have such a huge game and give people control of everything by themselves, it just doesn't work. The reason Bad Company had 1 man tanks is because you can't afford to have two people in a tank just to get it working.

The reason games like CoD and Battlefield don't generate teamwork is because they don't force players into it, I'm sorry but people just won't work together unless you force them too. Sure individual friendship groups might work together but the zerg as a whole will seek out the easiest, simplest method to do anything. The reason why we have these huge epic guilds and communities in Planetside, EVE, X, Y, Z is because people are pressured into communicating and chatting. This is the reason I'm lucky to get two words out of someone in CoD but I've had plenty of conversations with people in Pside.

[Raymac]

Well the devs will do it this way either way, because they simply mix all of the current vehicles into one, the MBT. Well, it sure is economic; they just need to make one model per empire and add a bunch of weapon models on the turret. Much faster than modelling several different vehicles, as it should have been done. Here's for rushed developement!

I see what you are saying in the rest of your post, but I quoted this part here because I'm not so sure about it. I know Higby has mentioned the Sunderer a few times, but I don't know if that was just as a PS1 example, or if it is going to be in PS2. I do know, however, that T-Ray confirmed that all the buggies from PS1 will return in PS2 "eventually".

Also, I don't think it's really fair to say the devs are rushing the development. They haven't announced a release date, or even a beta date. ("It will be released when it's ready.") Plus, we've basically been begging for some basic VS screenshots, but they've been holding them back presumably because they are still a work in progress. While part of me wants them to rush it, it seems they are taking the far better route of making sure they make the best product they can. So it really doesn't feel like "rushed development" to me.

[Vash02]

It is a bit contradictory that they are forcing team play for infantry but are encouraging solo play (literal one man tanks) for vehicles.

[Sirisian]

It is a bit contradictory that they are forcing team play for infantry but are encouraging solo play (literal one man tanks) for vehicles.
It's funny how you can shoot a gun with a single person and shoot a vehicle gun with a single person. I think it'll help to think of vehicles as armored infantry with the ability to add extra gunners to fulfill different roles.

[Talek Krell]

It's funny how you can shoot a gun with a single person and shoot a vehicle gun with a single person.Agreed. I think it's funniest if you imagine that the driver is working the gear shift with his crotch. :rofl:

[Xyntech]

I disagree with forcing team work. Team work should be heavily encouraged and heavily rewarded, but I'm hoping that a medic, an engineer, a rifleman, a MAX, a sniper, a tank driver, a fighter pilot, a galaxy pilot and an infiltrator, along with any other role in the game, will be able to play solo and still have fun and contribute to their empires effort. They probably won't be anywhere near as helpful as anyone in those same roles who is working with a squad or outfit, but that's because teamwork > solo play.

Why should you team up in CoD or any other random shooter? The map will be over in a few minutes and you will be moving on. Planetside is persistent. It lends itself to communication and forming groups.

Solo players will benefit by receiving missions from leaders they know nothing about with the new mission system, but most players are going to try joining a squad at least once and that is going to open their eyes to the value of squads and outfits.

At the same time, maybe a veteran player feels like logging in and just shooting some crap, without thinking about team work and other players too much. Why force them to go play another game? Stay in planetside and contribute to the numbers.

The zerg was in PS1 and it will be in PS2. Bring them on. They never destroyed the first game, shitty updates and diminishing populations did.

[Vash02]

I'm not too bothered with a empire specific lightning style tank for solo players to play in. I just dont think they should use the flagship vehicles of Planetside to be used in this way to encourage solo play. Solo play isnt what keeps players coming back in my opinion.

[Talek Krell]

I'm not too bothered with a empire specific lightning style tank for solo players to play in. I just dont think they should use the flagship vehicles of Planetside to be used in this way to encourage solo play. Solo play isnt what keep players coming back in my opinion.Pretty much this.

[Captain B]

MMOs have taught us that if you allow solo play, you get solo play. If you enforce teamwork, you get at the very least people operating together or working on a particular objective (raids, bosses, coordinating tank aspects like driver and gunner, etc.) if not fully operational and highly organized units.

[Azren]

I see what you are saying in the rest of your post, but I quoted this part here because I'm not so sure about it. I know Higby has mentioned the Sunderer a few times, but I don't know if that was just as a PS1 example, or if it is going to be in PS2. I do know, however, that T-Ray confirmed that all the buggies from PS1 will return in PS2 "eventually".


My point exactly, they don't have the time to add them at start, so they will do so sometime along the road. However onces they add a skyguard, what will happen with the AA tanks? Really, they should just wait with the release and make the vehicles needed first.


Also, I don't think it's really fair to say the devs are rushing the development. They haven't announced a release date, or even a beta date. ("It will be released when it's ready.") Plus, we've basically been begging for some basic VS screenshots, but they've been holding them back presumably because they are still a work in progress. While part of me wants them to rush it, it seems they are taking the far better route of making sure they make the best product they can. So it really doesn't feel like "rushed development" to me.

How so? In march they were still only thinking about a visual upgrade for PS 1, and now they want beta at the end of 2011 or early 2012. You simply can't make a game with all the content PS 1 has and much more in under a year. They are rushing as fast as they can, cutting corners in the process. PS 2 MTB plan is the result of this.

[kaffis]

How so? In march they were still only thinking about a visual upgrade for PS 1, and now they want beta at the end of 2011 or early 2012. You simply can't make a game with all the content PS 1 has and much more in under a year. They are rushing as fast as they can, cutting corners in the process. PS 2 MTB plan is the result of this.
While normally true, PS2 has some things going for it to allow for a pretty rapid development cycle.

They've got a fairly large team working on the game, as far as FPS games go.

Compared to MMOs, there's a lot less work to be done -- there's no AI to code, no PvE content (NPCs to place and script, quests to write, etc.) to be written. As a PvP only game, we provide a lot of the content that takes years to create for other MMOs.

Forgelight was already under development for EQ Next (and PS Next before it was PS2?), and appears to be in a relatively complete condition already. That's the second or third biggest portion of the work for most MMOs after the PvE content.

I'm assuming PS2 had a head start in the art asset department because of the PS Next project. that's the third of the big 3 labor-intensive aspects partially covered. While we know some tweaks have been done to art, the concept art for vehicles, armor, and weapons has already had a lot of work done at the very least.

[Jimmuc]

While normally true, PS2 has some things going for it to allow for a pretty rapid development cycle.

They've got a fairly large team working on the game, as far as FPS games go.

Compared to MMOs, there's a lot less work to be done -- there's no AI to code, no PvE content (NPCs to place and script, quests to write, etc.) to be written. As a PvP only game, we provide a lot of the content that takes years to create for other MMOs.

Forgelight was already under development for EQ Next (and PS Next before it was PS2?), and appears to be in a relatively complete condition already. That's the second or third biggest portion of the work for most MMOs after the PvE content.

I'm assuming PS2 had a head start in the art asset department because of the PS Next project. that's the third of the big 3 labor-intensive aspects partially covered. While we know some tweaks have been done to art, the concept art for vehicles, armor, and weapons has already had a lot of work done at the very least.

i agree with you and would like to point to this article (http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/09/soe-will-release-a-three-year-development-plan-for-planetside-2-before-launch/). it seems to me that they want to get the game to a point where the game works but not fully developed, basically so we can see how everything works first then go from there.

[Xaine]

So I've seen this brought up few times in threads, and I was generally jut wondering what the community opinion was on this change.

Personally, I remember seeing a tank in Planetsde on my empire and feeling reassured. They were powerful, pretty fast and sturdy - a properly crewed tank was a force multiplier and because it needed two people, tanks were not all that common compared to foot troops, Max's or even air cav. They were well balanced and in the right pair of skilled hands could be very powerful.

With the change to the driver also being the main gunner, I'm worried that tanks will be perfectly viable with just one person in them. Obviously the lightning is viable, but with all the power of the main gun of an MBT at the drivers hands - this could easily become world of tanks 2. Why go on foot or get in a lighting when you can jump in an MBT and have more firepower and more staying power.

The secondary gunner really should make the tank twice as effective. I just have this horrible feeling that everyone and their third cousin will be rolling around in a tank, because why the hell not. You have more armour, more range and more firepower.

I'm sure the Devs have thought this through, I'm just voicing my fears and seeing what everyone else thinks.

[sylphaen]

A lot of opinions were already stated there.
No point in asking again.

One of the threads about driver gunners:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38052

Edit: thanks to everyone else for linking to the older threads.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

Original thread on this

http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37346&highlight=tank+driver+gunner

Another thread on this

http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38052&highlight=tank+driver+gunner

and im sure there is more threads as well.

[Firefly]

I understand the reasoning for making the driver the gunner. I would also like to point out, for the TR tank to be effective you needed three people (which was fucking garbage when two people did the trick for other empires). In PS, you had to cert points for tanks and then, what? Really, what?

You drive around. Other people get the kills. It's definitely a support role. Whilst it does enforce a general level of teamwork and whilst it does resemble real life more, for video gamers real life isn't exactly what we should be aiming to replicate.

I do see the argument where it could potentially attract players in droves to want to cert tanks - lots of armour, move faster, bigger guns. I can see how this could be problematic, especially if the game devolves into base combat. But for the life of me, I can't see this being a real issue - "Oh my G'd there's a wall of tanks!"

I like it. I think I'll go put on my Space Marine helmet and fap.

[Grognard]

With the change to the driver also being the main gunner, I'm worried that tanks will be perfectly viable with just one person in them. Obviously the lightning is viable, but with all the power of the main gun of an MBT at the drivers hands - this could easily become world of tanks 2. Why go on foot or get in a lighting when you can jump in an MBT and have more firepower and more staying power.

The secondary gunner really should make the tank twice as effective. I just have this horrible feeling that everyone and their third cousin will be rolling around in a tank, because why the hell not. You have more armour, more range and more firepower.

I'm sure the Devs have thought this through, I'm just voicing my fears and seeing what everyone else thinks.

I am right there with you on this...

Tank Armor > MAX armor.
Main Gun > Heavy assault.
Tank speed > than running.

Plus you have the option of a gunner too...

I can only imagine that there is a cert dynamic where it is much easier, funner, quicker, something compelling that makes it more attractive to run infantry, than just the fact that you cant go in buildings, because, well... you can still get out of the tank... I am almost sure they have thought this through, because it is an obvious potentiality, and would cripple the outdoor flavor of the game, in my opinion. Its definately worth some speculation, and perhaps an answer from a developer at some point.

[Firefly]

and would cripple the outdoor flavor of the game, in my opinion.
In outdoor combat, the tank is the queen of battle. Artillery is the king of battle. Being a foot soldier is always the last and lowest echelon. It is natural that tanks would rule outdoor ground combat (except in the face of coordinated anti-armour). I can see close-air support being a threat, but that can be countered as well.

[Aurmanite]

I have never had a character that didn't have the tank certs and I spent a whole lot of time driving tanks. The absolute worst part of driving was the lack of control over the quality of your gunner. I usually had my roommate gun and we had instant communication, but there were loads of times when I had outfit members or even randoms gun. Quite often the experience was very poor. In the end I stopped pulling tanks unless I knew I could get a competent gunner in it.

Separation of the driver/gunner roles kept the number of tanks on the field in check. This is the main concern I have about driver gunning; there's gonna be a few tanks around.

All of that said, I'm happy that there will always be a surgical gunner at the helm every time I pull a tank.

[SuperMorto]

I think one of the biggest changes in PS2 will be the terrain. Its been said before by the devs, that some bases will be very hard to get to by tank. So aircraft will take a bigger role. And visa-versa. i think they are designing the game to make you do more than just one thing. Every base will be a different story, unlike PS1.

[Xaine]

Thanks for the people linking the other threads, I just hadn't seen one in a whole.

Also Firefly, I understand the change. I agree all the other people getting the kills was annoying when it was you that certed the bloody thing. However, I think that this is where Planetside differs from CoD. You don't work as a team in CoD, not really - this is coming from someone who plays FPS shooters competitively.

"I'll cover you" is code for "I'll wait until someone kills you, and then kill them".

The MMO part of Planetside is where the teamwork part comes in, healers in MMOs don't get to kill stuff, but they get rewarded for it.

I think the old Planetside promoted teamwork much better than this one (from my very narrow view of PS2, so I could be very wrong). You can get as many kills as you want, but if you lose your base because the other team is working better as a group - you still lose.

In many way I think the tank change epitomises the direction that PS2 is taking. The removal of teamwork, making the individual more powerful - again, I could be very wrong, but this isn't really a change I like.

[Warborn]

Having people learn a skill that enables them to chauffeur someone else around while that someone else gets big kills using cool tank guns is not a good way of handling things.

One thing to bear in mind is that vehicles cost resources to pull this time around. Maybe a tank will be able to do some damage with just the one driver/gunner, but maybe the tank's main gun won't be effective against infantry this time. Maybe its secondary gun will. And maybe the tank will be expensive enough that rolling into battle without a way to defend yourself against groups of infantry which are trying to hit you in the sides/rear with AV weapons will be a mistake you can't afford to make often.

The MMO part of Planetside is where the teamwork part comes in, healers in MMOs don't get to kill stuff, but they get rewarded for it.

Teamwork is cool, but so is fun gameplay. Being a tank driver just wasn't all that fun. Being a tank driver/gunner is fun. The teamwork portion comes when the developers actually balance the tanks around having a function greater than "kills literally everything on the ground using its main gun with ease".

[Xaine]

That's true, it wasn't handled brilliantly. But then I played VS so if I was driving a Mag I actually had a gun to use - so maybe my opinion is slightly invalid regarding tanks as a whole.

That's also what I was thinking, if the main gun isn't that effective against infantry then it will be ok. But then, Vanguard/Prowler shells could one shot infantry with an indirect hit (possibly not the prowler, but the fire rate made up for that). I think it'd also been said that the main guns can still do that. I just have this picture in my head of single man vanguards running around going trololol raping everything with one shot.

[AncientVanu]

I've only played games where the driver is also firing the main gun, and it's been like that since Battlefield 1942. And I like it that way.

Mentioning the effectiveness against infantry, it would be great if we get to choose loading an AP or HE ammo, but sadly I don't think it's going to happen. It would have given the tanks much more versatility though.

[Graywolves]

As a driver and a gunner I prefer the roles being segregated but I'm also aware that this dampens the solo player's experience.

[Warborn]

None of the vehicle guns they've described have been good against everything. The lightning has either an anti-vehicle cannon, an anti-infantry cannon, or an anti-air cannon. I don't imagine the tank will be much different, although it won't have an anti-air cannon (the lightning was described as taking over the function of the skyguard).

Either way, not having someone gun for your tank will be a liability, and if the tank is expensive then people are going to want it to be as able to defend itself as possible. There just wouldn't be any reason not to have a gunner.

Mentioning the effectiveness against infantry, it would be great if we get to choose loading an AP or HE ammo, but sadly I don't think it's going to happen. It would have given the tanks much more versatility though.

I think they'll have either a slower-firing, less/no splash anti-armor cannon, or they'll have a more rapid firing gun that shoots explosive rounds which are dangerous to infantry. Giving the tanks separate shells for one gun wouldn't really solve the problem at all, but making them choose between one type of gun over the other would let the vehicle be flexible but still make it have some real vulnerabilities.

[Xaine]

I've only played games where the driver is also firing the main gun, and it's been like that since Battlefield 1942. And I like it that way.

Mentioning the effectiveness against infantry, it would be great if we get to choose loading an AP or HE ammo, but sadly I don't think it's going to happen. It would have given the tanks much more versatility though.

That's a great idea actually. Different ammo for tanks would be cool. Different ranges, more or less damage, bonuses against different targets.

[Aurmanite]

The main turrets on the tank are likely to work the same way they did in the original. The secondary guns, however, have been confirmed to be customizable.

[Warborn]

You think different ammo types is a great idea, and yet you started a thread about your concern that one-man MBTs could be too powerful. Does not compute.

[Xaine]

As a driver and a gunner I prefer the roles being segregated but I'm also aware that this dampens the solo player's experience.

I agree, but with respect to solo players. This is a teamwork focused game. Its what makes Planetside great. You can play a lone wolf Sniper, cloaker, air cav, lightning or whatever. I really don't think this should spread to MBTs.

If people want to be able to do everything on their own, then they're looking at the wrong game. That's the point of an MMO, right? The community and interacting with other people. If people want to play solo 100% of the time, then there are several games that cater to that.

IMO, Planetside should not be one of them.

[Xaine]

You think different ammo types is a great idea, and yet you started a thread about your concern that one-man MBTs could be too powerful. Does not compute.

Since when has more customisation been a bad thing. I'm not suggesting you should be able to switch between 19 different ammo types on the fly as different targets pop up, obviously.

You should be able to hold one type at a time. If you want to be good at killing infantry then ok, you should get annihilated against another tank.

I'm sure you could have worked all that out on your own, you're a clever chap. Did I really need to make this post?

[Warborn]

Don't get your frilly little pink panties in a wad, I'm not looking to get into an eFight with you, champ. You didn't specify it would be an issue of only holding one at a time, and that's not what Ancient Vanu suggested. That's kind of an important distinction to make.

[Xaine]

Don't get your frilly little pink panties in a wad, I'm not looking to get into an eFight with you, champ. You didn't specify it would be an issue of only holding one at a time, and that's not what Ancient Vanu suggested. That's kind of an important distinction to make.

:confused:

I'm not try to get into a fight with you either, 'champ'. My frily pink panties are in perfect order, thank you. I was just pointing out that I wouldn't suggest an idea that would directly conflict with my original post. That would be a little silly, would it not? Hence me asking why I'd have to point that out. Either way, I apologise.

[sylphaen]

I agree, but with respect to solo players. This is a teamwork focused game. [...]

Just FYI, some players associate solo tanks to some infantry game with different properties and ruleset. Their argument is that the team-play element with solo-driving-gunners comes from multiple solo vehicles playing in coordination together.

Kind of like how infantry players play in coordination to form a team/squad.

While I still have trouble with this argument because I believe soloing will prevail, their argument is technically valid.

[ThGlump]

Driver/guner is worst change to planetside.

There will be tons of tanks, and nothing much else, in open field and almost no infarnty.
Battles will be more static shooting from distance, so you can focus on one thing, than trying to drive and shoot. You cant drive blindly (gun facing to side/back), near enemy or behind their lines, as first obstacle will stop you and you are dead. And near friendlies you would teamkill more than kill. So tanks will be short ranged artillery.

Most of those tanks will be solo. There is no incentive to have gunner, over to bring second tank or specialized lighting. Gunner would have 2x stronger gun than driver (so 2manned tank can do 3x damage of solotank), so tank with gunner is on par with 2 tanks. What i understand gunner will have weaker gun.

There wont be limit in certs (youll learn everything in time, and change class in nearby terminal), not even resources (actually base tank will be free, secondary weapons will cost resources). Only limit will be line at vehicle terminal.

Only way they could balance this is that tanks will have survivability of lightings in ps1, so many would refuse to be in that deathtrap, and that would be even worse solution.

[Aurmanite]

Driver/guner is worst change to planetside.

There will be tons of tanks, and nothing much else, in open field and almost no infarnty.
Battles will be more static shooting from distance, so you can focus on one thing, than trying to drive and shoot. You cant drive blindly (gun facing to side/back), near enemy or behind their lines, as first obstacle will stop you and you are dead. And near friendlies you would teamkill more than kill. So tanks will be short ranged artillery.

Most of those tanks will be solo. There is no incentive to have gunner, over to bring second tank or specialized lighting. Gunner would have 2x stronger gun than driver (so 2manned tank can do 3x damage of solotank), so tank with gunner is on par with 2 tanks. What i understand gunner will have weaker gun.

There wont be limit in certs (youll learn everything in time, and change class in nearby terminal), not even resources (actually base tank will be free, secondary weapons will cost resources). Only limit will be line at vehicle terminal.

Only way they could balance this is that tanks will have survivability of lightings in ps1, so many would refuse to be in that deathtrap, and that would be even worse solution.

I disagree with a lot of this.

First of all, and most importantly, people are going to do what they want to do. People who like to snipe, or fly, or use heavy assault aren't suddenly going to start driving tanks. People play what they like, they are not going to dedicate training time/cert points unlocking tanks over other things they actually want.

Second, there will be incentive to have a gunner. Being able to fire at 2 targets at the same time is a huge advantage by itself. We don't yet know how strong the secondary guns will be so we can't really comment on how useful they may or may not be.

Finally, more strategical tank play is better. Good drivers are going to destroy the shit out of bad drivers.

[ThirdCross]

The main turrets on the tank are likely to work the same way they did in the original. The secondary guns, however, have been confirmed to be customizable.

Damn, beat me to it.

To expand upon this, how I'm picturing MBTs working in PS2 is the main gun is effective against vehicles but ineffective against infantry. It should take around 2 direct hits to kill light assault. This means that infantry still have to avoid tanks but have plenty of time to escape after the first shot.

Where the secondary gunner comes into play is that it can protect against infantry and air threats to the tank or expand upon the tanks AV. Without a secondary gunner the tank becomes a sitting duck to air and infantry.

[sylphaen]

The Mag-rider will change... The VS know: it's like Lasher 2.0 balance all over again but on a much slower pace.

They'll put the turret back on top in PS3 !
:rofl:

[nomotog]

I honestly think this topic has been taken as far as it can for now. Really the only thing left to do is wait to see what happens in beta. There are just so many knobs and setting and different ways they can do things. We can't predict things and beta is so close. I believe the best course of action is to just wait till beta and then comment on how things work.

That said, I think that giving the driver a gun is a good thing because it gives a reason for the driver to drive in a style that allows attacks. Rather then a driver driving crazy because they don't view the battle in the same way you do.

[NewSith]

My only concern is the game turning into world of tanks, but I'm saying it because I'm a sniping fan.

[Aurmanite]

Damn, beat me to it.

To expand upon this, how I'm picturing MBTs working in PS2 is the main gun is effective against vehicles but ineffective against infantry. It should take around 2 direct hits to kill light assault. This means that infantry still have to avoid tanks but have plenty of time to escape after the first shot.

Where the secondary gunner comes into play is that it can protect against infantry and air threats to the tank or expand upon the tanks AV. Without a secondary gunner the tank becomes a sitting duck to air and infantry.

Main tank shells should 1 shot infantry (Magrider included.) It's silly for it to be any other way.

The term has escaped my brain for the moment, but the main cannons should have trouble aiming low enough to hit infantry at a certain distance. At that point the secondary gunner would be able to defend against infantry.

[Graywolves]

First of all, and most importantly, people are going to do what they want to do. People who like to snipe, or fly, or use heavy assault aren't suddenly going to start driving tanks. People play what they like, they are not going to dedicate training time/cert points unlocking tanks over other things they actually want.

People want to feel like they're winning. Seeing how there actually are going to be areas designed to encourage vehicle battles in the more open areas, of course plenty of people are going to have air cavalry and tanks. If the tank is powerful of enough then yeah plenty of people are going to drive tanks.

There is going to be a big increase in tanks on the field this time. There is a goal to have vehicle based battles in greater number and size.

[Saintlycow]

low spash, high damage

high splash, lower damage.


Tank shots should instakill infantry if it is a direct shot

[sylphaen]

The term has escaped my brain for the moment, but the main cannons should have trouble aiming low enough to hit infantry at a certain distance. At that point the secondary gunner would be able to defend against infantry.

I disagree.

That survival game mechanic should be left with infantry. Tank players should not have their toys nerfed.

IMO, in PS1, Jammers were a good mechanic to keep tanks away.

Edit: in PS1, players could also choose to take those jammers with them or not ! No one else to blame but themselves if they went running outside by themselves without any.

[Aurmanite]

People want to feel like they're winning. Seeing how there actually are going to be areas designed to encourage vehicle battles in the more open areas, of course plenty of people are going to have air cavalry and tanks. If the tank is powerful of enough then yeah plenty of people are going to drive tanks.

There is going to be a big increase in tanks on the field this time. There is a goal to have vehicle based battles in greater number and size.

Sure, I can dig this. Tank enthusiasts will definitely love this.

People who don't want to tank will have plenty of other places to fight. Just like it was in Planetside.

[NewSith]

IMO, in PS1, Jammers were a good mechanic to keep tanks away.

But yet again, tanks were designed for two people... With one guy doing all the job, people will prefer to pull their own tank for higher winning chances instead of doing the jammer thing.

EDIT: Some people (like me) actually enjoy driving a tank and let others do the killing...

[Aurmanite]

I disagree.

That survival game mechanic should be left with infantry. Tank players should not have their toys nerfed.

IMO, in PS1, Jammers were a good mechanic to keep tanks away.

Edit: in PS1, players could also choose to take those jammers with them or not ! No one else to blame but themselves if they went running outside by themselves without any.

Jammers would allow infantry to close that distance, get in tight, and C4/AV the hell out of the tank.

It's not about nerfing anything, it's about designing strong mechanics that will bring out excellent game play.

[ThGlump]

First of all, and most importantly, people are going to do what they want to do. People who like to snipe, or fly, or use heavy assault aren't suddenly going to start driving tanks. People play what they like, they are not going to dedicate training time/cert points unlocking tanks over other things they actually want.

Second, there will be incentive to have a gunner. Being able to fire at 2 targets at the same time is a huge advantage by itself. We don't yet know how strong the secondary guns will be so we can't really comment on how useful they may or may not be.

Flyers there will be thats for sure. Snipers? Not a lot. You dont see them in the field anyway, and they must have some targets. If infantry will be mowed by tanks just by their numbers, there wont by anything to feed snipers.
As for cert limitation. Sure at start those who prefer other styles wont bother with tanks, but after 1-2 months everyone will have them, and for soloing you only need base tank. So you dont need to spend time/certs for secondary gun upgrades.

Fire at 2 target is an advantage? Over what? Over 2 tanks which everyone can shoot their target, that have 2x armor than you do, that can flank you and hit more vulnerable spot? Thats really big advantage.

Part of why they did this is they feel its not right that you spend certs and dont use the big gun. So they most probably dont give gunner stronger gun. It will be strong but weaker than main gun. Giving gunner 2x stronger weapon? they would be right wehre they started - you spend certs and use some weakling.

[sylphaen]

But yet again, tanks were designed for two people... With one guy doing all the job, people will prefer to pull their own tank for higher winning chances.

I do not see the link between preventing tanks to shoot soldiers in very close-proximity and the jammers.

I agree that if tanks are that easy to pull, someone would rather bring a tank to a tank fight (or alternately, he may bring a reaver). However, for soldier players who want to grunt it all the way, what will always keep tanks away are the jammers followed by some hard AV hits.

Now if there are 15 tanks to deal with, I kind of agree that it's time for that soldier player to choose something else and stop insisting on footzerging.
:D

[ThGlump]

That said, I think that giving the driver a gun is a good thing because it gives a reason for the driver to drive in a style that allows attacks. Rather then a driver driving crazy because they don't view the battle in the same way you do.

Dont worry drivers will move as best for you both to shoot - that means not at all. Theyll find a nice place and shoot, if needed they move to some other spot and shoot. No agile tanks driving around like in ps1 this time. Remember BFR? It had 2 states - moving or shooting. This is tanks in ps2.

[NewSith]

Now if there are 15 tanks to deal with, I kind of agree that it's time for that soldier player to choose something else and stop insisting on footzerging.
:D

Exactly... But the whole point is 15 is going to be a usual amount of tanks with Drive-Shoot system.

Still, obviously, I'm quite biased due to being a to-the-bone grunt and a pessimist.

[Aurmanite]

Flyers there will be thats for sure. Snipers? Not a lot. You dont see them in the field anyway, and they must have some targets. If infantry will be mowed by tanks just by their numbers, there wont by anything to feed snipers.
As for cert limitation. Sure at start those who prefer other styles wont bother with tanks, but after 1-2 months everyone will have them, and for soloing you only need base tank. So you dont need to spend time/certs for secondary gun upgrades.

Fire at 2 target is an advantage? Over what? Over 2 tanks which everyone can shoot their target, that have 2x armor than you do, that can flank you and hit more vulnerable spot? Thats really big advantage.

Part of why they did this is they feel its not right that you spend certs and dont use the big gun. So they most probably dont give gunner stronger gun. It will be strong but weaker than main gun. Giving gunner 2x stronger weapon? they would be right wehre they started - you spend certs and use some weakling.

Your numbers are completely made up and add nothing to this conversation. You can't say that after 1-2 months everyone will have anything. No one has this sort of information yet.

Also, you aren't thinking about some critical elements, like cover, and terrain. Half a dozen guys in the trees or on high ground with AV supporting their armored line will have a place on the field. Just think about that canyon we saw the Vanguards in. What will 20 Vanguards do down there, while 200 troops stand over them firing every sort of AV they can?

You also don't know how the secondary gunner will work. Neither do I. It is a fact though, that one vehicle being able to fire at one target is not as powerful as 1 vehicle being able to fire at 2.

[Hamma]

Threads merged.

[NewSith]

Also, you aren't thinking about some critical elements, like cover, and terrain. Half a dozen guys in the trees or on high ground with AV supporting their armored line will have a place on the field. Just think about that canyon we saw the Vanguards in. What will 20 Vanguards do down there, while 200 troops stand over them firing every sort of AV they can?

It's a good message to devs. One interesting way to block the beepbeepimmatank constant gameplay style is to make objects like that canyon or archaeological site strategically significant...

Because if they're useless, then people (those with common sense) will just hop in their tanks and run a long way around with them, just avoiding the canyons etc and Aurmanite's theory fails.

Threads merged.

My first thought seeing your sig without reading the post:

"WTFLOCKEDWHY?"

[Aurmanite]

It's a good message to devs. One interesting way to block the beepbeepimmatank constant gameplay style is to make objects like that canyon or archaeological site strategically significant...

Because if they're useless, then people (those with common sense) will just hop in their tanks and run a long way around with them, just avoiding the canyons etc and Aurmanite's theory fails.

It's not really theory. In Planetside infantry using AV on high ground or in the trees really messed with tanks.

But yeah, terrain should be a large consideration for a tank driver. Choke points and 'death ground' (read up on your Art of War) should be somewhat unavoidable.

[nomotog]

Dont worry drivers will move as best for you both to shoot - that means not at all. Theyll find a nice place and shoot, if needed they move to some other spot and shoot. No agile tanks driving around like in ps1 this time. Remember BFR? It had 2 states - moving or shooting. This is tanks in ps2.

So long as it's not like the old days. I could hop in the gunner seat and be sure that I would spend most of my time behind a wall well the driver tried to dodge fire. Or If I was the driver I could be assured that the gunner would never hit the side of a barn or even fire there weapon.

Things became so much more fun when games stared letting me drive and shoot at the same time.

[ThGlump]

Your numbers are completely made up and add nothing to this conversation. You can't say that after 1-2 months everyone will have anything. No one has this sort of information yet.

Also, you aren't thinking about some critical elements, like cover, and terrain. Half a dozen guys in the trees or on high ground with AV supporting their armored line will have a place on the field. Just think about that canyon we saw the Vanguards in. What will 20 Vanguards do down there, while 200 troops stand over them firing every sort of AV they can?

You also don't know how the secondary gunner will work. Neither do I. It is a fact though, that one vehicle being able to fire at one target is not as powerful as 1 vehicle being able to fire at 2.

They mentioned about a year to learn most of the certs. Base tank cant be too deep so there is room for modifications.

20 tanks vs 200 AV grunts? What about 200 tanks vs 200 grunts? It will all depend how strong will AV be. In ps1 AV had shorter range and took a lot of time to kill a tank. And remember that grunts have more limited ammo than tanks so it will be really hard for them to kill all of tanks.

And still you comparing 1 solo maned vehicle to 1 vehicle with gunner. Compare 2 solo vehicles to 1 vehicle with gunner and then tell me where is advantage and what is more powerfull?

[sylphaen]

Jammers would allow infantry to close that distance, get in tight, and C4/AV the hell out of the tank.

It's not about nerfing anything, it's about designing strong mechanics that will bring out excellent game play.

Then why did you propose to make "main cannons [...] have trouble aiming low enough to hit infantry at a certain distance" ? As far as I know, it was already the case in PS1 if you were close enough.


I just read C4 so here is a question to better understand what you mean by strong mechanics:
do you mean mechanics where tanks would blow up to one set of explosives from one (almost) invisible cloaker ?
:confused:


I had my share of RDX hopping in BF2142 (on the receiving side) and it was definitely not a fun mechanic. Or at least, let's just say that I found it lame and disliked it very much... You can look for it in youtube if you dont know what I refer to.


Edit:
Disclaimer: in case you never read some of my previous posts so you may better understand the context of my posts, I was a driver in PS1 and I am for separated driver/gunner functions (no, it does not mean I will spit on PS2 dev tank choices even though I am clearly disappointed).

[Aurmanite]

They mentioned about a year to learn most of the certs. Base tank cant be too deep so there is room for modifications.

20 tanks vs 200 AV grunts? What about 200 tanks vs 200 grunts? It will all depend how strong will AV be. In ps1 AV had shorter range and took a lot of time to kill a tank. And remember that grunts have more limited ammo than tanks so it will be really hard for them to kill all of tanks.

And still you comparing 1 solo maned vehicle to 1 vehicle with gunner. Compare 2 solo vehicles to 1 vehicle with gunner and then tell me where is advantage and what is more powerfull?

If you have 20000 tanks in a canyon vs 200 infantry on high ground, it still doesn't turn not particularly well for the tanks while they're in that canyon.

Perhaps the secondary AV gun will be extremely powerful against armor, making that single tank capable of doing massive amounts of damage to enemy tanks. We don't know how it will work, so we can't say.

Not only that, but having 1 tank that has a secondary gunner allows that empire to take advantage of soldiers who don't have a tank to pull. Suddenly we have the same number of tanks, but with secondary gunners in ours.

It's just how it works.

[ThGlump]

Things became so much more fun when games stared letting me drive and shoot at the same time.

Yea that can work. But not at planetside scale. In games with driver/gunner tanks, those are heavily limited in numbers so only few can get them, or are completely focused on tank play. In planetside it can ruin other styles of battle (except air).

[ThGlump]

Not only that, but having 1 tank that has a secondary gunner allows that empire to take advantage of soldiers who don't have a tank to pull. Suddenly we have the same number of tanks, but with secondary gunners in ours.

Most of them will have tank. Drivers wont wait and look for gunners when they can go solo - how many mags there were without gunner and mag gun was a joke. Imagine when they have strong gun, why bother to look for gunner. And gunners will be hard to get - theyll rather pull their own tank.
They would have to do entering vehicle like if BF. Instant and while tank is moving to give random gunners enter it, because drivers wont stop for them. And if they do this im out.

[Aurmanite]

Most of them will have tank. Drivers wont wait and look for gunners when they can go solo - how many mags there were without gunner and mag gun was a joke. Imagine when they have strong gun, why bother to look for gunner. And gunners will be hard to get - theyll rather pull their own tank.
They would have to do entering vehicle like if BF. Instant and while tank is moving to give random gunners enter it, because drivers wont stop for them. And if they do this im out.

Who cares what the scrubs do. My outfit is going to do things right, and we will bust scrubs all day.

Too much of what you're thinking doesn't take into account how things actually play out.

[Figment]

I disagree with a lot of this.

First of all, and most importantly, people are going to do what they want to do. People who like to snipe, or fly, or use heavy assault aren't suddenly going to start driving tanks. People play what they like, they are not going to dedicate training time/cert points unlocking tanks over other things they actually want.

Or... People pull what's most effective. En mass. Not because it's most fun. Two words: Plasma spam. Oh so enjoyable.

Second, there will be incentive to have a gunner. Being able to fire at 2 targets at the same time is a huge advantage by itself.

So two tanks with two driver/gunners can only fire at one target? Riiight. Though if they do, they're far more effective (double armour).

We don't yet know how strong the secondary guns will be so we can't really comment on how useful they may or may not be.

The Lightning weaponry has been confirmed to be stronger than gunner weaponry on a MBT. This means you'll prefer a Lightning partner over a MBT gunner partner (stronger gun + you are two targets + you got more hitpoints).

Finally, more strategical tank play is better. Good drivers are going to destroy the shit out of bad drivers.

And two good drivers are going to utterly annihilate one driver with a gunner.

[nomotog]

Yea that can work. But not at planetside scale. In games with driver/gunner tanks, those are heavily limited in numbers so only few can get them, or are completely focused on tank play. In planetside it can ruin other styles of battle (except air).

I am not sure how I feel about your response cherry picking from my post.

That said, I doubt that it will ruin other styles of combat. We have to wait till beta to make sure though.

[Aurmanite]

Or... People pull what's most effective. En mass. Not because it's most fun. Two words: Plasma spam. Oh so enjoyable.



So two tanks with two driver/gunners can only fire at one target? Riiight. Though if they do, they're far more effective (double armour).



The Lightning weaponry has been confirmed to be stronger than gunner weaponry on a MBT. This means you'll prefer a Lightning partner over a MBT gunner partner (stronger gun + you are two targets + you got more hitpoints).



And two good drivers are going to utterly annihilate one driver with a gunner.

All of this I have addressed in subsequent posts. You're thinking too small. Things don't end up playing out the way they do in the vacuum of your head.

[Figment]

The term has escaped my brain for the moment, but the main cannons should have trouble aiming low enough to hit infantry at a certain distance. At that point the secondary gunner would be able to defend against infantry.

Gun depression only comes into problematic ranges at melee combat ranges.

Considering you are about ten times as fast as infantry, putting enough distance to negate that gun depression should be a simple matter.

Remember also that if you got and use splash, you can still hit objects. Jacked CY Prowler against a wall can easily kill those that came out of it by hitting the wall instead of directly aiming at the player.



Driver/gunner will make vehicle camping quite easy again (negating the nerf of door shields to some extend), as you don't even need to get out of your driver and into your gunner spot, forcing you to either stand still and fire, or drive and not fire. Now you can do both or have two tanks camp.

And of course even if one can fire through a door shield from within, that just means you have to position yourself such that you force them to pop out in order to fire at you.




People who think having hundreds of tanks sounds great and that vech should dominate, should realise that SOE lost a lot of subscribers over something similar in PS1. A lot of gamers who came from FPS games hated that infantry was virtually inviable outdoors due to the many advantages of vehicles.
The main complaint was about aircraft and one shot killing ground vehicles. I never felt the case for ground vehicles was as big as aircraft, since EMPs and AV were quite effective if used properly. Where aircraft of course was especially in the first and in the last years (pre-Wasp/AA Wall Turret and Flaklet and post-Gunship/Reaver buff) a really big issue. Still, IF implemented wrong and gameplay domination becomes a reality, tanks may become that hated thing for those mainly interested in infantry. Have to be really careful about that.

Gameplay domination by specific units is never a good thing: some people will feel left out or get frustrated and it reduces the viability of other choices and with it variation. And low variation is bad in the long run, obviously.

[Figment]

All of this I have addressed in subsequent posts. You're thinking too small. Things don't end up playing out the way they do in the vacuum of your head.

Your argumentation in those other posts is incredibly weak. And I mean, INCREDIBLY weak and based on very situational (and avoidable) assumptions.

I'm not thinking small, I'm thinking practical. You're thinking in an idealised and utopic way and sadly in a rather irrealistic reality.

EDIT: Oh and reading back, you haven't adressed most of that. At all. Your reply to Glump doesn't cover things like two tanks hitting two targets. At least acknowledge that having a gunner does NOT bring the advantage of hitting more targets at once? Cause what you did there was sidetrack and avoid Glumps argument, instead of adressing it.

You also don't know how the secondary gunner will work. Neither do I. It is a fact though, that one vehicle being able to fire at one target is not as powerful as 1 vehicle being able to fire at 2.

See, what you argued with was make us have one person to spend on seats, while you had two persons to spend on seats. You are deliberately rigging the argument in your favour (because you know you're not right) by trying to set us up with a weaker vantage point!


Newsith is absolutely right, you knew it and you tried to dodge the argument.

Always assume equal manpower and certs available for both arguments, or you're just acting a fanboy troll instead of being constructive, critical thinker.


As for some of your other remarks, you keep bringing up "we don't know" AS A DEFENSE (it's never a defense, it's ignorance that can mean either is right - as long as it's unknown and both have a good argument). That's not true in this case. It was already confirmed that the main gun is BETTER at AV than the secondary AV gun. It was confirmed that you won't be extremely limited by resources for vehicle or weapon acquisition. It is confirmed that the Lightning has superior weapons over a secondary gunner, which makes it the prefered choice of customized weapons next to main MBT gun by default. You completely ignore that and try to use that ignorance as a defense for your, rather unlikely scenarios.

It's also funny where you accuse NewSith of making up numbers (looks like an educated guess), which you then follow up with your own argument of 20 tanks vs 200 infantry on high ground. Funnily, your fully manned tanks would be killed off faster in this case as the infantry would be able to concentrate fire more in your scenario. you presume a 10:1 UNIT ratio in both cases (at least you apply fair and realistic numbers to balance things... Oh wait, no.). Yet though in neither case they'd last very long, you again try to get away with YOUR twenty tanks having a full crew and our 20 tanks having half crew.

But if there's 20 vehicles, that means either 40 or 20 troops. And then we have to use two scenarios: 40 troops or 20 troops and THEN thinks look completely different!

Because in your situation, it'd actually either be 10:1 (40 people in 20 separate vehicles) OR 20:1 (20 people in 10 vehicles). In our situation, it'd be 10:1 (20 people in 20 seperate vehicles) or 5:1 (40 people in 40 seperate vehicles). Do the maths, our tanks would have a bigger chance of getting through the canyon by sheer endurance.



Sorry, but you'll have to do much, much better than this poor excuse for argumentation.

[Aurmanite]

Your argumentation in those other posts is incredibly weak. And I mean, INCREDIBLY weak and based on very situational (and avoidable) assumptions.

I'm not thinking small, I'm thinking practical. You're thinking in an idealised and utopic way and sadly in a rather irrealistic reality.

EDIT: Oh and reading back, you haven't adressed most of that. At all. Your reply to Glump doesn't cover things like two tanks hitting two targets. At least acknowledge that having a gunner does NOT bring the advantage of hitting more targets at once? Cause what you did there was sidetrack and avoid Glumps argument, instead of adressing it.



See, what you argued with was make us have one person to spend on seats, while you had two persons to spend on seats. You are deliberately rigging the argument in your favour (because you know you're not right) by trying to set us up with a weaker vantage point!


Newsith is absolutely right, you knew it and you tried to dodge the argument.

Always assume equal manpower and certs available for both arguments, or you're just acting a fanboy troll instead of being constructive, critical thinker.

This is a lot of tripe. "I'm right and your wrong, your argument is weak." If you're going to call someones position weak, try using supporting arguments.

I agreed with NewSith. I dodged nothing.

Really this discussion is about tanks on the field and how it will play out in the larger sense of the game. This song ain't about you an me. Try as hard as you want, but I'm not going to play that game.

The fact is that we have several years of Planetside to look at and extrapolate. We also have decades of online gaming to look at as well. Even though driver/gunner could lead to the proliferation of tanks (which I already expressed my concern about), I'm fairly certain that "people will do what they want" remains undeniable. If you're interested in reading some articles about how gamers behave, look up some of Richard Garriot's work.

[Figment]

This is a lot of tripe. "I'm right and your wrong, your argument is weak." If you're going to call someones position weak, try using supporting arguments.

How can you quote that edit and claim not a single argument is made?

You're full of it and again you're dodging the argument by ignoring it. Also, the edit had already been updated to include some more of your erroneous assumptions.

EDIT: Btw, my mistake, you quoted Glump right after a NewSith post. Still, then Glump is absolutely right.

[Grognard]

In outdoor combat, the tank is the queen of battle. Artillery is the king of battle. Being a foot soldier is always the last and lowest echelon. It is natural that tanks would rule outdoor ground combat (except in the face of coordinated anti-armour). I can see close-air support being a threat, but that can be countered as well.

The "flavor" I meant was... having too many foot (previously) soldiers certing into tanks just to stay alive longer/hit harder, so that there is not enough mix of combined arms in the field. Then, to compete, others doing the same until there is an out-of-proportion sea of tanks.

[Aurmanite]

How can you quote that edit and claim not a single argument is made?

You're full of it and again you're dodging the argument by ignoring it.

I'm ignoring your attempts to turn this into one of your classic post-dissecting flamewars where you get all weird and start arguing with a ridiculous amount of fervor and emotion. I didn't kick your dog, yo.

You can accept the fact that your fears about how vehicles will turn out are based upon a very limited amount of information, or not. You can be realistic and have a measured reaction or go all chicken-little with your theory-crafting. You look a little foolish, but I doubt you see it.

Tanks might become a problem in Planetside 2. Tweaks might have to be made. Right now, any argument beyond "This could happen, but we don't know yet." is asinine.

Experience. When you have it, you tend not to look at things in extremes.

[Figment]

The "flavor" I meant was... having too many foot (previously) soldiers certing into tanks just to stay alive longer/hit harder, so that there is not enough mix of combined arms in the field. Then, to compete, others doing the same until there is an out-of-proportion sea of tanks.

Basically what happened post-BR40 with MAX units.

[Figment]

I'm ignoring your attempts to turn this into one of your classic post-dissecting flamewars where you get all weird and start arguing with a ridiculous amount of fervor and emotion. I didn't kick your dog, yo.

You can accept the fact that your fears about how vehicles will turn out are based upon a very limited amount of information, or not. You can be realistic and have a measured reaction, or go all chicken-little with your theory-crafting. You look a little foolish, but I doubt you see it,

Tanks might become a problem in Planetside 2. Tweaks might have to be made. Right now, any argument beyond "This could happen, but we don't know yet." is asinine.

Experience. When you have it, you tend not to look at things in extremes.

Stop your bloody dodging and answer the question:

Can 20 people in 10 tanks fire at as many targets as 20 people in 20 tanks? (Note that 20 tanks are defined as Lightning/MBT combinations, so type of target does not matter)

[Aurmanite]

Stop your bloody dodging and answer the question:

Can 20 people in 10 tanks fire at as many targets as 20 people in 20 tanks?

Is your desire to 'be right' so strong that you've boiled down over 1000 words of conversation into this try-hard attempt to corner me in with a question that has almost no relevance to this discussion?

You're doing it again chum.

[Figment]

Is your desire to 'be right' so strong that you've boiled down over 1000 words of conversation into this try-hard attempt to corner me in with a question that has almost no relevance to this discussion?

You're doing it again chum.

You're dodging again. Chum.


And it's the centerpoint of the driver-gunner discussion. If you hadn't noticed.

[Aurmanite]

You're dodging again. Chum.


And it's the centerpoint of the driver-gunner discussion. If you hadn't noticed.

The Vanguard and the Magrider required 2 soldiers, where the Prowler required 3.

Did it ever play out that the TR were truly at a 1/3 disadvantage?

No.

Because things happen differently in game than they do on the forums. This is something that should be common knowledge among gamers.

[Figment]

The Vanguard and the Magrider required 2 gunners, where the Prowler required 3.

Did it ever play out that the TR were truly at a 1/3 disadvantage?

No.

Because things happen differently in game than they do on the forums. This is something that should be common knowledge among gamers.

*facepalm* Are you kidding me?

1. Vanguard has ONE gunner. ONE.

2. Magrider was frequently in a two to one numerical advantage over Vanguard, but since the driver only had a weak gun (NOT the top gun that could fire at any angle) wouldn't get a huge advantage.

3. With a crew availability of 6, Prowler's rolled in threes, because if they rolled in pairs (full complement), they'd be out numbered by Magriders or Vanguards (3 tanks vs 2 Prowlers or 3 tanks vs 3 Prowlers). So no, 3:1 never was the case, because that ratio is not relevant: 3:2 ratios happened more often till people simply ignored the dual 15mm gunner position.


The only reason to fill the second gunner slot on a Prowler was if you had an uneven crew number at your disposal: couldn't roll another tank. In PS2, you can. If you had an uneven crew as VS, you'd grab a Magrider without gunner. An uneven crew as NC was just one spare who'd have to get another type of unit.

How dare you claim experience if you can't even comprehend what we already saw in PS1? There's so much wrong with your argument and you STILL don't answer a very simple question:

Do 20 gunners in 10 vehicles target the same amount of targets as 20 gunners in 20 vehicles?

Answer it, or I'll assume you admit you were wrong, but are too proud to admit it.

[Aurmanite]

*facepalm* Are you kidding me?

1. Vanguard has ONE gunner. ONE.

2. Magrider was frequently in a two to one numerical advantage over Vanguard, but since the driver only had a weak gun (NOT the top gun that could fire at any angle) wouldn't get a huge advantage.

3. With a crew availability of 6, Prowler's rolled in threes, because if they rolled in pairs (full complement), they'd be out numbered by Magriders or Vanguards (3 tanks vs 2 Prowlers or 3 tanks vs 3 Prowlers). So no, 3:1 never was the case, because that ratio is not relevant: 3:2 ratios happened more often till people simply ignored the dual 15mm gunner position.


The only reason to fill the second gunner slot on a Prowler was if you had an uneven crew number at your disposal: couldn't roll another tank. In PS2, you can. If you had an uneven crew as VS, you'd grab a Magrider without gunner. An uneven crew as NC was just one spare who'd have to get another type of unit.

How dare you claim experience if you can't even comprehend what we already saw in PS1? There's so much wrong with your argument and you STILL don't answer a very simple question:

Do 20 gunners in 10 vehicles target the same amount of targets as 20 gunners in 20 vehicles?

Answer it, or I'll assume you admit you were wrong, but are too proud to admit it.

Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

You know I meant 1/2 gunner(s).

Your comment on crews and stuff is garbage because its theory-crafting, again, after it was clear that I wouldn't stand for any of that crap.

[Figment]

Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

You know I meant 1/2 gunner(s).

Your comment on crews and stuff is garbage because its theory-crafting, again, after it was clear that I wouldn't stand for any of that crap.

I saw your edit, was about to scrap the correction but noticed you already quoted. Figured as much though, yes.

How can you say it's theory-crafting if it was every day practice in PS1?! How far detached from reality are you? Did you even play PS1?!

PLEASE. PLEASE ask if TR used two or three people in their Prowlers to someone that's not me and played TR predominantly. While you're at it, ask the same about the Marauder's mortar vs 12mm and also ask if they used one Raider (at all) or two Deliverers. Make a new topic for all I care.



And since you again dodged the question, I'll just presume you admit your argument of being able to target more units from two pages ago is false.

After four, five times asking it's rather clear you just don't want to admit it. Childish attitude, but whatever.

[Aurmanite]

I saw your edit, was about to scrap the correction but noticed you already quoted. Figured as much though, yes.

How can you say it's theory-crafting if it was every day practice in PS1?! How far detached from reality are you? Did you even play PS1?!

PLEASE. PLEASE ask if TR used two or three people in their Prowlers to someone that's not me and played TR predominantly. While you're at it, ask the same about the Marauder's mortar vs 12mm and also ask if they used one Raider (at all) or two Deliverers. Make a new topic for all I care.



And since you again dodged the question, I'll just presume you admit your argument of being able to target more units from two pages ago is false.

After four, five times asking it's rather clear you just don't want to admit it. Childish attitude, but whatever.

Because screaming "I want a cookie" over and over is mature behavior.

We rolled 3 man Prowlers all the time, back when the 15mm was a 12mm. Our outfit was on the leader board against outfits with 5 times as many players. We knew our business.

Planetside isn't match based and this is where your argument falls apart. For every fully manned Prowler there wasn't 1 and 1/3 Magriders/Vanguards. Sometimes we ran into 10 tanks, sometimes we ran into none, because Planetside is a persistent ever-changing game. If you try to assign numbers like you're doing, you don't understand how the game works.

You're wrong on this one for sure, and you should go back to demanding I reply to your skewed try-hard bull.

[Figment]

Because screaming "I want a cookie" over and over is mature behavior.

Yes. Certainly beats "I'm trying to get away with it but damn this guy is persistent, so I'll just pretend to just be annoyed so I can get away with it".

You know, you could have just answered the first time if you really want to debate and not just hear your side of the argument.

We rolled 3 man Prowlers all the time, back when the 15mm was a 12mm. Our outfit was on the leader board against outfits with 5 times as many players. We knew our business.

Wow, stat authority claim. Luckily stats are never interpretable or wrongly correlated.

Also: thanks for proving my point by pointing out that the 12mm was a somewhat decent contribution to the Prowler firepower (against air, infantry and even vehicles alike), but the 15mm was not and certainly not in comparison to another AV Prowler, Skyguard or two Lightnings (if a crew of 6 is used as the basis).

Of course nobody runs a Prowler with just the 15mm, because it simply isn't effective.

Planetside isn't match based and this is where your argument falls apart. For every fully manned Prowler there wasn't 1 and 1/3 Magriders/Vanguards. Sometimes we ran into 10 tanks, sometimes we ran into none, because Planetside is a persistent ever-changing game. If you try to assign numbers like you're doing, you don't understand how the game works.

No, the point is not about the exact numbers on the enemy side and don't you try to say I'm saying that with the ratios. The ratios are about effectiveness as a unit with available crew numbers. NOT about actual tanks in the field.

It's about maximising your crew effectiveness by distributing them over units such that you maximise firepower vs endurance. The comparison ratio is how this efficiency is done per empire.

It has never been about what you will encounter in the field, it's about how many units a crew of 6 would be on each empire in each situation a crew of 6 could get in.

Having three semi-full Prowlers or two semi-full Prowlers with a SG escort, in any given situation simply beats having two full Prowlers. NC have an easier choice: they always bring three units when there's 6 people.

VS can be even more flexible and could even bring 6 vehicles with 6 people. But they didn't because they require a gunner, as their driver gun was weaker. In PS2, this situation is already confirmed as reversed.

As a consequence, the spreading-of-crew choice is weighed differently as well. You can continue to ignore that and tell me I'm wrong, but then it seems you haven't really thought about from the appropriate perspective as you misunderstood the ratio perspective.

You're wrong on this one for sure, and you should go back to demanding I reply to your skewed try-hard bull.

:rolleyes: Fine. Care to answer that question already now we've established we're apparently both immature? Don't dodge for the sake of dodging, please. I don't ignore any of your answers either.

[Aurmanite]

Yes. Certainly beats "I'm trying to get away with it but damn this guy is persistent, so I'll just pretend to just be annoyed so I can get away with it".

You know, you could have just answered the first time if you really want to debate and not just hear your side of the argument.



Wow, stat authority claim. Luckily stats are never interpretable or wrongly correlated.

Also: thanks for proving my point by pointing out that the 12mm was a somewhat decent contribution to the Prowler firepower (against air, infantry and even vehicles alike), but the 15mm was not and certainly not in comparison to another AV Prowler, Skyguard or two Lightnings (if a crew of 6 is used as the basis).

Of course nobody runs a Prowler with just the 15mm, because it simply isn't effective.



No, the point is not about the exact numbers on the enemy side and don't you try to say I'm saying that with the ratios. The ratios are about effectiveness as a unit with available crew numbers. NOT about actual tanks in the field.

It's about maximising your crew effectiveness by distributing them over units such that you maximise firepower vs endurance. The comparison ratio is how this efficiency is done per empire.

It has never been about what you will encounter in the field, it's about how many units a crew of 6 would be on each empire in each situation a crew of 6 could get in.

Having three semi-full Prowlers or two semi-full Prowlers with a SG escort, in any given situation simply beats having two full Prowlers. NC have an easier choice: they always bring three units when there's 6 people.

VS can be even more flexible and could even bring 6 vehicles with 6 people. But they didn't because they require a gunner, as their driver gun was weaker. In PS2, this situation is already confirmed as reversed.

As a consequence, the spreading-of-crew choice is weighed differently as well. You can continue to ignore that and tell me I'm wrong, but then it seems you haven't really thought about from the appropriate perspective as you misunderstood the ratio perspective.



:rolleyes: Fine. Care to answer that question already now we've established we're apparently both immature? Don't dodge for the sake of dodging, please. I don't ignore any of your answers either.

I can see why you think I dodge questions.

Aside from your demand that I over explain why 1 tank that can shoot 2 targets is better than 1 tank that can shoot one, your argument and the details of which change a whole-fucking-lot.

What if you had 6 people that didn't have the certs that you require for your 2 tank skyguard set up? Back when BR20 was cap, this was common. You'd run into stuff like this all the time, pull whatever you could to get everyone together and go out.

Why didn't everyone have the perfect certs for 2mbt/sg?

Because people generally certed what they liked.

Like I said, you're thinking about this too small. In your argument you're limited to 6 people with a specific cert make-up in order to satisfy some point you're trying to be right about.

The game didn't play like that.

Edit:
I realized I used an "I'm awesome" argument in that other post just after I posted it. Shit happens sometimes, know what I'm saying?

[Sifer2]

I get the idea behind it but its going to make rolling a power vehicle like Tank or Heavy Aircraft something you do every chance you get. With no real need to gather someone up to get these vehicles to near full strength it will be diet BFR's to an extent.

It's obvious its part of their speed the game up philosophy though and they wont change it unless people scream bloody murder in beta.

[Figment]

I understand where you are coming from, but Higby already said you can maximise (and from what I understood, utilise) each skill tree over time (iirc he mentioned an estimated period of three years or so?).

In that sense I see your cert argument as a pre-BR40 situation where people are still limited. Similarly, 8 years ago, CR5s were fine because numbers were limited and it took time to get one. Then CEP doubled per cap and all zergfits got 20 new CR5s a months. Result: suddenly it was raining OSes everywhere. Not at all as planned when the game started. Density of availability simply increases over time.

So rather than short term, I'm thinking of balance over time. Plus I expect the majority of players (not all, obviously) to optimize their effectiveness to new 'standards'. Because either they feel that's the most fun, or because they feel they have to to compete. Think plasma nade + HA that was suddenly the new standard after plasma nerf.

Given they said you can get everything eventually, but it'd take a couple years I'm sure it could work somewhat fine for the first year and a half (by then the most powerful stuff would have been unlocked by most people). In my humble opinion, the dedicated specialists who focus on just a few trees will number relative few compared to the generalists who want a bit of all. But those who don't want to snipe, will not do that tree at first. Vehicles on the other hand is something everyone would do fairly soon next to their dedicated specialist tree.

From my perspective, it all stands or falls with restrictions that remain over time. Think you can agree with that?

[Aurmanite]

I understand where you are coming from, but Higby already said you can maximise (and from what I understood, utilise) each skill tree over time (iirc he mentioned an estimated period of three years or so?).

In that sense I see your cert argument as a pre-BR40 situation where people are still limited. Similarly, 8 years ago, CR5s were fine because numbers were limited and it took time to get one. Then CEP doubled per cap and all zergfits got 20 new CR5s a months. Result: suddenly it was raining OSes everywhere. Not at all as planned when the game started. Density of availability simply increases over time.

So rather than short term, I'm thinking of balance over time. Plus I expect the majority of players (not all, obviously) to optimize their effectiveness to new 'standards'. Because either they feel that's the most fun, or because they feel they have to to compete. Think plasma nade + HA that was suddenly the new standard after plasma nerf.

Given they said you can get everything eventually, but it'd take a couple years I'm sure it could work somewhat fine for the first year and a half (by then the most powerful stuff would have been unlocked by most people). In my humble opinion, the dedicated specialists who focus on just a few trees will number relative few compared to the generalists who want a bit of all. But those who don't want to snipe, will not do that tree at first. Vehicles on the other hand is something everyone would do fairly soon next to their dedicated specialist tree.

From my perspective, it all stands or falls with restrictions that remain over time. Think you can agree with that?

I can dig it.

[HitbackTR]

Another example of 'fixing' what wasn't broke in PS1 for PS2. Don't like it one bit as it dumbs down the game and detracts from the teamwork required to gun and drive a tank in PS1 and turns it into a 2 man, (almost BFR like) configuration for PS2. Planetside was about relying on the people around you to do different jobs and to do them well. Drivers that also occupy the role of gunner is a step backwards in my opinion.

[Livefire]

HIGBY please read this.

99% OF ALL PLANETSIDE PLAYERS WILL AGREE WITH THIS.

I have now read this whole thread, I missed this driver/gunner system change and only learned about it last week. I have driven tanks the whole time I played planet side and I am with the fears that they could ruin them. OK so this is the only way I can see that they can do it and it makes sense for all players both solo and team or oriented. It needs to be left up to the player to decide!

If every MBT has 2 guns you do it like this:
All main battle tanks can fit up to 3 people just like the prowler could. Lets move up not down in evolution.
1. Driver=COMMANDER - who ever pulled the tank
2. Main gunner
3. Secondary gunner
The player that pulls the tank becomes the TANK COMMANDER he then has control of the tank permanently and all aspects of it through a small UI just like last time in PS1. This allows him to lock/unlock (so your own empire guys can't steal your tank from you!) the whole tank or just one or both of the guns. He can drive the tank and shoot ether gun or he can unlock the gun spots and allow gunner spots to open and can then choose to release one or both guns or choose not to. He could have 3 people in his tank but not let the other gun or let both of them or only one gun and he manages the other say if its some noob that sucks and the driver can actually do it better so he has that choice as the TANK COMMANDER being its his tank. It will all be easily done in a simple UI like we had in PS1 and with tanks today going all digital so drivers and gunners are only looking at a computer screen and operating a gun with a computer screen and joy stick this is what the future will do. New tanks only hold 3 they are auto loading now like the Stryker tank which is the future of tanks. And all the tank passengers sit side by side in the forward and most heavily armored part of the tank with computer touch screens and a joy stick in front of them. Its ether this or you give use the PS1 version I do not see another way to make all the players happy:)
Here is an examples of how new tanks work please build ALL the empire tanks around this very functional and proven modern system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1128_Mobile_Gun_System use link for crew information.
M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System 105-mm Fire Support Vehicle - YouTube

[Livefire]

Other tank changes they need to make:
Tanks should be completely invulnerable to small arms fire, small ordinance like hand grenades and anti personal mines. You should have to have AV to do any damage with AV Rockets/Missiles/Mines but when used and used right should kill tanks FAST! 1-3 hits max. Because AV is a class now it will be balanced, every one will not be running around with a AV rocket on there back. If you are a good tank driver you will own, if you are a bad tank driver you will die real quick as you should. This is realistic and very fair. Tanks in open combat should move the battle field and should be a game changer if used right and at the right time. They should not have any weaknesses except to AV from the ground and air but being AV is suppose to be designed for just that it should DO IT WELL. This game design employs what called combat envelopes, if your in the envelope you are going to have a GOOD time, if you are not you are probably going to die. The skill of the player is shown by him being able to put him self in the envelope again and again and by the other player staying out of it. In Planetside 2 I want things to be designed well and work like they are designed. This is the only way to have a fun game and have enough realism to not be cartoonish but still balanced naturally by the weapon systems that actually work!

[Firefly]

I just wanna say... twenty pages (for me, due to personal forum settings) of two people arguing back and forth with a few interjections and random posts from various other posters...

... and all I really got out of this thread was...

Many, many years ago when I was twenty-three
I was married to a widow who was pretty as could be.
This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red.
My father fell in love with her and soon they, too, were wed.

This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life
For my daughter was my mother, 'cause she was my father's wife.
To complicate the matter, even though it brought me joy
I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.

My little baby then became a brother-in-law to dad
And so became my uncle, though it made me very sad
For if he was my uncle, then that also made him brother
To the widow's grown-up daughter, who, of course, was my step-mother.

My father's wife then had a son who kept them on the run
And he became my grand-child, 'cause he was my daughter's son.
My wife is now my mother's mother, and it makes me blue
Because, although she is my wife, she's my grandmother too.

If my wife is my grandmother, then I am her grandchild
And every time I think of it, it nearly drives me wild
For now I have become the strangest case you ever saw
(This has got to be the strangest thing I ever saw)
As husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpaw.

EVERYBODAY!!!!!!
I'm my own grandpaw
I'm my own grandpaw
It sounds funny I know
but it really is so
Oh, I'm my own grandpaw.

[Twheee]

Go figure the post where firefly doesn't swear is the post where he snaps.

[Graywolves]

I just wanna say... twenty pages (for me, due to personal forum settings) of two people arguing back and forth with a few interjections and random posts from various other posters...

... and all I really got out of this thread was...

Many, many years ago when I was twenty-three
I was married to a widow who was pretty as could be.
This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red.
My father fell in love with her and soon they, too, were wed.

This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life
For my daughter was my mother, 'cause she was my father's wife.
To complicate the matter, even though it brought me joy
I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.

My little baby then became a brother-in-law to dad
And so became my uncle, though it made me very sad
For if he was my uncle, then that also made him brother
To the widow's grown-up daughter, who, of course, was my step-mother.

My father's wife then had a son who kept them on the run
And he became my grand-child, 'cause he was my daughter's son.
My wife is now my mother's mother, and it makes me blue
Because, although she is my wife, she's my grandmother too.

If my wife is my grandmother, then I am her grandchild
And every time I think of it, it nearly drives me wild
For now I have become the strangest case you ever saw
(This has got to be the strangest thing I ever saw)
As husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpaw.

EVERYBODAY!!!!!!
I'm my own grandpaw
I'm my own grandpaw
It sounds funny I know
but it really is so
Oh, I'm my own grandpaw.

And I thought I went insane.

[Grognard]

I just wanna say... twenty pages (for me, due to personal forum settings) of two people arguing back and forth with a few interjections and random posts from various other posters...

... and all I really got out of this thread was...

EVERYBODAY!!!!!!
I'm my own grandpaw
I'm my own grandpaw
It sounds funny I know
but it really is so
Oh, I'm my own grandpaw


Something "light" in a tank thread, ironic and funny at once... excellent :)

[Azren]

Really no point to this thread anymore. Beta starts in a month with drivergunner system. Like it or not, that is what PS2 will have, that's final. Even if it is unplayable, they will just make drivinggunning easier, not remove a core concept of that vehicle class.

If you don't like it, better hope buggies will turn out better.

Don't give me that crap about the devs changing this if we don't like it. The misery with iron sights showed everyone just how much they care. What did Higby say? Something along the lines of "We know lot of people don't like them, but we will have it anyway".

[Tamas]

Is the first post still true? Driver is also controlling the main gun?

Personally I love this, simply because from my experience another person controlling the main gun is less efficient and in some games it was beyond the point of annoying for me. I prefer the gunner controlling the independent secondary gun.

[Azren]

Well, this isn't "some games", this is planetside. In planetside vehicles with actual gunners were more efficient. You would use ingame voice system or something like teamspeak to be good.

[Kur]

What's flying like, is it fun or a headache?

[Warborn]

What's flying like, is it fun or a headache?

We haven't had a good run-down on flying yet, but it's supposedly better than PS1 so that's a start.

[Kur]

What was it like in PS1?

[Knightwyvern]

What was it like in PS1?

Clunky and very limited, though still fun for some weird reason. But this is quite off topic.

On topic: I'd prefer a driver/gunner setup, or a driver w/ secondary and gunner w/ primary, etc.

[ringring]

What was it like in PS1?
Relatively easy to do. In as much as it was so easy to take off, travel and land again. Nothing like an aircraft simulator.

But like nearly all things planetside, just because you can drive doesn't mean you can drive well (tanks), just because you can fly didn't mean you could fly+fight well. - I cannot dogfight for instance.

[Warborn]

What was it like in PS1?

Imagine driving a crate full of cabbages. Now imagine that crate can hover and has guns on it. You are now flying any vehicle in Planetside 1.

[Firefly]

Go figure the post where firefly doesn't swear is the post where he snaps.
I don't swear in a lot of my posts. Like this one. I only swear when the fucking stupid people or the fucking egotists are parading around with their boners wagging at everyone.

[Wakken]

Hurm... I dont know... feels like they're trying to hard to make this game like battlefield... If I wanted to play BF I'd play BF...

Stick to your roots! Its PlanetSide!

I like the way its made in Red Orchestra better

[Sirisian]

Hurm... I dont know... feels like they're trying to hard to make this game like battlefield... If I wanted to play BF I'd play BF...
I'm confused. So you liked the way Planetside 1 did it? I don't think they're specifically trying to copy another game. I think they just found that the old way didn't work well for the game. Being different isn't always better. In this case they're making the tanks more offensive so everyone has weapons.

[That one noob]

Though I'm not sure if I saw correctly, but the PC Gamer mag stated that drivers who wanted to gun for themselves have to get a cert for this. Can someone verify this for me?

[sylphaen]

Though I'm not sure if I saw correctly, but the PC Gamer mag stated that drivers who wanted to gun for themselves have to get a cert for this. Can someone verify this for me?

It's a guess but I don't think it's the case.

Proof: the mag-rider's gun is fixed forward and cannot rotate so drivers-with-guns is likely the default.


What may happen is that secondary gunner spots have to be unlocked.

[Azren]

What may happen is that secondary gunner spots have to be unlocked.

That would totally blow... my mind.

[Wakken]

I'm confused. So you liked the way Planetside 1 did it? I don't think they're specifically trying to copy another game. I think they just found that the old way didn't work well for the game. Being different isn't always better. In this case they're making the tanks more offensive so everyone has weapons.

Yepp, Planetside 1 made it better imo. Planetside 1 kind of did it like Red orchestra, except RO2 is even more unforgiving. you need 4 guys to operate that thing. 1 commander, 1 driver, 1 machine gunner and 1 loader. Loader is a bot though, but if he dies, no shells to fire for you! Same thing with the driver etc... if he would die then you have to jump around inside the tank to the different stations and try to drive that thing yourself :P

[Figment]

FFS TLDR. Probably... depends.. I'm drunk but unbroken at the moment.

Tank drivers acting as the gunner. This is okay...... Besides COD and BF1 2 and 3.... many other games have cloned this.

None of those games have 2000 potential tankers per map. Games like BF and CoD have limitations to the extend you may not even drive one at all in a match. Comparing PS2 with explicit details of a bigger balancing system of those games is... kinda shortsighted. Tbh.

"In Command & Conquer NOD had nukes, so it's fine to use it in PlanetSide as an alternative to the OS, since CR5s already have the GDI Ion Canon!".

See what I did there? Comparing to a detail of the balancing system from the context of another game isn't always a recipy for success. Far from it.

S T F U...... If the fuckers that get PAID to do this every fucking day deem this a good idea in accordance with the game they are creating... Then SO be it...

Stop voicing your opinion first. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, though if you want to hold a debate with them, you better bring good arguments.

For some reason this thread and many others like it have gone to extents that far exceed their life in value because of debate that makes absolutely no sense. Us as gamers get it, we understand what WE want and understand the flaws WE see in Planetside 1. None of us completely agree on everything (except music ...)

Wait. We agree on music? Cool, orchestrated Zelda music it is!

*cough*

The point I'm trying to make it is, how many other communities have gotten together on a fan site like this and really shown interest to the point the DEVELOPERS get on and talk to us, like really talk to us, bullshit with us, listen to us..

None.

>_______________>

Including myself as one who has bashed SOE for some of the STUPID assed things they have done, I have faith in them this time. This time IS different.

It's only different if they on one hand listen to the players for feedback and then make their own evaluation using the whole picture and then make the right decision (which may or may not always agree with the players).

Problem with players is they may or may not always be right. Which goes for everyone, yours trully included.

So lets stop bitching about the AMS being gone, the MAX unit possibly getting a flame thrower, the lack of buggies, no free form inventory, class specific soldiers, instaknives, no artillery, MBTs being primarily operated by the gunner, the cash shop, the PC gamer beta key and cloakers getting sniper rifles...

SOE is going to do what SOE wants to do and I really believe they Will do it right this time.

Could you tone down fanboy mode? Nobody ever got better without getting constructive critique. Shutting off critique will be your own undoing. Both pure fanboying PS1 or fanboying PS2 as it arrives in beta will be PS2's downfall.

Critique should be constructive and well-argued, but most of all provided. The specific applications of AMS, MAX and other things are typically constructively argued and based on past experience, but, especially when they include warnings, should always be evaluatied and verified during beta. If these claims are correct, then SOE should rectify them. If not, fair game.

Only when it's a bash post for the sake of bashing or someone makes consistently verifiably stupid posts a 'STFU' is justified. Critique and listening to good critique on the other hand should be stimulated to ensure quality. STFU and blind faith lead to unrefined quality: they're only human.

Without critique an artist would never feel the need to surpass stick figures. Both conservation and innovation aimed critiques have their place. Innovation for the sake of innovating is as stupid as conserving something that's outdated for a new context. Everything needs to be fine tuned. Nothing is more important for a dev than to hear views from as many different angles as possible, especially if it disagrees with them next to the pat on the back for a job well done.

[dsi]

So lets stop bitching about the AMS being gone, the MAX unit possibly getting a flame thrower, the lack of buggies, no free form inventory, class specific soldiers, instaknives, no artillery, MBTs being primarily operated by the gunner, the cash shop, the PC gamer beta key and cloakers getting sniper rifles...

SOE is going to do what SOE wants to do and I really believe they Will do it right this time.
>Doing all of those things and doing them right

:rofl:

I hope SOE changes their mind when they see 1k tanks trying to fit into a courtyard. Or a lightning trying to speed over hills and stick with the air fight. Or people running out of ammo and not being able to do anything because they can't loot.

[SgtMAD]

after seeing the Vanny column going after the Prowler,I am even more convinced that the driver gunning a tank is a big friggin mistake

[Canaris]

I've been thinking about it, think I'll prefer the main gunner being the driver

[MrBloodworth]

This is a giant pander to the non-team work crowd.

It's called "Playing alone, together".

God forbid you need others to bring high firepower to the battle.

[Maarvy]

id imagine even if they are zerging without gunners.

aircraft and anti armor weapons will pick them apart like nothing without secondary gunners.

so free kills for me ^^

This , a strong tank will still need a team . 1 driver/engineer/main gunner , 1 machine gunner and at/aa speced heavy assault .

Solo tanks will be free kills for any air in most cases .

[Coreldan]

This , a strong tank will still need a team . 1 driver/engineer/main gunner , 1 machine gunner and at/aa speced heavy assault .

Solo tanks will be free kills for any air in most cases .

Yeah, Higlo made pretty short work of the Magriders when there was no AA on those magriders to fend him off in most cases.

And the infantry splash damage was indeed low enough for even a few anti tank guys to probably take down a Vanguard with no secondary gunner fairly easy.

[Figment]

This , a strong tank will still need a team . 1 driver/engineer/main gunner , 1 machine gunner and at/aa speced heavy assault .

Solo tanks will be free kills for any air in most cases .

Why does this shortsighted argument keep returning even if dismissed every other page?

Solo tanks will have a buddy specced with appropriate gun on appropriate unit for every gunner of own tank.

Stop pretending they are alone because that's the sole situation in which it is a worse scenario. But if they are alone, they couldn't have a gunner either even if they wanted to. Which means it's a completely moot point in this debate.

[Figment]

Yeah, Higlo made pretty short work of the Magriders when there was no AA on those magriders to fend him off in most cases.

And the infantry splash damage was indeed low enough for even a few anti tank guys to probably take down a Vanguard with no secondary gunner fairly easy.

Consider that next to none of those tanks seemed to even HAVE a secondary gun (neither Vannies nor Magriders), but still fastly outnumbered the local infantry. And strangely, there were no Lightnings around with AA as far as I could tell (have we seen one at all yet?), nor any aircav intercepting Higby. (Well... apart from that friendly Reaver that rammed him mid-air :D).

Plus I suppose Higby being the demonstrator was not meant to be shot as often since he had to demo the game to the press.

Which means it's not entirely representative for actual in-game situations.

[Coreldan]

Consider that next to none of those tanks seemed to even HAVE a secondary gun (neither Vannies nor Magriders), but still fastly outnumbered the local infantry. And strangely, there were no Lightnings around with AA as far as I could tell (have we seen one at all yet?), nor any aircav intercepting Higby. (Well... apart from that friendly Reaver that rammed him mid-air :D).

Plus I suppose Higby being the demonstrator was not meant to be shot as often since he had to demo the game to the press.

Which means it's not entirely representative for actual in-game situations.

True, I did think about it many time whether Higlo managed to stay alive so long on the Reaver cos they didnt shoot him down on purpose :D

That said, the Vanguards we saw had top mounted machine guns of some kind, it's the first time we see it in the non-PS1 config.

And no, the story of Lightning was that it went back to the drawing board when T-Ray didnt feel the original design was good enough, thus we've yet to see one.

[Maarvy]

Why does this shortsighted argument keep returning even if dismissed every other page?

Solo tanks will have a buddy specced with appropriate gun on appropriate unit for every gunner of own tank.

Stop pretending they are alone because that's the sole situation in which it is a worse scenario. But if they are alone, they couldn't have a gunner either even if they wanted to. Which means it's a completely moot point in this debate.

Im not saying solo tank like 1 tank alone in the wilderness , I mean a tank with 1 (solo) driver vs a tank with driver and 2nd gunner .

In almost every situation the one with the 2nd gunner is more powerfull and has a lot more options to call on that the tank with just 1 ( solo ) occupant .
From repairs to a added at rocket or aa missile right when u need it most .
I know you can kinda pick up all these things as a single crewed tank but when your relying on a 100 hp meat bag to deliver the goods its not the same .

[ThGlump]

after seeing the Vanny column going after the Prowler,I am even more convinced that the driver gunning a tank is a big friggin mistake

Look at them in battle against VS. Mag were moving, vanguards just sit at one place and shoot as its hard to move and shoot at once. Those tank battles will be very often static.

[TekDragon]

I would rather tanks have 3 seats. Main gunner, secondary gunner, and driver. The driver can choose which seats to lock out. If the main gunner seat is empty, the tank driver can fire his weapon directly ahead, with a 10 degree vertical control.

If the driver wants to have full control of his tank's main gun he needs to switch seats. This should be done with a single button press, but should take at least 1 second to switch (since this is sci-fi we can imagine the pilot HUD rebooting into a weapon HUD). From the main gunner seat the main weapon can be completely controlled, but the tank can only move forward and back - no directional control.

It's only with 2 seats filled (main gunner and pilot) that the tank can have full maneuverability AND full turret control.

That's balanced.

[Gandhi]

This , a strong tank will still need a team . 1 driver/engineer/main gunner , 1 machine gunner and at/aa speced heavy assault .

Solo tanks will be free kills for any air in most cases .
That's assuming there's nobody around with AA, which is a huge assumption. More likely there'll be guys in AA Lightnings, AA MAXs, AA infantry, other AA fitted tanks and so on.

There's already a solo tank called the Lightning, why do we need a second one?

[Ragotag]

If you've ever been a secondary gunner for a Battlefield game:

1) It's pretty much a joke
2) Certain death


That's a pretty sweeping, an IMO, misrepresented statement. Gunning for a vehicle in BF3 places the gunner at no more risk than it does the driver (except for the helicopters).

id imagine even if they are zerging without gunners aircraft and anti armor weapons will pick them apart like nothing without secondary gunners.

Using BF3 in comparison, yep -- exactly what happens. An MBT in BF3 without a gunner is highly susceptible to AT and C4 toting Infantry, which equates to a shortened life span especially in urban environments.

The logic does make sense, though. I cert the vehicle, I spend training time and resources on pimping it out, why should a random teammate get the gun? I'd rather see the gun and wheel separated, but have neither require the cert so long as one person in the vehicle is certed for it. That way, if you want to gun, you can pull your tank and climb in the gunner's seat and find a driver.

In the end, however, I actually prefer the idea of better armored tanks requiring more team-based coordination by having separate gunner/driver seats. I think kaffis is right on target here, allow the player with the certs to field (spawn) the tank, but then give him/her the choice of which seat they want to ride in.

[ShadoViper]

Didn't read most of this thread due to time constraint. Sorry if this idea was already posted.

A simple solution to this could be allowing the tank driver to cert into a gunner tree that would allow another player to use the main gun for him. Making it a similar setup to planetside.

[psychosiszz]

If we take the BF3 mechanics, driving and gunning a tank should be fairly balanced. For instance being a secondary gunner on a tank is very useful as the second gunner protects the tank from infantry and also air (im sure there will be a anti-air upgrade for the secondary gunner). Secondary Gunner can also act as a tank commander and spot targets or be the tanks engineer and repair the tank etc.
So the team work is still there if players want to get the most out of the tank.

[Azren]

Look at them in battle against VS. Mag were moving, vanguards just sit at one place and shoot as its hard to move and shoot at once. Those tank battles will be very often static.

This is pretty much it. I feel sorry for you non VS folks. You will all have to stop to get good aim, or move in very close.
If you stop, your tank will be air cav bait. And seeing how effective air-to-ground missiles are, you will die fast. If you try to get close, you will run over mines or just get picked of by your opponents before you can get close.

Did you see ANY of the vanguards turn it's turret past 90°? No? Wonder why... They can't see squat of what's in front of them, so they fall off cliffs, run into trees, ect if they do.

If we take the BF3 mechanics, driving and gunning a tank should be fairly balanced. For instance being a secondary gunner on a tank is very useful as the second gunner protects the tank from infantry and also air (im sure there will be a anti-air upgrade for the secondary gunner). Secondary Gunner can also act as a tank commander and spot targets or be the tanks engineer and repair the tank etc.
So the team work is still there if players want to get the most out of the tank.

Well, good thing we don't. BF3 does not have an unlimited number of tanks. Seriously, how many BF3 gun positions would be used if anyone could pull a tank in that game? None I presume.

Anti air on MBTs will not be required. Even if you put AA on them, it was stated that they will only have medicore power. So what is better, one MBT with a medicore AA or one MBT + one lightning, with the best AA in game? Both take two people to operate, diffrence is that the lightning + mbt combo will be far more effective.

[ThGlump]

And reason to have gunner to protect you against air goes vain. You just easily switch to gunner position and kill that pesky reaver yourself. Why waste gunner position when he can have his own tank = twice armor, twice AV dmg, twice AA dmg.

Q: Will vehicle occupants still need to get out to change seats?
A: No

[Azren]

And reason to have gunner to protect you against air goes vain. You just easily switch to gunner position and kill that pesky reaver yourself. Why waste gunner position when he can have his own tank = twice armor, twice AV dmg, twice AA dmg.

Q: Will vehicle occupants still need to get out to change seats?
A: No

What? In which interview was this? If this is true, there is no argument supporting two manned MBTs anymore. Well played SoE!

[MrBloodworth]

Q: Will vehicle occupants still need to get out to change seats?
A: No

Dear god NO.

[ThGlump]

What? In which interview was this? If this is true, there is no argument supporting two manned MBTs anymore. Well played SoE!

http://www.planetside-universe.com/p-gdc-2012-community-qa-102.htm

[Gelnika]

I dunno if anyone here has played Red Orchestra: Ostfront or Darkest Hour: Europe '44-'45, but team-tanking vs. solo tanking is as contentious an issue there as it is here. As a long time player of the game, I enjoy team-tanking so long as you can choose who you're team-tanking with. Often you'll get greenhorns hopping in the driver's seat and holding the rest of the crew hostage to their inability to field the vehicle properly and ultimately bringing everyone's experience down.

These two games are hardcore by most standards with a very tight knit community. Planetside 2 has to appeal to a larger and less hardcore audience (because they need to make money!) who might just want to hop in for a half an hour and play a tank hero for a bit. I get this and I think they're making the right decision for the pick-up-and-play player.

However, there is something uniquely satisfying in pulling of great feats of teamwork, even when you are defeated. Both those games (RO & DH) allow you to solo tank, but you can only man one position at a time and you must switch between the driver, hull-gunner and commander (who also operates the main cannon). Some sort of system like this would be ideal in my mind as it allows team-tanking, but doesn't force it. However, I know it's probably too late in development to backpedal on the decision.

[MrBloodworth]

I enjoy team-tanking so long as you can choose who you're team-tanking with.


This is what Outfits and Vehicle permissions were for.

[Figment]

However, I know it's probably too late in development to backpedal on the decision.

Wouldn't know why, it's just a matter of assigning gun control input to keyboard and mouse A or B.

[Raymac]

And reason to have gunner to protect you against air goes vain. You just easily switch to gunner position and kill that pesky reaver yourself. Why waste gunner position when he can have his own tank = twice armor, twice AV dmg, twice AA dmg.

Q: Will vehicle occupants still need to get out to change seats?
A: No

1) This may not apply to the tanks, only to transports like the Sunderer and Galaxy.
2) If it does apply to tanks, then your tank will be immobile and a sitting duck. A stationary target in the middle of a battle is toast.
3) The seat change may not be instantaneous. They could balance it with a 1-2 second time delay.

I don't like the idea either, but let's stop fucking panicing every fucking time we hear something new. Please.

[Eyeklops]

If this is about skills, why not split the Tank skill tree in two, driver skills and gunner skills. Then people that suck at aiming (me) but like to drive can invest in the "drivers" tree, while people who like to gun can invest in the "gunners" tree.

[SgtMAD]

And reason to have gunner to protect you against air goes vain. You just easily switch to gunner position and kill that pesky reaver yourself. Why waste gunner position when he can have his own tank = twice armor, twice AV dmg, twice AA dmg.

Q: Will vehicle occupants still need to get out to change seats?
A: No

you will die to that air-to-ground assault everytime if your counter to it is coming to a complete stop while switching seats,these air-cav outfits will make mincemeat out of any armor that uses a silly tactic like that.

you are going to be dead if you stop moving.

[MrBloodworth]

you will die to that air-to-ground assault everytime if your counter to it is coming to a complete stop while switching seats,these air-cav outfits will make mincemeat out of any armor that uses a silly tactic like that.

you are going to be dead if you stop moving.

This means Teamwork/Tank Crews should be removed?

[Raymac]

This means Teamwork/Tank Crews should be removed?

Quite the opposite actually. Teamwork is encouraged because being solo will severly nerf you if you have to stop moving to fire your secondary. If you have a buddy on the secondary you will be far more effective. Teamwork is encouraged by this, not discouraged. But I've said that enough on this thread already.

[VioletZero]

I like how teamwork is encouraged, but going solo in a tank is still an option.

One thing that people have to remember is that not everyone has a microphone. And using a microphone should not be a requirement to use one of the main features of the game.

[ThGlump]

Teamwork is encouraged but in second tank and not gunner. If reaver is on me ill be moving, second tank switch to gunner AA and kill it.
Its not about killing cooperation (you probably need more if you are separated in different vehicles), but that it make gunner position unwanted and wasted if you can have additional tank instead.

[Raymac]

Teamwork is encouraged but in second tank and not gunner. If reaver is on me ill be moving, second tank switch to gunner AA and kill it.
Its not about killing cooperation (you probably need more if you are separated in different vehicles), but that it make gunner position unwanted and wasted if you can have additional tank instead.

It is far easier to coordinate within the same vehicle than it is between 2 vehicles. I think your scenario is a distinct possibility, but I predict that tanks with gunners will be more effective and more common than 2 solo tanks.

[Azren]

1) This may not apply to the tanks, only to transports like the Sunderer and Galaxy.
2) If it does apply to tanks, then your tank will be immobile and a sitting duck. A stationary target in the middle of a battle is toast.
3) The seat change may not be instantaneous. They could balance it with a 1-2 second time delay.

I don't like the idea either, but let's stop fucking panicing every fucking time we hear something new. Please.

1) Doubtfull
2) It will be immobile either way. As seen in the recent videos, you can't drive and gun at the same time, hence you stop for better aim.
3) Entering and exiting the vehicle is instantaneous, why would this be different?

The AA you lose by not having a gunner can be easily suplemented by a lighting. What this would mean is; your duo has the best AA in game (lighting) and a backup AA (MBT) if needed.

With seat changes there is no more any logical reason why two solo MBTs would not outpreform an MBT with gunner in almost any situation.

[ThGlump]

2 tanks are harder to coordinate but more profitable. 2 tanks will be move effective against ground (since AA gunner would be useless, and with directional dmg you can flank), and even against air (especially when attacker is flying over so you can risk to stop and shoot with both tanks).
There can be situations when gunner would be better than second tank, but most time i expect ppl will chose additional tank instead gunner.

[DayOne]

Aren't the turrets supposed to be quite powerful? So having a gunner is actually a good idea?

[VioletZero]

Aren't the turrets supposed to be quite powerful? So having a gunner is actually a good idea?

Yes. :)

[EVILPIG]

I did not read 31 pages and I will give what is becoming an automated response, wait till we play Beta and see. But, I will say that at this point I support the idea and disagree that it waters down teamwork. You don't have to multi-crew a vehicle to get teamwork. Field the tanks and coordinate amongst them.

The other thing is that everyone seems to be assuming that the 2ndary weapons will be so weak. Again, wait till Beta. If the 2ndary position turns out to be super fun, all the whining will be forgotten.

[ThGlump]

Aren't the turrets supposed to be quite powerful? So having a gunner is actually a good idea?

Powerful but weaker than main gun. That was whole idea giving the one who spend cert strongest gun.

[Figment]

Powerful but weaker than main gun. That was whole idea giving the one who spend cert strongest gun.

That and Higby said the Lightning weaponry is more powerful than a MBT gunner's.

Maths > beta.

[Rivenshield]

Anything you incentivize, you get more of.

What the game designers are choosing to do is to turn every tank into a big giant Lightning. Everybody will have tank certs, because it will be impossible to set foot outside a base without getting squished by someone else's tank zerg.

The thing that makes the Planetside experience unique are the teamwork and coordination required to get anything done and do it well. Armored companies used to be feared -- infrequent -- special. Now they will be humdrum...... and every tower/base/capture point will be carpeted with abandoned armor as people reach the objective, get bored, and jump out to fight.

Planetside is not merely an FPS writ large. It is a full-blown online war, with logistics and supply and *teamwork*. One at a time, I see the old virtues being weeded out in favor of appealing to the Cawadooty crowd.

This is not a good idea.

[EVILPIG]

Anything you incentivize, you get more of.

What the game designers are choosing to do is to turn every tank into a big giant Lightning. Everybody will have tank certs, because it will be impossible to set foot outside a base without getting squished by someone else's tank zerg.

The thing that makes the Planetside experience unique are the teamwork and coordination required to get anything done and do it well. Armored companies used to be feared -- infrequent -- special. Now they will be humdrum...... and every tower/base/capture point will be carpeted with abandoned armor as people reach the objective, get bored, and jump out to fight.

Planetside is not merely an FPS writ large. It is a full-blown online war, with logistics and supply and *teamwork*. One at a time, I see the old virtues being weeded out in favor of appealing to the Cawadooty crowd.

This is not a good idea.

Wait for Beta. Anti-Armor infantry weaponry will probably shred armor. Infantry can hide easier. Truth is, we know nothing at this point.

[Saintlycow]

2 guns that fire at the same time and allow you to move.

or 1 gun and movement/ 1 aa gun.

[dsi]

I did not read 31 pages and I will give what is becoming an automated response, wait till we play Beta and see. But, I will say that at this point I support the idea and disagree that it waters down teamwork. You don't have to multi-crew a vehicle to get teamwork. Field the tanks and coordinate amongst them.

The other thing is that everyone seems to be assuming that the 2ndary weapons will be so weak. Again, wait till Beta. If the 2ndary position turns out to be super fun, all the whining will be forgotten.

We watched someone play an Alpha and we got to listen to them complaining about falling off a ridge while trying to focus on driving with a giant cannon. :rofl:

Honestly, they're making terrain harder to drive on and making it harder to focus on driving. What kind of logic is that?

[Raymac]

1) Doubtfull
2) It will be immobile either way. As seen in the recent videos, you can't drive and gun at the same time, hence you stop for better aim.
3) Entering and exiting the vehicle is instantaneous, why would this be different?

The AA you lose by not having a gunner can be easily suplemented by a lighting. What this would mean is; your duo has the best AA in game (lighting) and a backup AA (MBT) if needed.

With seat changes there is no more any logical reason why two solo MBTs would not outpreform an MBT with gunner in almost any situation.

I think you have a point with 1) and 3), but 2) is way off base. You've played PS1 so you know the importance of shooting while on the move. Hell it's important for any shooter.

Also, I think it is arrogantly premature to conclude that 2 solo MBTs will be better than 1 MBT with a gunner, especially if that is not the intent of the devs and they have the ability to balance it still.

[Wargrim]

I really dont get how people think you cant drive a tank and aim at the same time. I do it all the time.

Common reasons to stop and shoot are:
bumpy terrain
using cover
getting repairs while shooting
mines suspected ahead
Wouldnt a dedicated driver stop too in the same situations?

My experience with the driver =/= gunner system in PS1 was horrible. I only played some weeks / month during the Reserves program, but i often used a Vanguard. The very few occasions where i got a real good gunner or driver as a partner were really great, i will give you that. But i assume that most of you long - term PS1 - players have Outfits, or at least fixed partners to play with. Back then, i did not. And believe me, being stuck in a tank with a random stranger, without voicechat, was soooo bad. Either i drove, and my gunner would shoot the main gun at airplanes, look backwards, ignore a hostile BFR 30 meters away, and generally not hit anything, or i gunned, and my driver would run into minefields, park me before a tree so i couldnt shoot at anything, go cross country, charge anti tank infantry, and generally not go where i would have wanted to go. Having to rely on random public players was a pain. So much in fact, that i either used a Lightning, or ended up using the Vanguard as some kind of self propelled artillery piece:

Lock it, drive to the battle, find a nice hill slope with los to the fight, exit, enter gunner seat, fire at enemies until the battle moves or i die. If the battle moves on and i still live, repeat the procedure. I have crossed whole continents that way.

If the only choice would be a gunner =/= driver system, or a gunnner = driver system, ill take the second one any day.

However, why not just make it toggleable? Cant really be that hard, and would allow both playstyles.

[Figment]

Wargrim, consider these things:

1. You apparently chose not to join an outfit.
2. It's an incentive to both make friends you play with on a regular basis and bring buddies into the game you can trust.
3. You can make (like I did) some basic instructions to provide your gunners with, before heading into battles. It greatly enhances their performance if they know what my voice macros entailed and they listened to it.
4. Proxy voice will be standard instead of chat in PS2 (apparently?).

As an example of 3. I told people to not open fire until within certain range (clear, reliable shot), or detected and fired upon. I told people to focus on finishin of targets first. As I usualy drove Thundies, I had to coordinate with two people. Of course you have the occassional problems, but indeed, that's what outfitmembers and TS are for.


Effectively you are saying what we all say is bad for social cohesion and balance: you will prefer to go solo and have less incentive to play with regular friends and only will take in random buddies for secondary gun as it's slightly better than driving it continuously alone, but you would not wait for someone to get in (note: nor even use a buddy in another tank covering you).


How does that promote teamplay? :/

We don't think you can't, but it does hinder your situational awareness. I get very high winratios in World of Tanks. Most of the twats in there are anti-social players. Those that aren't have little means to create a community other than spam recruitment of randoms thanks to Wargaming's policy of protecting loners in random battles. It lead to a highly segregated and nationalist community in the EU version of the game. Tbh, from my perspective it's a complete social failure and something that should not occur in PS2, because the social aspect was one of the best things about PS's community.

[Wargrim]

It is hard for me to really judge how it will play out in PS2 to be honest, but in BFBC2, when playing with my friends, we were usually rocking with tanks in a way that one dude did the tanking, and ~3 engineers with rockets were keeping him alive. Most maps did not offer enough tanks/space for larger groups of tanks going together. No separate driver and gunner here, bit still a type of teamwork. I would also see Lightning raids and Vanguard pushes back in PS1 as some kind of teamwork, though more the Zerg kind, not the planned and coordinated kind.

The thing is, you dont always have the time or wish to join a clan or outfit. Or have the friends that want to play the same game. Why shouldnt you be able to use a ES tank regardless? Is the teamwork between 2 friends in 2 tanks less worthy than 2 friends in one tank?

I see teamwork as something that enhances the effectiveness of a group of player in a natural way. Requiring two players for basic operation of a tank seems like an artificial restriction to me, after all we do not include a loader or radio operator either, because we know it wouldnt be fun for those persons.

Nowadays i got voicechat ready, and have regular gaming friends that i hope will follow me to PS2, so for me, it would be no issue anymore. But i am pretty sure there are people today that will have the very same problem i had back then in PS1. Having to rely on a pubbie for basic tasks is often frustrating.

[BorisBlade]

BTW, you can switch gunner seats without getting out, so the idea that you will be fodder for aircraft if you dont have a second gunner is wrong. You get uber armor, uber firepower and plenty of cover for air or infantry at a simple button press to switch seats. Letting you switch seats without gettin out is flat out terrible, just adds insult to the injury of drivers gunning a main tank.

This is turning into a cheaply made, lame, and simplistic fps compared to what it could be, leaving all the great aspects out that PS1 pioneered and that made it awesome is a big mistake and just leaves you with a larger player count clone of the million other fps games out there. I seriously hope beta brings about a good vehicle revamp and fixes these glaring problems.

[Khellendros]

From the gameplay videos, it seems pretty clear that tank battles are going to be relatively static because most people cannot drive and gun at the same time effectively.

I really think PS1 had the better model for tank fights. *sigh*

[Zonna]

unless its an option per the driver, i do not like this at all. having to relie on another made them less overpowered, u could always tell a good tank crew from a lesser one!
driving n shooting at same time=no fun!!! i'd rather relie on a noob as my main gunner so i could make sure i kept my tank alive, rather than have to "try" n do both myself! driver as gunner also=reaver bait!

[noxious]

I always loved driving the Magrider, dancing around the battlefield and dodging incoming fire with dogtag in my gunner seat, ripping everything we came across to shreds.

I'm rather good with the tanks in the Battlefield series so I suspect that it'll be easy enough to own people solo with the PS2 tanks, but the camaraderie of the two-man tank crews from Planetside will definitely be missed.

[krnasaur]

I skipped most of the previous 32 pages' posts so if has been discussed to death already, please excuse me.

The only problem with the driver controlling the main gun for me is the fact that instead of it taking 2 people to get an operational tank, it only takes 1, thus basically doubling the number of tanks you can man with an X number of people, to compensate that either they have to be weaker (lightning status) or the AV weapons need to be buffed so that the flood of extra tanks doesn't spiral out of control and this doesn't turn into world of tanks 2

[VioletZero]

I really hope that tanks have an accuracy rating that blooms considerably when moving. So we don't have a bunch of tanks zipping around trying to dodge each other. :x

[Aurmanite]

I really hope that tanks have an accuracy rating that blooms considerably when moving. So we don't have a bunch of tanks zipping around trying to dodge each other. :x

Dude...no.

Zipping around trying to dodge each other is half the game in Planetside. A good driver makes a huge difference.

[VioletZero]

But it makes the game require considerably less skill and makes the game have better depth of tact.

Accessible with something to offer long time fans. Win win.

[Aurmanite]

But it makes the game require considerably less skill and makes the game have better depth of tact.

Accessible with something to offer long time fans. Win win.

You're saying that sitting still and firing at stationary targets requires more skill? Brings about a higher depth of gameplay?

I know you haven't played Planetside...have you ever played any other shooter?

[Whalenator]

But it makes the game require considerably less skill and makes the game have better depth of tact.

Accessible with something to offer long time fans. Win win.

It also speeds up the pace of the game, reduces player awareness and teamwork, justifies tanks being much weaker and also is fucking stupid. :groovy:

[VioletZero]

It also speeds up the pace of the game, reduces player awareness and teamwork, justifies tanks being much weaker and also is fucking stupid. :groovy:

How does accuracy bloom in tanks do ANY of that?

Accuracy bloom when moving or rotating the turret slows down the game. Not speed it up.

Reduces player awareness? You need to have a good game sense to know where you need to be aiming.

Reduces teamwork? How?

Justifies tanks being much weaker? This is a nerf...

And is ****ing stupid how?

You're saying that sitting still and firing at stationary targets requires more skill? Brings about a higher depth of gameplay?

I know you haven't played Planetside...have you ever played any other shooter?

I said it takes LESS skill. But greater planning and organization.

I've played World of Tanks and that's what they did. Had a pretty punishing accuracy system if you were moving. And the game was better off for it.

[Aurmanite]

How does accuracy bloom in tanks do ANY of that?



I said it takes LESS skill. But greater planning and organization.

I've played World of Tanks and that's what they did. Had a pretty punishing accuracy system if you were moving. And the game was better off for it.

Man, if I trusted you I would let you play on my buddies Planetside account. You need to see how an MMOFPS actually plays out.

[VioletZero]

Man, if I trusted you I would let you play on my buddies Planetside account. You need to see how an MMOFPS actually plays out.

Of course that wouldn't work in Planetside 1.

But I'm saying it will work in Planetside 2 because this game is going to be a lot less skill based and more accessible.

[Aurmanite]

Of course that wouldn't work in Planetside 1.

But I'm saying it will work in Planetside 2 because this game is going to be a lot less skill based and more accessible.

Why do you think this game is going to be less skill based? Where did you get that idea?

From the gameplay footage I've seen, it looks like this game is going to be much more hectic and fast paced than the original. With headshots and bullet drop and jetpacks...

[VioletZero]

Why do you think this game is going to be less skill based? Where did you get that idea?

From the gameplay footage I've seen, it looks like this game is going to be much more hectic and fast paced than the original. With headshots and bullet drop and jetpacks...

...and ironsights that slow you down and a clear Call of Duty influence.

Not that I object. I really like this direction.

[Aurmanite]

...and ironsights that slow you down and a clear Call of Duty influence.

Not that I object. I really like this direction.

So, ironsights make the game require more or less skill?

[VioletZero]

So, ironsights make the game require more or less skill?

Yes.

Because any time you want to shoot someone, you'll be slowed to a crawl so that you don't have crap aiming.

[Aurmanite]

Yes.

Because any time you want to shoot someone, you'll be slowed to a crawl so that you don't have crap aiming.

Dude...

What?

Reread my question.

[VioletZero]

And my answer remains the same.

Whenever you use your ironsights, you're slowed down. If you don't use your ironsights, you have crap accuracy and are just making yourself a target for those who are using ironsights.

[Warhound]

Well I'm certainly no veteran of games with vehicles that can be multi-crewed(Aces High and WW2O) I preferred the inevitable teamwork that it created. While soloing tanks were doable it was really only viable in aces high, while WW2O it was cumbersome performing all the roles a tank could offer such as Commander,Gunner, and driver.

While I do like the armored gameplay of say a battlefield, I can truly see where people are coming up with the notion of static fights. It's hard multitasking between the two roles and the only way to be really effective is sit back,be static, and shoot. Honestly I would prefer the option to be able to multi-crew but don't force it on people so they can be viable.

tl;dr: I'm gonna stay neutral on the subject. :groovy:

[Whalenator]

Well I'm certainly no veteran of games with vehicles that can be multi-crewed(Aces High and WW2O)

WW2O is much better than Aces, though it's actually harder than real life to take off in that godforsaken game.

On a more related note, in WW2O keep in mind soloing in something like a bomber was easy, almost crucial. They had a loose autopilot that allowed you to bomb and fly (not so much tailgun, unless you were really good).

But on the topic of tanks teamwork was really essential. When I used to play I loved hopping in a Panzer during one of the American campaigns and wiping allies off the streets of a major European city. There was so much more you could accomplish with multiple people -- Situational awareness being a huge one.

[Mechzz]

Lots of controversy on the "driver is gunner" thing.

Personally I fall on the side of preferring the teamwork aspect, but you can see both sides of the argument (more vehcs = good). Some of my best-remembered PS1 moments were playing in an outift tank squadron on Teamspeak - awesome!

(also used to enjoy solo-gunning a Lib in anti-personnel mode, so can't claim purity :lol:)

So, why don't our mighty Devs make this a cert option for those would prefer not to both drive and gun? They'll want to make the "driver is gunner" the default, but would be nice for the tank-heads to get the option, yes?

[CutterJohn]

Multiple crew in a vehicle is not teamwork, it was balance. 2 people in two different vehicles takes more effort and skill to coordinate than 2 people in one vehicle.

I'd be fine with that weapon option, but it should of course be less effective than regular tank with the driver controlled gun, due to the decreased skill required to use it effectively.

[Whalenator]

1.) Please bump the old topic instead of creating a new one.

2.) The cert idea is decent. But I'd really prefer requiring players to work together... The tradeoff with requiring two people in a tank is that the solo players would turn their attention to Reavers and the other fighters, filling the skies with them.

[Bags]

I'd be more okay with the cert requirement than how it is now. Unfortunately, I don't think this is something they're listening on, considering very few are for it and it's still in.

[Shade Millith]

I am of the group that believe that two people should be required to use a MBT. One gunner, one driver.

Less powerful, armoured vehicles need one person. Heavily armoured and more powerful vehicles require two.

Balancing in effect. It's not like there's not enough players to man the tank turrets.

[getcarter]

I dont think making two people man a heavy tank is going to promote team work. If anything people will just avoid using that particular tank. Although i am not completely against the idea i would however prefer it to be an option rather than a must.

[Bags]

I dont think making two people man a heavy tank is going to promote team work. If anything people will just avoid using that particular tank. Although i am not completely against the idea i would however prefer it to be an option rather than a must.

Because there were so many lightnings in PS1~

[Gandhi]

I dont think making two people man a heavy tank is going to promote team work. If anything people will just avoid using that particular tank. Although i am not completely against the idea i would however prefer it to be an option rather than a must.
That's part of the reason why you have 2-3 man tanks, to avoid the battlefield becoming littered with them. The solo tank option is the Lightning.

I'd be ok with the MBT driver getting a secondary weapon to control, like the old Magrider, but the main gun should need a gunner.

[Warhound]

I personally like the setup the currently have which is the driver acting as gunner. Then again I can say I'm biased since the only games I've really played with multicrew options were WW2O and aces high. I loved them both and both games at least made it somewhat viable to fly solo in tank, Aces high especially. Heck in WW2O multicrewing provided great benefits such as situational awareness. But I like how with this it seems more armor will be introduced into the field of battle, now with this setup the fights might surely be more static since its hard to multitask between the two roles(Driver and gunner.) I personally however would like the option of driving a tank solo with the option of multicrewing.

tl;dr: Gonna stay neutral on the subject I guess. :groovy:

[Fenrys]

I hope bigger 3 person tanks are introduced in a later patch.

2 person tanks can be OK if the secondary gun is super effective AI.

Light tank (NS Lightning):
-1 seat
-fast
-weak armor
-small, rapid fire gun

Medium tank (ES Mag, Van, Prw):
-2 seat
-driver controls the main gun
-fast (but not as fast as a Lightning)
-medium armor
-small, rapid fire gun

Heavy tank (NS):
-3 seat
-dedicated driver
-slow
-huge, slow cannon
-heavy armor

[megamold]

super effective AI ?
how about : no secondary gunner = no secondary gunner