Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2

[Mechzz]

Read AI as Anti-Infantry rather than Artificial Intelligence.
Nowt wrong with the secondary gunner being AI in that case.

I would still like the option to swap gun positions over via a cert selection, however. So as the driver I can choose whether or not I want the big gun :p

[megamold]

lol, if its anti-infantry then ignore my comment :D

[Figment]

More does not always equal good.


One launch-BFR was not as big a problem as the 8-20 sitting next to eachother. No unit that is very powerful should be used en mass to the extend that other forms of combat suffer.

Two MBTs are a much bigger concern than two infantry units, so if both require two people, then there's an imbalance being created that leverages with the amount of MBTs added to that equation. Maybe one MBT is not a problem to handle by one or two infantry. Maybe. But what if it's 9? Will 9 infantry be able to stand their ground? No.

Units like the Mammoth MkII are limited to just one per map in C&C for a very good reason.

PlanetSide is like C&C balance in larger numbers and people who only think in FPS terms need to understand that this game is more than your run of the mill FPS where everything is equal to everything but has slightly different stats. Vehicles are not equals to infantry, to retain infantry combat in the field, the numbers of vehicles must be restricted.

One man vehicles that are more powerful than infantry run the risk of becoming a huge problem.


Why do you think games like Battlefield and Halo restrict the amount of vehicle units available to the masses? And why do you think it's therefore much less of a problem there? Because INFANTRY is at the core of the game there, infantry is incentified by not providing access to everyone for more powerful weaponry. In PlanetSide, you can have as much power as you can afford and choose to use. BIG, BIG difference. Hence you should NEVER execute vehicle controls like in BF.

EDIT: The Two-Men crew requirement and split between controls is a restriction of power per player and a numerical balance system. It's not about being boring or not, it's about allowing larger numbers of vehicles to be present without getting out of hand and dominating gameplay.

It is why I had hoped for aircav to be included into this balancing system for a change with two men Reaver crews. I've been quite sad to see the opposite happening where more versatile power is given sooner to the individual.

[Mastachief]

Waiting for beta to confirm my feelings however currently I feel for the good of the game that the Devs have it right (for the moment).

Now don't bite my ear off but there is a certain satisfaction to driving and gunning (it is the reason i had two machines and 2 accounts).

This said i do think there is a lot lost in terms of random teamplay. But in an outfit setting both guns are still likely to be gunned.

It current format will attract players in droves i think that its will be at least 30% of planetside attraction to new fps guys (what i can have my OWN tank and not have to wait for one of the 3 that are allowed on the map).

Provided the maps are designed well and the aircraft are as powerfull against armour (but really weak vs infantry) then i think it will balance the numbers out.

Really i just want to see 600 vanguards rolling across the desert.

[sylphaen]

To be honest, I'm planning to focus on aircav and soldier base fights in PS2. Those playstyle niches seem to be the most fun (since they were possibly given the most thought) and unless AA guns are as good as a skyguards, PS2 tanks role will be one of hunter, not hunter.

I have done enough tank/buggy/transport driving in PS1 to know I will feel bored driving/gunning my own tank in PS2.

PS1 was a large-scale game and its scale offered room for niches whose playstyle entertained many kinds of players. IMO, the action ground driver niche, which I loved is all but dead with driver=gunner. It's just... not the same thing.


Dodging rockets and missiles at full speed in the midst of a huge battle with the sound of my teammate's cannon firing... It was great memories. But what was their best part ?

They were shared with someone; to me, this gave meaning.

[Azren]

PS2 MBTs concept is flawed in it's roots. The devs ruined one of the best aspects of PS1. The game will not have any two manned tanks, unless its friends who decided to roll one togather via TS. Here are a few points in support of this:

- tank driver has control of the main gun
- seat positions can be changed with a push of a button
- the main gun was proven to be a very effective AI weapon
- for AA the driver can just press a button to access the secondary gun
- it is not humanly possible to effectively drive and aim at the same time. This results in A; stationary fireing (as seen in GDC video) and B; stupid situations (like tanks falling off cliffs, as seen in the GDC video)

The game is geared towards solo players and is no longer in favour of teamwork.

There is no instance where an MBT with a gunner is more advantegous than two MBTs with no gunners.

What the devs should have done instead is keep the original PS1 concept and let the soloers roll in the other vehicles; there are tons geared for soloers.

[Azren]

At any rate, anyone ever wonder why no dev ever replied to any of the threads on this topic? Besauce they don't even consider changing the concept and do not care about any negatory opinions on it.

[Wargrim]

If the devs have shown one thing pretty clear, it is that they really do care in general. But i would guess they want to see what existing veterans and new players will say about it after actually having played it in beta, instead of getting into an argument on a topic that generates so much heated debate.

[Bags]

If the devs have shown one thing pretty clear, it is that they really do care in general. But i would guess they want to see what existing veterans and new players will say about it after actually having played it in beta, instead of getting into an argument on a topic that generates so much heated debate.

Higby even ocmplained about it during the demo, something about them acidentally driving off a cliff. If that doesn't change his mind, I doubt we will.

[Wargrim]

To be fair that sunderer was totally parked in the worst possible spot for the tanks to pass it. :p

And he complained about flying into trees, do you also think that means the reaver is to difficult to fly and gun at the same time?*

* Rethorical question, i dont think you think that. I dont claim to know what you think.

[Duddy]

Whilst I think we need to wait and see, I'm certainly sceptical of the new system as I voiced when we first found out about.

My largest complaint is the lack of agility which, in contrast to PS1, the new system allows for.

As people have pointed out this will probably lead to more static vehicle battles, but more so concerning to me is the vehicle based AA.

I loved the Skyguard in PS1, so perhaps I am biased, the ability to be highly agile but also have powerful AA weaponry made it a great offensive and defensive platform.

With this weaponry being moved to the Lightning, I question how drivers will actually manage to remain agile while having to keep track of aircraft which have far superior manoeuvrability. You saw a lot of Lightnings crashing into things in PS1 (if you saw them at all) and that was before they had to pay attention to the sky.

The point being, it would appear most weapons platforms are designed with two people in mind because one person does not usually deal with handling 2 tasks at once very well.

Whilst the change benefits the individual, I think it detracts from overall gameplay.

That said, if they at least provide the option to choose then I'd be content.

[sylphaen]

That said, if they at least provide the option to choose then I'd be content.

Agreed. The best system would naturally be used if tanks are agile.

On the other hand, if tanks are slow like a snail, drivers won't really be needed. Slow tanks would not be fun to drive anyways.

Let the players have control and choose!

[Figment]

On the other hand, if tanks are slow like a snail, drivers won't really be needed.

Robo-drivers? :p

[sylphaen]

Robo-drivers? :p

:rofl:

Maybe that's the A.I. Higby mentionned !

Playing a gunner in PS2 would then be more like a shooter on rails. And at least, it would not be SuperSoldierOfMetalAndSteel.
:D

[PrISM]

No seperate gunners is terrible. Now there's gonna be no yelling at your gunner (or getting yelled at) on Vent.

[Malorn]

The ability to switch seats without leaving the vehicle is the only thing that bothers me now about the tank situation. I think this is a big mistake.

Having the driver gun the main gun is not a bad thing to me however, and the real issue we have with it is the AA/Air balance issue.

The root of the problem however is high populations of aircraft necessitate AA. They can easily tweak this by lowering the proliferation of Repair/Rearm facilities for aircraft. That means more aircraft will die or stay out of a fight if they get significantly damaged.

Additionally, increasing vehicle acquisition timers for aircraft would mean fewer aircraft and less need for AA configurations on tanks.

And lastly, having the other configurations on tanks highly effective would make AA configuration a liability unless it is really needed. It would also make 1-man tanks significantly less effective than 2 man tanks.

All of these together can help control the population and prevalence of aircraft and thus the need for AA.



For more details of my conclusion, read on...

I recall Higby saying the reason they went with this design is so you can always drive a tank, no matter what is going on outside.

Aircraft got fairly ridiculous in the latter years of Planetside but that was more a problem of cert-creep and vehicle timers than anything.

In the beginning when you only had 23 certs and had to pay 7 of those certs to get both the reaver and the mosquito, there were no Repair/Rearm pads AND the vehicle timers for each was 10 minutes ... you didn't see a lot of aircraft. It was a heavy investment.

When the Skyguard was first released I quite literally laughed at its existence because the vehicle seemed completely unnecessary - there simply wasn't enough aircraft to warrant a Skyguard.

Not only after the skygaurd they changed the vehicle timers, and other changes started to appear...

Repair-Rearm pads made it easy to fix & rearm so that bumped aircraft appearance.
Packaging Reaver & Mosquito together with just a few cert points made it less of a burden to have them.
Increasing cert points meant you felt it even less.
The 12mm gun was changed to be wildly inaccurate to being extremely precise - this meant the mosquito was not a death machine instead of largely a transport vehicle.
And 5 minute vehicle timers (each - mosq and reaver had individual timers) means you could constantly pull them.

When all was said and done aircraft became extremely popular.

So in PS2 it's obvious how they control aircraft populations.
- Since everyone can fly one and there is no cert investment required, they can't use certs to control aircraft population.
- They can limit access to repair/rearm facilities, meaning aircraft stay out of the fight a bit longer or learn to start finding Sunderers.
- And that leaves vehicle acquisition timers. If they're short, like 5 minutes, you're going to see a lot of aircraft. If they're 7-10 minutes, you'll see significantly less.

It seems the direction they're going also is to effectively put AA on everything so swarms of aircraft can be easily countered, even by tanks.

This is not a bad design, and it certainly keeps tanks relevant in the battle no matter how much air is present. That's a good thing and I absolutely know what Higby is talking about when he says PS1 has a problem where pulling a tank isn't always a productive decision due to so much air and tanks not having any defense against it. I would also argue that is a problem of air getting out of control in PS1. I think by the proliferation of AA you will have the opposite problem in PS2 - the inability to fly aircraft because there's too much AA.

There is some ways to avoid this however. For example, if the secondary gun in AV or AI configuration is highly effective against those targets, it means that a tank with AA config is going to die horribly to a tank in AV config. And if there's lots of other tanks and AA about then not every tank needs to field it.

Vehicle timers on Aircraft could also help this problem. Making them longer than 5 minutes would mean people would have to alternate between flying aircraft and doing ground operations. That will lead to lower aircraft populations. With lower aircraft populations the necessity to run AA in your tank goes way down and may even become a liability.

[sylphaen]

I usually do not yell at teammates and I loved the separation of drivers and gunners in PS1.

You hate my terrible system. I do not like your optimal one.

Opinions and preferences, that's just what it is.
:)

You could at least admit that thinking about robo-drivers was a great idea ! I found it was a funny joke
:D

[Figment]

No seperate gunners is terrible. Now there's gonna be no yelling at your gunner (or getting yelled at) on Vent.

The lack of drama and stress on TS! D:

[Mechzz]

No seperate gunners is terrible. Now there's gonna be no yelling at your gunner (or getting yelled at) on Vent.

This.

And no, I don't mind if combined driving/gunning is the default mode. There are advantages to that as well.

I just think we need an option in the cert tree to change vehicle setup so we don't have to drive and gun at the same time if we don't want to. If we want people to keep playing this game for a long time (and we do :groovy:) then surely catering to the broadest range of playstyles is best? :huh:

Someone else mentioned there are no Dev/Community manager comments on the driver/gunner threads. What would shut me up is for one of these to say either
"Dude, the model design we chose means we can't do that now/ever/until an expansion comes along."
or
"Dude, this is a great idea as it extends the gameplay options without costing us (SOE) anything and makes a broader section of the playerbase happy spenders. We will implement it for testing in Beta."

[Gandhi]

Making it optional is one thing, but having one man MBTs at all is a design decision that I'm still struggling to understand. Out of all the changes this one makes the least sense to me.

[Raka Maru]

Chiming in here after 53 pages...

I will cert a MBT, I like it that I can actually use the main gun rather than waiting for a random to gun for me. This is my tank and my gun, but I'd like to also be able to give that gun to my team when I want. For drivers changing seats, I like that too so I won't be dead meat when aircraft show up.

Hope the Devs get the interface and config right and give the options to fix it up with your play style, and it is a play style... When my buddies gun for me, I like to just drive. Why not give your gunner all the guns. It's not like they can shoot them both at the same time. All these can be configurable options just as diverse as any skill tree. I would actually save/use several configs depending if my buddies are online.

[Neksar]

The problem with giving gunners both guns is the overall decrease in tank power. I understand that the idea is for the gunner to be able to deal with any threat the tank faces, and that there will be more precision with the main gun since the gunner's not distracted like the driver. The problem, though, is that a tank's AV weapon is probably going to be firing at targets that don't take a terribly large amount of precision to shoot. Because of that, giving the option to let the gunner handle the main cannon seems to require some sort of other benefit as well, like increased effectiveness of the secondary weapon.

Otherwise folks complain about gunner-controlled main cannons being less effective than a tank with a driver-gunner and a secondary gunner. Of course, the response to that is that it's optional, but that doesn't seem to cut it 'round here. Unfortunately it's late, and I'm only on here because I'm unable to sleep, so I don't have an answer and my delivery is flawed.

[megamold]

The ability to switch seats without leaving the vehicle is the only thing that bothers me now about the tank situation. I think this is a big mistake.


actually i really like this addition, to me it makes way more sense, since being able to move around in the vehicle is one of the inherent advantages of actually having a vehicle imho.

i dont think you should be able to fly a bomber, switch to the bomber position drop bombs switch again and fly off.
but i do think that being able to jump from being tank driver to topside gunner is a logical and beneficial thing to do

a better example might be the bomber being operated by 2 people.
1 person to fly it, and 1 person to man the rear AA gun and the bombing position when the target has been reached.

[PrISM]

I never usually drove tanks so I was more often a gunner. I've gunned for some people who were really skilled at driving and keeping us alive, while all I needed to worry about is shooting. If the driver is now sidetracked with having to take care of both roles, I feel as if he's become less effective. I really think that having two people is more better.

[kadrin]

If the devs have shown one thing pretty clear, it is that they really do care in general. But i would guess they want to see what existing veterans and new players will say about it after actually having played it in beta, instead of getting into an argument on a topic that generates so much heated debate.

This right here concerns me greatly.

I really wish they will take more seriously the feedback from us Planetside 1 veterans over the ADD generation FPS gamers. I appreciate and understand them wanting feedback from new players, but all the new players they will be getting will only have CoD, BF and Halo to look at as previous experience, and it's safe to assume that since it's what they know and like, they will want changes that make Planetside 2 more like those games, and less like Planetside.

[Warhound]

Sure you can make that argument.

I guess I'm part of the recent CoD "generation" but honestly I understand how the vets want planetside to stay well... planetside. But honestly you cant just make sweeping claims of "The only games they have experience with are CoD,BF, and halo." I have experience and many people that I know of my age have experience with other types of games as well. Sure the majority may like games you listed but don't shoehorn us just into those. Besides don't be so hesitant to change, wait till beta to pass judgement.

[kadrin]

Sure you can make that argument.

I guess I'm part of the recent CoD "generation" but honestly I understand how the vets want planetside to stay well... planetside. But honestly you cant just make sweeping claims of "The only games they have experience with are CoD,BF, and halo." I have experience and many people that I know of my age have experience with other types of games as well. Sure the majority may like games you listed but don't shoehorn just into those. Besides don't be so hesitant to change, wait till beta to pass judgement.

I will wait til beta to make a final judgement, but seeing all the changes they're making, I would say I'm making a fair statement.

We're losing certs and getting classes.
We're losing Driver and Gunner roles and getting a Driver/Gunner and Second Banana.
We're losing inventory management and getting things like ammo drops.
We're losing Sanctuaries and getting Uncaps.

I'm sure there is a lot more we're losing as well that will be copied from games like Battlefield and CoD, but I'm not about to wade through all the info we know and post it. It's just looking less and less like Planetside 2 and more like Battlefield: Planetside Edition.

[Derakarsis]

Whats stopping the devs from adding in the option for the driver to relinquish control of the main gun to a passenger when they board? Seems like a compromise of sorts to me. If you have a dedicated gunner you just toss them control- if your friends aren't online to pick it up you can retain control and not be completely worthless by yourself. Seems like a reasonable trade?

[Bags]

Only problem with that dera is that the VS tank would be odd because the main gun doesn't rotate.

[Pozidriv]

Only problem with that dera is that the VS tank would be odd because the main gun doesn't rotate.

Did they change the VS tank into a "tank destroyer" AKA turretless? Or are you talking about the hull mounted gun?

[Derakarsis]

Only problem with that dera is that the VS tank would be odd because the main gun doesn't rotate.

Wasn't sure exactly how they were handling the Magrider yet.

Assuming there's not another way around this I really think this concept is worth a redesign. I feel like its important that the other person in the tank isn't just "Along for the ride". One of the reasons I'm still playing planetside today is because of the emphasis on multi-person vehicles.

[Kipper]

Personally, I'd go for having either multiple variants much like in real life, with options for one and two seaters of the air and ground vehicles - or make the vehicles so that they can be crewed effectively by one, but 'better' by two - teamwork should always be > rambo.

In a tank - for instance, realistically, its pretty hard to drive on anything except flat, open terrain whilst looking out of a rotated turret (unless you've got 3rd person view), but take 'World of Tanks' - it can be done. So a single crew could drive and operate his gun with some practice. He might prefer it.

Add a gunner, and the tank becomes more potent - it doesn't have any more speed or armour, but the driver has the ability to see where he's going and keep moving, while the gunner has a 360 degree aim and doesn't have to worry about where he's going, so he can concentrate on aimed shots. The driver could have access to other things, perhaps a front mounted machine gun that points where he's looking and fired on his command? Smoke and countermeasures? Radar?

Same with aircraft. Today we have aircraft that can be operated by a single pilot, you fly in, lock on, fire/release both unguided and guided weapons, and your chaingun shoots where you're looking.

If you add a second man to the aircraft and maybe he could take over the rocket pods and turn them by a few degrees, or maybe he could guide fly-by-wire missiles right to impact, and provide spotting. Makes the vehicle potentially more effective, as opposed to just effective.

I'd also like to see a laser designator as an infantry weapon, so that ground squads can operate behind enemy lines and call in swift, brutally accurate airstrikes from air squads onto specific targets.

[moosepoop]

i think letting the gunner use the main gun should still be considered for an alternate mode.

[Highwind]

Effectively every tank should have the ability to be a 3 seat tank like the classic PS1 Prowler if they want. With one person the driver controls the main gun and drives, with two people the same happens and the second person gets the custom loadout gun for AI/AV/AA roles, then if the driver toggles a interface option a third person can get in a take over the main gun from the driver. The interface toggle is there to prevent a 3rd person from stealing maingun control from the driver if the extra seat isn't wanted. This idea would give maximum flexibility for the few that want to use 3 people, but still allow one person to use their tank focused skill tree in a solo sense which might come up more often then we would like to admit (no one around to gun, playing at off hours, people just plain doing their own thing and not wanting to gun).

I remember using "looking for gunner" a lot in Planetside 1 and feeling worthless... at the same time I've been in a Teamspeak setup with a skilled driver/gunner and we changed battles with our combined efforts in a tank. I think PS2 should have the option to play both ways.

[kadrin]

Effectively every tank should have the ability to be a 3 seat tank like the classic PS1 Prowler if they want. With one person the driver controls the main gun and drives, with two people the same happens and the second person gets the custom loadout gun for AI/AV/AA roles, then if the driver toggles a interface option a third person can get in a take over the main gun from the driver. The interface toggle is there to prevent a 3rd person from stealing maingun control from the driver if the extra seat isn't wanted. This idea would give maximum flexibility for the few that want to use 3 people, but still allow one person to use their tank focused skill tree in a solo sense which might come up more often then we would like to admit (no one around to gun, playing at off hours, people just plain doing their own thing and not wanting to gun).

I remember using "looking for gunner" a lot in Planetside 1 and feeling worthless... at the same time I've been in a Teamspeak setup with a skilled driver/gunner and we changed battles with our combined efforts in a tank. I think PS2 should have the option to play both ways.

You sir are a genius, and I hope the devs listen to you. That sort of option definitely needs to be in, then everyone is happy.

[Figment]

You can play both ways: get a damn Lightning if you can't find a gunner.

People should stop demanding they should be catered to if they can't even arrange a gunner. Which is the simplest of tasks.

Stop catering to lazy people!

[Bags]

Effectively every tank should have the ability to be a 3 seat tank like the classic PS1 Prowler if they want. With one person the driver controls the main gun and drives, with two people the same happens and the second person gets the custom loadout gun for AI/AV/AA roles, then if the driver toggles a interface option a third person can get in a take over the main gun from the driver. The interface toggle is there to prevent a 3rd person from stealing maingun control from the driver if the extra seat isn't wanted. This idea would give maximum flexibility for the few that want to use 3 people, but still allow one person to use their tank focused skill tree in a solo sense which might come up more often then we would like to admit (no one around to gun, playing at off hours, people just plain doing their own thing and not wanting to gun).

I remember using "looking for gunner" a lot in Planetside 1 and feeling worthless... at the same time I've been in a Teamspeak setup with a skilled driver/gunner and we changed battles with our combined efforts in a tank. I think PS2 should have the option to play both ways.

I agree. Options are good. Again, this would be weird for Magriders, but I'd love to see it for the other 2 faction tanks.

[Gandhi]

You can play both ways: get a damn Lightning if you can't find a gunner.
I agree with this. The Lightning is the one man tank.

[kadrin]

You can play both ways: get a damn Lightning if you can't find a gunner.

People should stop demanding they should be catered to if they can't even arrange a gunner. Which is the simplest of tasks.

Stop catering to lazy people!

I agree, I would much rather have the weaker 1 man Lightning roaming about than MBTs with 1 person, but seeing as how they're pretty much set on making the game as accessible as possible for everyone, regardless of how detrimental it could be to gameplay, Highwinds suggestion seems to be a good compromise. Those who are actually willing to find gunners get rewarded by tanks that can accomplish more through teamwork.

[Figment]

I don't feel like compromising or accepting a compromise when gameplay is at risk just for the sake of catering to a few power hungry/lazy people.

The mere ability to have power on your own by gunning a stationary tank (so without being able to drive) would already be a huge compromise. Especially if this is done by switching seats internally. In PS1: be in the wrong seat of a stationary tank at the wrong time, get outmaneuvred as you should. That opponent of yours is a player too, he or she should not suffer from your convenience or leisure.

If you get strengths, you should get weaknesses to exploit too. Being able to switch at will between weaknesses/strengths by for example changing gun control is already a huge tactical advantage.

[Knocky]

There is more the enough benefit in the current make up. I was initially against the driver's gunning but I have come around.

Everyone in the end will be infantry. The gunner slot on tanks will be a seat for infantry to get to the next battle. Which is better for moving 12 troopers? Six Vannys or one Sundy? BTW we will always have a Sundy with our armor column since they are so useful.

Now defending tanks might be screwed. They will have problems getting gunners....maybe....and if they don't get gunners then when the Lions tanks come over the hill fully armed and operational...then they are the next smoking wreck on the battlefield.

[EVILPIG]

You guys seriously need to wait for Beta.

[Knocky]

You guys seriously need to wait for Beta.

Why? What is the difference between knee-jerk reaction then and knee-jerk reaction now? Neither one will be valid at either time.

:D

[EVILPIG]

Why? What is the difference between knee-jerk reaction then and knee-jerk reaction now? Neither one will be valid at either time.

:D

At least people would have a frame of reference. Things that are geared to kill vehicles will kill them quickly. It's not like driving the PS1 vehicles as drivers/gunners. Also, perhaps "primary" and "secondary" are words that while correct, imply too much about the power of the weaponry. The secondary weapons will be quite powerful on their own and offer variety in their roles as well.

An easier way to picture this, balance wise, is to think of it like the current Magrider. Just call the nose gun the primary and the turret the secondary and you understand how it will be (turret aside).

[Figment]

So let me get this straight, "wait for beta" is not a knee jerk reaction way to shut up people from making a critique and leads to things being developed that need to be reverted later if possible at all and thus a waste of development time?

EDIT: Btw Knocky, your argument does not really seem to have any bearing on the in game situation. You claim that most will be infantry, but that will only be true if infantry is possible in field and is strong enough to deal with masses of vehicles. Which they won't, since not every infantry class will even have the ability to defend against vehicles by limiting AV to certain classes. And Evilpig, sorry but that's not true. The primary weapon for the driver is the secondary weapon on the current Magrider, ie. the one with most power. Confirmed by Higby. The current Magrider driver weapon is the secondary weapon. Our whole problem is around this switch around and adding the 'inverse' of the current Magrider setup to other tanks.

EDIT2: The current Magrider setup encourages a gunner to even get close to a good TTK. The new Magrider will mostly get a gunner because it will have to be rotating stationary to keep its primary weapon on target.

Waiting for beta just delays feedback that anyone with half a brain can derive from vehicle setup. Stop pretending a tank in PS2 will be wildly different from any other game where tanks are driven. You can easily derive how they will be used without even knowing what they look like.

If you know a tank has a fixed frontal gun, it will work like a TD. If it has a turret, then it will behave like a turret. If you know where the strongest weapons are located and their approximate relative strength, then you know all you need there is to derive and Beta will only confirm this.

Don't believe me on stationary Magrider firing? Go check any and I mean ANY image and video we've seen from a PS2 tank firing. Compare it to PS1. PS2 tanking will be very boring in contrast. Is that an improvement of gameplay?

[EVILPIG]

So let me get this straight, "wait for beta" is not a knee jerk reaction way to shut up people from making a critique and leads to things being developed that need to be reverted later if possible at all and thus a waste of development time?

EDIT: Btw Knocky, your argument does not really seem to have any bearing on the in game situation. You claim that most will be infantry, but that will only be true if infantry is possible in field and is strong enough to deal with masses of vehicles. Which they won't, since not every infantry class will even have the ability to defend against vehicles by limiting AV to certain classes. And Evilpig, sorry but that's not true. The primary weapon for the driver is the secondary weapon on the current Magrider, ie. the one with most power. Confirmed by Higby. The current Magrider driver weapon is the secondary weapon. Our whole problem is around this switch around and adding the 'inverse' of the current Magrider setup to other tanks.

Don't know why you come off as so worked up and you sound completely lost at what I said.

[Figment]

Evilpig, you say we don't have a frame of reference (lovely). But how can you say that? You don't apparently? That's your problem, don't speak for everyone else. I got plenty of tank experience and multiplayer experience to create a frame of reference perfectly valid for PS2 as I've played one man, two man and three men units. I know what their relative gameplay reasonings, strengths and weaknesses are. Plus we have had lots of information on PS2. All you said in that post, which I btw kinda took as "enlightening us ignorants who complain about this 'prematurely'", was stuff we already knew on page 1, while then providing a false analogy as you got what the primary and secondary weapons are and what a primary weapon means completely mixed up. You should know damn well the current Magrider's gun is a peashooter and not a primary weapon.

As most other PS vets, we utterly pwn in World of Tanks because of this pre-existing knowledge and experience.

But yeah, I do get worked up whenever people want to stick their heads into the sand and then try and force that behaviour on others. "Wait and see" is a bad, BAD attitude.

[EVILPIG]

Evilpig, you say we don't have a frame of reference (lovely). But how can you say that? You don't apparently? That's your problem, don't speak for everyone else. I got plenty of tank experience and multiplayer experience to create a frame of reference perfectly valid for PS2 as I've played one man, two man and three men units. I know what their relative gameplay reasonings, strengths and weaknesses are. Plus we have had lots of information on PS2. All you said in that post, which I btw kinda took as "enlightening us ignorants who complain about this 'prematurely'", was stuff we already knew on page 1, while then providing a false analogy as you got what the primary and secondary weapons are and what a primary weapon means completely mixed up. You should know damn well the current Magrider's gun is a peashooter and not a primary weapon.

As most other PS vets, we utterly pwn in World of Tanks because of this pre-existing knowledge and experience.

But yeah, I do get worked up whenever people want to stick their heads into the sand and then try and force that behavior on others. "Wait and see" is a bad, BAD attitude.

You still completely missed it. The "primary" weapon of the Vanguard, Prowler or Magrider, won't necessarily be more powerful than the "secondary (passenger)" weapon system. That would match the current Magrider set up, being that the driver controlled weapon is not as powerful as the turret.

You're making some pretty gross assumptions as to why I made my comments and you're coming off as pretty immature. You can have a discussion without petty insults. After 37 pages of mud-slinging, yes, "wait for Beta". At least, wait for Beta before you get your panties in a bunch over a bunch of assumptions that you feel you are more qualified to make. State your opinion, not your emotion. As for World of Tanks, members of the team have played, amongst many other games, to draw some influence. I feel like they've really done their homework (in general) and can't wait to test it out.

PM me your WoT's info, I'd love to check your credentials (since you brought them up) and would consider playing with you.

[Figment]

Evilpig, Higby said the gunner weapon would be strong, but not as strong as the main cannon. That's enough information for me.

EDIT: I'm on the Euroserver, here are my stats:
http://wot-dossier.appspot.com/dossier/131001

Been consistent with a 54% and 53% winrate (2% draw) since I started playing, random matches only. I primarily play for the team, not so much for own kills, hence I got a pretty high scouting ratio. When I do play in platoons, it's usualy with a couple BrutalDeluxe, Delta Triad, Mercenarys and 1st HotDrop or Armored Fist players. Each of them has above average stats on virtually all units they play. Platooned, an evening's winratio of 75% is not uncommon, especially when we use higher tier tanks.

[Knocky]

EDIT: Btw Knocky, your argument does not really seem to have any bearing on the in game situation. You claim that most will be infantry, but that will only be true if infantry is possible in field and is strong enough to deal with masses of vehicles. Which they won't, since not every infantry class will even have the ability to defend against vehicles by limiting AV to certain classes.

When we run our Infantry, we pretty much kill the armor or there is enough armor that they physically run us down. Why? Punisher, that is why. Granted pure infantry generally can't get enough Rocklets to keep the Reavers off our backs if THEY show up in force.

But Armor? It is to laugh. Furthermore, Biffers are so pathetic against us it is not even worth a chuckle anymore.

We have seen carbines with grenade launcher attachments so hopefully our tactics will transfer over seemlessly if we can get EMP nade for the launcher.

[Physed]

I really like the idea of giving the driver the main gun, but then passing it to the gunner if/when they get one. When the driver has it, speed up the turret swivel, but lower the accuracy.

[EVILPIG]

Evilpig, Higby said the gunner weapon would be strong, but not as strong as the main cannon. That's enough information for me.

EDIT: I'm on the Euroserver, here are my stats:
http://wot-dossier.appspot.com/dossier/131001

Been consistent with a 54% and 53% winrate (2% draw) since I started playing, random matches only. I primarily play for the team, not so much for own kills, hence I got a pretty high scouting ratio. When I do play in platoons, it's usualy with a couple BrutalDeluxe, Delta Triad, Mercenarys and 1st HotDrop or Armored Fist players. Each of them has above average stats on virtually all units they play. Platooned, an evening's winratio of 75% is not uncommon, especially when we use higher tier tanks.

Win % in pubs is not too relevant as you can kill 9 tanks and end up pitted against the last 6, but you do contribute to the win or loss, it's just not a good measure of a player. More important, but certainly not everything, is kills compared to # of battles, but still, you can do a lot of damage and not necessarily get a lot of kills. However, it is still important to look at, because if you do that damage consistently, the kills come with it. One stat that also has weight is survival % and of course accuracy (which can be drastically affected if you play arty). One has to look at the total package when judging a player, but as you stated, you like to scout, so that is not something that always shows up in stats. Shame to hear there are so many on EU as I play NA. Well, not shame for them, just shame we can't play our arsenals together. I do play with a handful of Markovians and we have a lot of fun.

Never seen that spreadsheet before, it's pretty simple and useful. Pretty cool that you can see the awards. Do you have to input it yourself?

[Figment]

Still got a positive K/D over matches. In some cases up to a good 2 kills per match. :) Unlike a lot of players though, I know when to just stay put and leave the kill to artillery, for instance. I often will go and try to "turn heads" to make sure the rest of the team can pen them, by making a circle move. Quite funny when Lowes or IS4s etc start rotating their hulls to face a KV-3 or something else smaller while there's VK45s et all aiming for them. :)

Never seen that spreadsheet before, it's pretty simple and useful. Pretty cool that you can see the awards. Do you have to input it yourself?

When you want to create your own stats there, you have to upload the file in your user -> appdata -> roaming -> World of Tanks, then some file with a lot of random letters. Update this by uploading new versions (doesn't update automatically). Should have instructions somewhere on the site.

[EVILPIG]

Evilpig, Higby said the gunner weapon would be strong, but not as strong as the main cannon. That's enough information for me.

EDIT: I'm on the Euroserver, here are my stats:
http://wot-dossier.appspot.com/dossier/131001

Been consistent with a 54% and 53% winrate (2% draw) since I started playing, random matches only. I primarily play for the team, not so much for own kills, hence I got a pretty high scouting ratio. When I do play in platoons, it's usualy with a couple BrutalDeluxe, Delta Triad, Mercenarys and 1st HotDrop or Armored Fist players. Each of them has above average stats on virtually all units they play. Platooned, an evening's winratio of 75% is not uncommon, especially when we use higher tier tanks.

Also, if I understand you, you are opposed to the current understanding that the driver will gun the main gun? And does WoT influence this position and how so?

I am interpreting that you are opposed to it, yet have success coordinating with other players in WoT?

[EVILPIG]

Still got a positive K/D over matches. In some cases up to a good 2 kills per match. :) Unlike a lot of players though, I know when to just stay put and leave the kill to artillery, for instance. I often will go and try to "turn heads" to make sure the rest of the team can pen them, by making a circle move. Quite funny when Lowes or IS4s etc start rotating their hulls to face a KV-3 or something else smaller while there's VK45s et all aiming for them. :)



When you want to create your own stats there, you have to upload the file in your user -> appdata -> roaming -> World of Tanks, then some file with a lot of random letters. Update this by uploading new versions (doesn't update automatically). Should have instructions somewhere on the site.

There you go, now you're smiling!!

[Figment]

Also, if I understand you, you are opposed to the current understanding that the driver will gun the main gun? And does WoT influence this position and how so?

I am interpreting that you are opposed to it, yet have success coordinating with other players in WoT?

WoT basically plays like a Lightning with any tank, regardless of amount of power the tank has. Often stronger tanks have no drawbacks, quite the opposite.

But I would much prefer it if heavy units in WoT were two men crews. I really liked the PlanetSide method of allowing stronger tanks, without making them overpowered on an individual player basis. WoT allows for individual players to have significantly more power and control over a battle. PS2 will in that sense go back to the Dark Ages of tanking from a gameplay perspective.

[EVILPIG]

WoT basically plays like a Lightning with any tank, regardless of amount of power the tank has. Often stronger tanks have no drawbacks, quite the opposite.

But I would much prefer it if heavy units in WoT were two men crews. I really liked the PlanetSide method of allowing stronger tanks, without making them overpowered on an individual player basis. WoT allows for individual players to have significantly more power and control over a battle. PS2 will in that sense go back to the Dark Ages of tanking from a gameplay perspective.

Would you not say that the issue with WoT is the match maker? The reason there is such an imbalance is mostly because of the spread of tiers. Usually, you're either in the top 4 vehicles, or you're basically food for them. If properly balanced, would it not be completely different?

I have heard that the Lightning may be lightly armored with a harder hitting gun than a MBT. What if a MBT has heavier armor, but the driver gun (I'm ditching "primary and secondary) is weaker? That would put them pretty much on par with each other until you add the second gunner, then the MBT pulls ahead, as it should.

It's all in the balance. We simply cannot compare PS1 to PS2, it's a different game and Beta will tell us what needs to be adjusted.

[Knocky]

Combo breaker!!!

The Evilpig/Figment mutual admiration society meeting is over!

:love::love::love:

:love::love::love:

:love::love::love:

[Figment]

*Kicks Knocky for getting in the way of our wubbing*

Would you not say that the issue with WoT is the match maker? The reason there is such an imbalance is mostly because of the spread of tiers. Usually, you're either in the top 4 vehicles, or you're basically food for them. If properly balanced, would it not be completely different?

Although I agree that the tierspread is too great in WoT, to make a comparison with PS1... Say the Lightning was a stock PzIV and a MBT a slightly higher tier heavy (say a KV-3 or even Tiger II) and these two vehicles are the only things you'll ever encounter...

Say the one costs just slightly more resources (will it?), but will stay alive longer, has more hitpoints, firepower, better armour and has the potential of even greater firepower (if someone for whatever reasons wants to get a ride), would you ever consider getting the PzIV? Or only when the bigger tank is not available for whatever reason?

Doesn't that type of default selection pains you anywhere?

I have heard that the Lightning may be lightly armored with a harder hitting gun than a MBT.

All I heard from Higby in that AGN interview was that it had a harder hitting gun than MBT gunner. Where did you hear it would have a harder hitting gun than a MBT?

What if a MBT has heavier armor, but the driver gun (I'm ditching "primary and secondary) is weaker? That would put them pretty much on par with each other until you add the second gunner, then the MBT pulls ahead, as it should.

It's all in the balance. We simply cannot compare PS1 to PS2, it's a different game and Beta will tell us what needs to be adjusted.

I'm inclined to not expect that balance because that would completely skew the roles of such vehicles. Besides, if that were the case, two Lightnings would pull miles ahead of a MBT with gunner. Then you'd make the MBT pointless.

[Azren]

well the MBT got pointless the second they decided to make it a solo mashine, so what's the big deal?

[ArmedZealot]

well the MBT got pointless the second they decided to make it a solo mashine, so what's the big deal?

why is it pointless? doesn't having the driver being a gunner make it more powerful? I can have more on the field doing more.

[EVILPIG]

I'm inclined to not expect that balance because that would completely skew the roles of such vehicles. Besides, if that were the case, two Lightnings would pull miles ahead of a MBT with gunner. Then you'd make the MBT pointless.

Two lightnings might be better, depends on the situation. Would two lightnings be better than a MBT that is set up for Anti-V/Anti-V? Would two lightnings be better than a MBT with AV/AA if air was present? Or AV/AI with infantry present?

I don't know, but I can't wait to find out!

[ThGlump]

I have heard that the Lightning may be lightly armored with a harder hitting gun than a MBT.

I remember them saying that lighting has same armor as MBT, but very vulnerable from behind - dont run from battle with them.

[Azren]

why is it pointless? doesn't having the driver being a gunner make it more powerful? I can have more on the field doing more.

Nope. Look at PS1, and see how little the Lightning is used. One manned vehicles fail in mobility. It is not possible to move and gun at the same time. Sure, it may work in BF and CoD where the maps are designed to benefit your vehicle, and the tanks are overpowered, but in PS they are fragile.
I know from my PS1 experience that most of the time I would not be able to shoot my gun, while driving. It only works if you sit back at a safe distance and "snipe" the enemy.

[Aurmanite]

Nope. Look at PS1, and see how little the Lightning is used. One manned vehicles fail in mobility. It is not possible to move and gun at the same time. Sure, it may work in BF and CoD where the maps are designed to benefit your vehicle, and the tanks are overpowered, but in PS they are fragile.
I know from my PS1 experience that most of the time I would not be able to shoot my gun, while driving. It only works if you sit back at a safe distance and "snipe" the enemy.

This is completely untrue. Towards the end of my time playing Planetside I was able to drive using the radar while firing behind me. I just paid attention to the road on the minimap. In fact, I resubbed for a month recently and still have some ability to do it. I shot down a mosquito the other night because he was lazy and didn't think I was a threat as I retreated to my base.

I could snipe MAX's and people all day doing drivebys or even just charging at them to do some mowin.

The problem the lightning had in Planetside was staying power. In many ways it was much easier to survive on foot than it was in the mini tank. AV hit it too hard and it didn't have very much health.

[PrISM]

You guys seriously need to wait for Beta.
That's a terrible cop-out that it used all to often in today's day and age where "betas" are used more for marketing than to make smart revisions to gameplay.

[Khellendros]

This is completely untrue. Towards the end of my time playing Planetside I was able to drive using the radar while firing behind me. I just paid attention to the road on the minimap. In fact, I resubbed for a month recently and still have some ability to do it. I shot down a mosquito the other night because he was lazy and didn't think I was a threat as I retreated to my base.

I could snipe MAX's and people all day doing drivebys or even just charging at them to do some mowin.

The problem the lightning had in Planetside was staying power. In many ways it was much easier to survive on foot than it was in the mini tank. AV hit it too hard and it didn't have very much health.

You, I daresay, are not typical. Most people cannot do this very well.

[Aurmanite]

You, I daresay, are not typical. Most people cannot do this very well.

Maybe

But there are a lot of players who are better than me out there.

[Figment]

You, I daresay, are not typical. Most people cannot do this very well.

There are not a lot of players that actually practised driving the Lightning if they could get a Mossie, MBT or Reaver instead. So I'd not be surprised about that.

I've seen awful, REALLY, REALLY awful Fury drivers as well. The Lightning started to get used more after the much needed armour buff. Either way, the Parthian Shot with tanks is not that hard as long as you know the local terrain well and planned your escape route.

[Aurmanite]

There are not a lot of players that actually practised driving the Lightning if they could get a Mossie, MBT or Reaver instead. So I'd not be surprised about that.

I've seen awful, REALLY, REALLY awful Fury drivers as well. The Lightning started to get used more after the much needed armour buff. Either way, the Parthian Shot with tanks is not that hard as long as you know the local terrain well and planned your escape route.

You said it, chum.

Until BFR's.

[Mackenz]

I am torn on this as well. As a Vanguard driver I usually had an outfit mate gunning, so it was all about teamwork.

On the other hand, sometimes I would gun on the Vanguard and that was a whole lot of fun.

Why not make the cert to *get* the tank Vs. get and drive it. That way you get to drive or gun (your tank, your choice). I am sure somebody will correct me, but I think with the tech they have now for say the M1A2 Abrams, driving a tank is not like the old days. And if you have that bad a driver then switch places.

[Azren]

Why not make the cert to *get* the tank Vs. get and drive it. That way you get to drive or gun (your tank, your choice). I am sure somebody will correct me, but I think with the tech they have now for say the M1A2 Abrams, driving a tank is not like the old days. And if you have that bad a driver then switch places.

The magrider would not fit in the picture.

[EVILPIG]

I am torn on this as well. As a Vanguard driver I usually had an outfit mate gunning, so it was all about teamwork.

On the other hand, sometimes I would gun on the Vanguard and that was a whole lot of fun.

Why not make the cert to *get* the tank Vs. get and drive it. That way you get to drive or gun (your tank, your choice). I am sure somebody will correct me, but I think with the tech they have now for say the M1A2 Abrams, driving a tank is not like the old days. And if you have that bad a driver then switch places.

So, you wouldn't want to drive and gun your vanny and have someone manning an AA gun as well?

[Mackenz]

The magrider would not fit in the picture.
Wait, so you don't need a cert for a Magrider?

I am sure you didn't mean that. Anyway, I guess the unique flavour of the Magrider is lost now in PS2. My comment at end about driver/gunner with independent control of each might be a win for Magriders, or are they unlocking the rail gun on the Vanu MBT?

So, you wouldn't want to drive and gun your vanny and have someone manning an AA gun as well?

Which context? That is:


PS1-style, no - my comment stands;
PS2-style, don't know, haven't tried it. What I win on the swings (fun gunning for myself) I lose on the roundabout (teamwork driving and manning the main gun). Also efficient control (see below).


My comment was a half-way between. Until I try it I won't know.

To be honest, until I try aiming the main gun *and* driving in tricky terrain, I suspect that the dual role will not be ideal. Heck I know just driving in the heat of battle in PS1 I wound up a few times with a submarine and not a Vanguard. Or up a cliff. Or a bunch of other stuff.

[Malorn]

So in PS1 it was common for the classic footzerg to march from one objective to the nearest hostile objective. The zerg always travels the path of least resistance, so you can use that principle to predict how each empire will typically progress across Indar by a close inspection of the terrain, roads, and positions of the outposts/facilities. Alas I digress...

The most significant change with the one-man tanks is that instead of footzerging I think we'll end up seeing a lot more people roll out tanks because they won't need to wait for a gunner. Additionally a lot of people didn't even have tanks certed unless they ran with a set of people they typically had gun, so the fact that you don't need to spend certs on a tank and that the tank is effective with just a single person I predict the amount of armor on the field will increase substantially in PS2 vs what we saw in PS1.

The ability to instantly switch seats also makes me believe that if someone has a tank and has no intention of running a gunner they will always have an AA secondary gun configuration. Why? Because even if they dont' have a gunner they can easily switch into the gunner seat and deal with any air threat that comes their way. If someone does happen to hop in the gunner seat - great, but if not its no big deal.

Now if we see a significant increase in armor and a significant increase in AA where every tank can effectively go into Skyguard-mode ground forces will be rolling no-fly zones. The only conceivable way to prevent this would be to have the AA gun upgrade prohibitively expensive resource-wise - to the point where you wouldn't want to get the upgrade unless you did in fact have a gunner to man it full-time to justify the expense.

The large number of tanks might also make the re-imagined Liberator gunship actually useful. Similar to the tank situation you have the Liberator - why run a liberator when you could have 2 ES Aircraft specialized for air-to-ground? The only solution I could see to that question is that the Liberator is significantly better at destroying ground targets than a Air-to-Ground specialized ES Aircraft.

Its hard to predict the dynamic, but I have a feeling that the AA upgrade for tanks will be expensive, and that the same upgrade for the Lightning will be cheaper, making the Lightning the effective replacement of the Skygaurd.

I also believe the Liberator exists specifically to control the tank population and I predict it will be very good at its role. I'm speculating that the reason they ditched the bombs and went with the Gunship approach is due to the fact that a gunship design is simply better at taking out tanks than trying to make a dive-bomber. The Dive-bomber role is also roughly what a Reaver/Mosq/Scythe would be with air-to-ground rockets. If the Liberator retained its previous role it would be very similar and likely less effective than a pair of ES aircraft, so they switched it to a more effective tank-busting platform with a dedicated gunner + pilot guns, and like the attack helicopters of the modern day, it's probably going to have camera-guided and lock-on missiles to take out tanks significantly more effectively than the ES Aircraft.

The point I'm trying to make in all this is that i believe the 1-man tank is central to the entire balance of PS2. The end result will be a lot more vehicle combat, less footzerging, and the Lightning & Liberator will have important roles that we haven't much talked about. The Liberator being the best tank-buster and the lightning being the effcient vehicle AA platform. Augmenting both of those you have the configurable ES tanks and aircraft. It's well-balanced IMO, and I think we'll all have a lot more vehicle action and fun. Hopefully the vehicle terminals can handle the volume of hardware that hundreds of players will be requesting at any one time.

[Bags]

Good thoughts, malorn.

[Mechzz]

The point I'm trying to make in all this is that i believe the 1-man tank is central to the entire balance of PS2. The end result will be a lot more vehicle combat, less footzerging, and the Lightning & Liberator will have important roles that we haven't much talked about. The Liberator being the best tank-buster and the lightning being the effcient vehicle AA platform. Augmenting both of those you have the configurable ES tanks and aircraft. It's well-balanced IMO, and I think we'll all have a lot more vehicle action and fun. Hopefully the vehicle terminals can handle the volume of hardware that hundreds of players will be requesting at any one time.

This was a great summary Malorn, well put. You even made me think a bit more about this topic.

I guess we'll see in beta (*sighs* - still no Dev post spotted in the gun/drive threads), but I think the point still stands that those who prefer to only drive because they suck at gunning or like to have their main gunner shouting in their ears are losing out with this change.

[Mackenz]

Hmm you some interesting points on the removing the foot zerg Malorn. I was not aware the AA on the MBTs was going to be a replacement for the Skyguard - I was thinking it was just a chaingun/machinegun of some sort, which is not the most effective.

I do shudder to think of stopping a one-man MBT to man the AA when aircraft are around - that seems like 'shoot me now' caption put on my head, but if the AA is actually effective for one-sies attacks by air I can see it working. And if you have a lot of air then you better get an AA gunner.

I am still not convinced that the drive and gun MBTs will be as efficient as old style (when they were fully manned). The Magrider had maneuverability to counter the fixed gun, which won't be the case for the track vehicles. As Mechzz says until the Beta this is all a bit of a mystery, at least to me.

[Coreldan]

Hmm you some interesting points on the removing the foot zerg Malorn. I was not aware the AA on the MBTs was going to be a replacement for the Skyguard - I was thinking it was just a chaingun/machinegun of some sort, which is not the most effective.

I do shudder to think of stopping a one-man MBT to man the AA when aircraft are around - that seems like 'shoot me now' caption put on my head, but if the AA is actually effective for one-sies attacks by air I can see it working. And if you have a lot of air then you better get an AA gunner.

I am still not convinced that the drive and gun MBTs will be as efficient as old style (when they were fully manned). The Magrider had maneuverability to counter the fixed gun, which won't be the case for the track vehicles. As Mechzz says until the Beta this is all a bit of a mystery, at least to me.

Not just the MBT secondary gun, but also the new Lightning is supposedly a multiplatform thing, that can be customized into AA/AV/AI probably, that should be outdoing the MBT secondary gun.

I just realized... Flash & Lightning, both NS vehicles, that probably explains the random sounding name.

[Figment]

So we still get the Bolt and Thunder(er)? ;p

[EVILPIG]

So in PS1 it was common for the classic footzerg to march from one objective to the nearest hostile objective. The zerg always travels the path of least resistance, so you can use that principle to predict how each empire will typically progress across Indar by a close inspection of the terrain, roads, and positions of the outposts/facilities. Alas I digress...

The most significant change with the one-man tanks is that instead of footzerging I think we'll end up seeing a lot more people roll out tanks because they won't need to wait for a gunner. Additionally a lot of people didn't even have tanks certed unless they ran with a set of people they typically had gun, so the fact that you don't need to spend certs on a tank and that the tank is effective with just a single person I predict the amount of armor on the field will increase substantially in PS2 vs what we saw in PS1.

The ability to instantly switch seats also makes me believe that if someone has a tank and has no intention of running a gunner they will always have an AA secondary gun configuration. Why? Because even if they dont' have a gunner they can easily switch into the gunner seat and deal with any air threat that comes their way. If someone does happen to hop in the gunner seat - great, but if not its no big deal.

Now if we see a significant increase in armor and a significant increase in AA where every tank can effectively go into Skyguard-mode ground forces will be rolling no-fly zones. The only conceivable way to prevent this would be to have the AA gun upgrade prohibitively expensive resource-wise - to the point where you wouldn't want to get the upgrade unless you did in fact have a gunner to man it full-time to justify the expense.

The large number of tanks might also make the re-imagined Liberator gunship actually useful. Similar to the tank situation you have the Liberator - why run a liberator when you could have 2 ES Aircraft specialized for air-to-ground? The only solution I could see to that question is that the Liberator is significantly better at destroying ground targets than a Air-to-Ground specialized ES Aircraft.

Its hard to predict the dynamic, but I have a feeling that the AA upgrade for tanks will be expensive, and that the same upgrade for the Lightning will be cheaper, making the Lightning the effective replacement of the Skygaurd.

I also believe the Liberator exists specifically to control the tank population and I predict it will be very good at its role. I'm speculating that the reason they ditched the bombs and went with the Gunship approach is due to the fact that a gunship design is simply better at taking out tanks than trying to make a dive-bomber. The Dive-bomber role is also roughly what a Reaver/Mosq/Scythe would be with air-to-ground rockets. If the Liberator retained its previous role it would be very similar and likely less effective than a pair of ES aircraft, so they switched it to a more effective tank-busting platform with a dedicated gunner + pilot guns, and like the attack helicopters of the modern day, it's probably going to have camera-guided and lock-on missiles to take out tanks significantly more effectively than the ES Aircraft.

The point I'm trying to make in all this is that i believe the 1-man tank is central to the entire balance of PS2. The end result will be a lot more vehicle combat, less footzerging, and the Lightning & Liberator will have important roles that we haven't much talked about. The Liberator being the best tank-buster and the lightning being the efficient vehicle AA platform. Augmenting both of those you have the configurable ES tanks and aircraft. It's well-balanced IMO, and I think we'll all have a lot more vehicle action and fun. Hopefully the vehicle terminals can handle the volume of hardware that hundreds of players will be requesting at any one time.

Also, don't forget infantry. Infantry geared for AV will probably be effective in their role and given the terrain, infantry will be be harder to kill.

Speaking of the terrain, it will be much less forgiving given that the physics will allow for roll overs and such.

As for vehicle terminals, I would imagine that infantry will need to capture each capture point and I do not believe that each capture point will have vehicle terminals.

Either way, all so much that Beta will answer for us and adjustments will be made as needed.

[EVILPIG]

So we still get the Bolt and Thunder(er)? ;p

Not specifically, but customization of vehicles will probably allow configurations that fill their roles. I would imagine that eventually such options will be added to the game via the shop or simple expansion.

[Azren]

Wait, so you don't need a cert for a Magrider?

You don't need certs for anything. All you need is to unlock them, which takes time, but you don't have to keep investing your limited amount of points (like in PS1) to use them.

Anyway, what I meant is that the magrider now has a fixed forward main gun, so you can not add on option to unlock it for gunner.

[Kipper]

So an empire specific MBT is going to have 2 seats, one for driver/gunner and second for module slot, which can be AA?

Doesn't make sense to me. What I imagined was that the MBT would have a driver and turret seat, and the turret would be interchangeable for AV/AA or other specific role guns. So you could be one or the other, but not all things to all people.

For the driver who wants to gun - I would suggest making the driver the 'commander' and being able to pop out the top (figuratively speaking, i'm sure they've dispensed with that in the future) and utilise a .50 cal or equivalent but NOT the main gun.

Otherwise the 2nd seat is going to be a bit of a spare part / passenger only thing IMO.

Just my thoughts.

[EVILPIG]

So an empire specific MBT is going to have 2 seats, one for driver/gunner and second for module slot, which can be AA?

Doesn't make sense to me. What I imagined was that the MBT would have a driver and turret seat, and the turret would be interchangeable for AV/AA or other specific role guns. So you could be one or the other, but not all things to all people.

For the driver who wants to gun - I would suggest making the driver the 'commander' and being able to pop out the top (figuratively speaking, i'm sure they've dispensed with that in the future) and utilise a .50 cal or equivalent but NOT the main gun.

Otherwise the 2nd seat is going to be a bit of a spare part / passenger only thing IMO.

Just my thoughts.

1. Remember it's a game and it's all in the balance.

2. These are futuristic weapon systems and there is no reason to believe that they could not be built to be operated by one person (just like a video game).

3. The "main" gun won't necessarily be the strongest weapon system.

[Figment]

Evilpig, it WILL be the strongest weapon. That's ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED. Besides, that's why it is called the MAIN or primary gun.

[EVILPIG]

Evilpig, it WILL be the strongest weapon. That's ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED. Besides, that's why it is called the MAIN or primary gun.

I don't know what your confirmation that the driver controlled weapon will be the strongest is, but everything is wide open to tweaking. It has been said that the "secondary" weapon may be stronger.

Not everything that is said is rock solid and it would be too time consuming to put a disclaimer on the end of every statement.

[Malorn]

I haven't heard anything saying that main gun (driver gun) is the strongest.

What I have heard is that the secondary guns are "no joke".

I think it's reasonable to conclude that in order for the secondary gun to not be a joke it needs to be significantly better than the primary gun in whatever role is chosen (AV/AI/AA), otherwise you have absolutely no reason to man the gun over pulling another tank.

I expect the main gun will be a general "all purpose" AI/AV gun, but not super effective at either. As in, it'll take many shots to blow up another tank and it'll probably take multiple shots to kill infantry. By comparison a mortar on the top of the tank will be far more effective against infantry, making it more worthwhile than running two tanks - IF your purpose is infantry suppression.

By my rough expectations, I believe the secondary gun needs to be at least 2x as effective in its role over the main gun in order to justify the resource cost of the upgrade and the opportunity cost of not having a second tank.

So if you had 1 tank with a mortar secondary gun (AI config), it would be roughly as effective at taking out infantry as 3 tanks w/o gunners. Likewise, a tank w/ AV secondary gun would be 3x as effective at taking out tanks.

If that isn't true, then pulling a second tank will always be a better choice.

[Kipper]

Right, so what we're really saying is that the primary gun is actually what everyone is calling the secondary gun.

To me, it makes sense that the weapon referred to as being "primary" is the one that has the most power, regardless of who operates it. "Secondary" is the back up / nice-to-have-but-not-crucial weapon, again, regardless of who operates it.

It seems that most people are simply referring to the "primary" gun as being the one thats operated by the person who is in seat #1, and the "secondary" gun being the one operated by seat #2.

[EVILPIG]

Right, so what we're really saying is that the primary gun is actually what everyone is calling the secondary gun.

To me, it makes sense that the weapon referred to as being "primary" is the one that has the most power, regardless of who operates it. "Secondary" is the back up / nice-to-have-but-not-crucial weapon, again, regardless of who operates it.

It seems that most people are simply referring to the "primary" gun as being the one thats operated by the person who is in seat #1, and the "secondary" gun being the one operated by seat #2.

That is why I changed the wording to "Driver Operated" and "Passenger Operated" a few pages back. "Primary" and "Main" just gravitate opinion to power.

[Malorn]

I think people get confused and hung up on "primary" = strong, "secondary" = weak

A better way to look at it might be Primary = All-Purpose, Secondary = Specialized

The secondary one isn't necessarily better than the primary...I'm betting it depends on the role. Like the AI secondary gun will certainly be better at killing infantry than the primary gun but it will be worse against vehicles than the primary gun.

[Figment]

The main cannon of a tank will always be better at AV than whatever you put on top.

That's the point of having a cannon. Period, I don't even understand why you consider the possibility that the gun around which the entire turret is built is the weakest. That would be completely insane. Being "no joke" (whole quote) means it has "substantial power", but we also already heard the secondary gun has less power than the Lightning's specialised weaponry. And a Lightning is NOT a Main Battle Tank. Unless of course they make another main battle tank out of the Lightning, which would be rather quaint from a gameplay as well as a 'PS tradition' perspective.

AI and AA guns on top of a tank are primarily there for defensive purposes, an AV gunner would be there for increased firepower, but the gunner in the current PS2 tank setup is not the controller of the majority of power. The theorizing that's going on may sound nice on paper, but is not reflected or supported by anything I've heard or seen so far.

Quite the contrary.

One of the biggest unlock lines for mbt's are secondary weapon unlocks. You'll be able to switch out a variety of weapons up there that add a ton to your tank's situational viability. These will rival the power of the main guns depending on the vehicle and situation and will be a lot of fun to use. Imagine putting a mortar cannon on top of your vanguard, now you can sit behind cover and shell an area; or, add an AA Flak cannon for defending against reavers. There will be a lot of variation here and having a good secondary gunner will always be a major benefit.

See, Higby says rivals, not equals. And even if you equal the main cannon, the AV gun is still pointless compared to getting a second tank. Less or equal power and ONE tank hull, or equal power, but twice the endurance by having two tank hulls. No matter how much you try to twist and turn it, NOBODY who can get their own tank at the same time, will opt to gun an AV gun on a tank. No serious armour outfit would even consider it. They'd all get AA guns, especially if the new Liberator is supposedly so good at fighting ground vech. AI gun is probably almost pointless enough to not consider gunning as well if you have a main gun with the rate of fire and damage dealt as we saw in the demo (three accurate shots in as many seconds, no way infantry can kill a tank by then). On top of that, infantry can always be easily targeted by the main gun, aircraft cannot. AA will be the only useful secondary weapon.

Developing an AV secondary gun for a MBT where the driver has a more powerful gun is an absolute waste of development resources, IMO.

[Malorn]

See, Higby says rivals, not equals.

That word does not mean what you think it means.

[Kipper]

Sorry to be still confused. In your quote, Higby is referring to the "secondary" gun being the 2nd seat / turret gun, and implying that will be the tougher gun - or at least the one with more versatility.

This makes me very happy, because to be truly effective in a tank will require 2 people, but alone, you won't be exactly defenceless - just mostly.

Secondary = second seat, not second choice.

[EVILPIG]

The main cannon of a tank will always be better at AV than whatever you put on top.

That's the point of having a cannon. Period, I don't even understand why you consider the possibility that the gun around which the entire turret is built is the weakest. That would be completely insane. Being "no joke" (whole quote) means it has "substantial power", but we also already heard the secondary gun has less power than the Lightning's specialised weaponry. And a Lightning is NOT a Main Battle Tank. Unless of course they make another main battle tank out of the Lightning, which would be rather quaint from a gameplay as well as a 'PS tradition' perspective.

AI and AA guns on top of a tank are primarily there for defensive purposes, an AV gunner would be there for increased firepower, but the gunner in the current PS2 tank setup is not the controller of the majority of power. The theorizing that's going on may sound nice on paper, but is not reflected or supported by anything I've heard or seen so far.

Quite the contrary.



See, Higby says rivals, not equals. And even if you equal the main cannon, the AV gun is still pointless compared to getting a second tank. Less or equal power and ONE tank hull, or equal power, but twice the endurance by having two tank hulls. No matter how much you try to twist and turn it, NOBODY who can get their own tank at the same time, will opt to gun an AV gun on a tank. No serious armour outfit would even consider it. They'd all get AA guns, especially if the new Liberator is supposedly so good at fighting ground vech. AI gun is probably almost pointless enough to not consider gunning as well if you have a main gun with the rate of fire and damage dealt as we saw in the demo (three accurate shots in as many seconds, no way infantry can kill a tank by then). On top of that, infantry can always be easily targeted by the main gun, aircraft cannot. AA will be the only useful secondary weapon.

Developing an AV secondary gun for a MBT where the driver has a more powerful gun is an absolute waste of development resources, IMO.


I don't know why you think that something that rivals something else must be less powerful. I was told different wording. Either way, he clearly speaks of how it will be situational. As for your 2 tanks > 1 tank, as 2 tanks who are getting ripped up by a reaver and can't put their "Main" guns on it. Are you begining to see any of this?

Either way, we'll really find out in Beta, won't we?

[Mackenz]

See, Higby says rivals, not equals. And even if you equal the main cannon, the AV gun is still pointless compared to getting a second tank. Less or equal power and ONE tank hull, or equal power, but twice the endurance by having two tank hulls. No matter how much you try to twist and turn it, NOBODY who can get their own tank at the same time, will opt to gun an AV gun on a tank. No serious armour outfit would even consider it. They'd all get AA guns, especially if the new Liberator is supposedly so good at fighting ground vech. AI gun is probably almost pointless enough to not consider gunning as well if you have a main gun with the rate of fire and damage dealt as we saw in the demo (three accurate shots in as many seconds, no way infantry can kill a tank by then). On top of that, infantry can always be easily targeted by the main gun, aircraft cannot. AA will be the only useful secondary weapon.

Malorn mentioned it above, and so does your quote of Higby - an AI mortar is an incredibly useful weapon that cannot be replaced by the AI of the 'main' or driver gun.

The driver gun is direct fire. Try getting to infantry in defilade with that. A mortar is incredibly useful there - I can see it being a requirement for any attack against hilly or complex terrain.

Although maybe not relevant to PS2 (Teller mine or engineer satchel charge equivalents not available to PS2?), but an AI dual/quad mount is extremely useful for 'hosing' tanks down if swarmed by enemy infantry - try doing that with a 150mm shell with less griefing ;).

An additional dedicated AV weapon may not be as useful, but there are AV missiles that also provide that top-down attack (think the Javelin in the US Army*). Again, useful for AV hull-down situations - terrain and enemy composition dictates the load outs - as it should. Of course, infantry AV weapons may also get to hull-down AVs (ah my Phoenix, how I loved you), but if the range is long and activity is hot I can see an AV missile load out. Of course, you *could* just get Libs/Reavers too, but we are talking possible uses, not what you would necessarily use.

I think the Beta will reveal the possibilities of all this stuff, and more.

* Edit: Clarified the Javelin is a weapon in the US Army, not PS2.

[Fenrys]

AI gun is probably almost pointless

What you are saying makes sense in theory, but I'm going to reserve judgement until beta.

For all we know, the AI weapon could be a belt-fed, full-auto sniper rifle that can down 2-3 infantry between shots of the main gun.

Also, an AV 2ndary will probably be pointless most of the time. It can be useful in choke points where the limiting factor is not the number of players in your platoon but how many of them can fit into the front row of the column and take a shot.

For example, in a 4 v 4 fight, where one team has 4 tanks, and one team has 2 tanks with AV 2ndary, the team of 2 might be able to maneuver so that only 2 of the opposing tanks have line of sight. I think the end result of such a fight would probably be that a single 2 person tank is left mostly undamaged, and the other 5 tanks are destroyed. The 4 tank team would have twice the hitpoints, but the 2 tank team would have twice the local firepower and occasionally 4x after a single person tank is blown up but before the next can maneuver to replace it.

[Figment]

I don't know why you think that something that rivals something else must be less powerful. I was told different wording. Either way, he clearly speaks of how it will be situational. As for your 2 tanks > 1 tank, as 2 tanks who are getting ripped up by a reaver and can't put their "Main" guns on it. Are you begining to see any of this?

Either way, we'll really find out in Beta, won't we?

If they can switch seats (what some people here want), I see them ripping that Reaver apart, tbh. But beyond that, Piggy, you are hopelessly behind in the discussion. It's a completely irrelevant point because one single tank with two AV guns stands even less of a chance against that Reaver. So I'd still opt for two tanks.

Why you ask? Clearly two MBTs don't have access to AA? Depends on if they can switch seats of course, but we're talking about 2 people who can pick any one man tank combi.

If I speak of tanks, I'm speaking of AV-AV MBT combo, AV MBT-AA Lightning combo and AV MBT - AI Lightning. I would never opt for a gunner myself, if I know what I'll be facing I'm still not going to bring a gunner. Especially not if the Lightning has better weapons than the gunner, which it has.

And if the Lightning even is going to rival a MBT in hitpoints, boy, is the gunner pointless.

[Malorn]

The AV options for the gunner slot could be extremely effective against vehicles. An AV gunner option for a tank could be a super-powerful wire-guided or camera-guided missile. Or it could be a lock-on rocket pod. Or it could be like the heavy rail gun from the NC BFR in PS1.

The mechanics of the weapon could be huge deciding factors. Just like the mortar hits infantry more effectively, guidance systems for AV weaponry will make them more effective, while simultaneously making it near-useless against infantry. Thus the main gun remains a general-purpose cannon reasonably effective against most targets, while the secondary gun is a specialized gun that really buffs the tank against specific targets.

Think of the buggy guns from PS1. The Ground-Pounder on the Marauder was extremely effective against infantry. The Enforcer recoilless rifle was effective against all targets but it was easy to hit tanks with it since it had a flat trajectory.

There's a lot of options for secondary guns that by their nature can make them much more effective against targets, but not effective at all against the types it isn't designed to be.

Flak cannon is another good example. Flak is great against aircraft - WAY better than the tank's main gun. But against armor or infantry it's damn near worthless.

Translate flak cannon into AI or AV options and I think you'll get an idea of how the gunner specializations can be highly effective AT THE ROLE THE ARE INTENDED TO FILL, while the main gun remains reasonably effective against most targets.

So tank w/ Anti-tank missiles => owns tanks, but is not really any more effective against infantry or aircraft than a gunnerless tank.

Tank w/ Anti-infantry mortars => owns infantry, but not much more effective against other tanks or aircrat

Tank w/ flak cannon => owns aircraft, but no more effective against anything else than a gunnerless tank.

It depends on the role, but they can make those guns highly effective and it is balanced because they are only effective at a specific role.

Resources might come into play here also. It might be much cheaper to trick out a tank and add a gunner slot upgrade than to run two tricked out tanks without gunners. So resources could be used to balance this as well.

[EVILPIG]

What you are saying makes sense in theory, but I'm going to reserve judgement until beta.

For all we know, the AI weapon could be a belt-fed, full-auto sniper rifle that can down 2-3 infantry between shots of the main gun.

Also, an AV 2ndary will probably be pointless most of the time. It can be useful in choke points where the limiting factor is not the number of players in your platoon but how many of them can fit into the front row of the column and take a shot.

I don't believe infantry will be just flat stuck at the mercy of a tank. Yes, a tank should and probably will easily kill infantry, but AV equipped infantry will probably kill a tank quickly and will be such a large target.

[Figment]

That word does not mean what you think it means.

Rivaling is trying to be better, but it doesn't, it doesn't bring its own armour. It would have to be three times better than the main gun to be worthwhile. And that's not what it is, because it's worse than the Lightning.

ie. on paper it sounds nice, in practice, it'll be a nice piece of decoration on your tank.

[Malorn]

Rivaling is trying to be better, but it doesn't, it doesn't bring its own armour. It would have to be three times better than the main gun to be worthwhile. And that's not what it is, because it's worse than the Lightning.

ie. on paper it sounds nice, in practice, it'll be a nice piece of decoration on your tank.

Dictionary.com is your friend. Rival means a competitor, an equal. If something fell short of being competitive then it would by definition not be a rival.

Also where do you get your information that the secondary gun is worse than the lightning?

[Figment]

Dictionary.com is your friend. Rival means a competitor, an equal. If something fell short of being competitive then it would by definition not be a rival.

Read very carefully: It. Does. Not. Bring. It's. Own. Endurance. It is NOT an equal unless it is two times more powerful.Two times, because that's how much damage it has to put out to equal two tanks with two main guns of "equal" strength.

Check the maths thread I made earlier for the why (probably page two now). It has to do with the opposition only firing at one tank at a time, meaning the "secondary" gun (on the other tank) can fire freely for "two" lives (the one of the other tank and his own). In contrast, if they were on one tank, they can fire at two tanks yes, but only for the lifespan of one tank.

Also where do you get your information that the secondary gun is worse than the lightning?

Vehicle webcast.

[Malorn]

Your broken sentence didn't make your message any more comprehensible.

Also please link the webcast.

[Figment]

Your broken sentence didn't make your message any more comprehensible.

Come on Malorn, you know what hitpoints are don't you? You can figure it out!

Also please link the webcast.

SOE Community Webcast: PlanetSide 2 Nanite Systems Vehicles - YouTube

Somewhere in the bit about the Lightning.

[Figment]

Alright, let's say Gun 1 (driver) does damage (D1) and Gun 2 (gunner) does damage (D2). Now, I'm not going to bother with firing modes. Tank has a total of armour (Arm) that provides endurance. Alright? For the sake of argument, I'm going to equate Arm to endurance directly (depends in reality on gun firing at it, normally the attrition would determine just how fast it dies, but that's irrelevant right now since I'm only going to adress the same tanks being used against eachother).

So, damage dealt by one tank is Arm * (D1*rof + D2*rof). So let's assume D1 and D2 put out equal damage over time. Then total damage potential is 2Arm*D1*rof, for one tank with two gunners of "equal" strength.

Now, if we bring two tanks, things are different. And then I'm not even talking about bonus to damage dealing time by outmaneuvring an enemy (getting behind their turrets, rotation speed and angles).

Just looking at endurance and firepower, two tanks have 2Arm * 2(D1*rof), not counting any gunners that might jump in along the way by accident. So, we got 4Arm*D1*rof, which is twice as much firepower-endurance.

That means that with one opponent, with two crew in both situations, you only need to wear down ONE lifespan worth of armour when facing a tank with two people in it. On the other hand, two tanks are two lifespans and you can only kill one in the time they need to kill you since both the single tank and two tanks have equal firepower.

So although it'll be equally fast at killing one single tank (2D1*rof), it will not win as its guns are mere equals (or less) between the crews. Simply because it has to deal twice as much damage in the same time. One of your opponents will not have taken damage at all in the time it took for you to kill the other, it will get another full lifetime to hit on you, so in total you are basically fighting "three lifetimes" worth of tank. You can't possibly win that with equal guns.

So to compensate, you need a much, MUCH stronger secondary weapon to bring down the total TTK to a half of the original in the case of AV. Hence it needs to be at least twice as strong as the main gun seeing as you are fighting three lifespans of tanks vs your one.



In any case, by the time it kills one tank, it itself is already dead or limping. I don't understand why this isn't obvious?



Having the ability to fire at different angles like mortars will only make it harder to hit, IMO, that'd be a weakness over two straight or almost straight firing weapons. Mortars are after all very situational weapons. In fact, given the experience we had with the Aurora, I'd say it's a severe weakness, more so at range.

[NewSith]

"...And it goes on, and on, and on,
It's Heaven and Hell!..."
Black Sabbath

[Mackenz]

Alright, let's say Gun 1 (driver) does damage (D1) and Gun 2 (gunner) does damage (D2). Now, I'm not going to bother with firing modes. Tank has a total of armour (Arm) that provides endurance. Alright? For the sake of argument, I'm going to equate Arm to endurance directly (depends in reality on gun firing at it, normally the attrition would determine just how fast it dies, but that's irrelevant right now since I'm only going to adress the same tanks being used against eachother).

So, damage dealt by one tank is Arm * (D1*rof + D2*rof). So let's assume D1 and D2 put out equal damage over time. Then total damage potential is 2Arm*D1*rof, for one tank with two gunners of "equal" strength.

Now, if we bring two tanks, things are different. And then I'm not even talking about bonus to damage dealing time by outmaneuvring an enemy (getting behind their turrets, rotation speed and angles).

Just looking at endurance and firepower, two tanks have 2Arm * 2(D1*rof), not counting any gunners that might jump in along the way by accident. So, we got 4Arm*D1*rof, which is twice as much firepower-endurance.

That means that with one opponent, with two crew in both situations, you only need to wear down ONE lifespan worth of armour when facing a tank with two people in it. On the other hand, two tanks are two lifespans and you can only kill one in the time they need to kill you since both the single tank and two tanks have equal firepower.

So although it'll be equally fast at killing one single tank (2D1*rof), it will not win as its guns are mere equals (or less) between the crews. Simply because it has to deal twice as much damage in the same time. One of your opponents will not have taken damage at all in the time it took for you to kill the other, it will get another full lifetime to hit on you, so in total you are basically fighting "three lifetimes" worth of tank. You can't possibly win that with equal guns.

So to compensate, you need a much, MUCH stronger secondary weapon to bring down the total TTK to a half of the original in the case of AV. Hence it needs to be at least twice as strong as the main gun seeing as you are fighting three lifespans of tanks vs your one.

In any case, by the time it kills one tank, it itself is already dead or limping. I don't understand why this isn't obvious

Having the ability to fire at different angles like mortars will only make it harder to hit, IMO, that'd be a weakness over two straight or almost straight firing weapons. Mortars are after all very situational weapons. In fact, given the experience we had with the Aurora, I'd say it's a severe weakness, more so at range.

If indirect fire in PS2 is as useless (and direct fire only ever worthwhile) as you are making it out to be, even just indirect AI fire, then it will be a very linear and two-dimensional game. That makes me a sad panda.

On the other hand, jet packs are already in to provide the extra dimension, so I have hope indirect fire will be important, situational and key to good leadership.

[Figment]

If indirect fire in PS2 is as useless (and direct fire only ever worthwhile) as you are making it out to be, even just indirect AI fire, then it will be a very linear and two-dimensional game. That makes me a sad panda.

I'd always put more value on non-arced weapons since dogfighting tanks will happen more than special situations. Most people will opt for the most flexible setup, meaning they could engage completely different types of units. Air is more different than infantry in that sense, thus AA.

On the other hand, jet packs are already in to provide the extra dimension, so I have hope indirect fire will be important, situational and key to good leadership.

Don't really see how jetpacks lead to indirect fire, rather than being more twitchskill and vertical leading demanding. Btw, they won't be able of firing AV I think? So how big will infantry threat be if most classes cannot defend themselves against vehicles in general?

[Gandhi]

"...And it goes on, and on, and on,
It's Heaven and Hell!..."
Black Sabbath
This is the thread that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my friend
Some people, started arguing not knowing what it was
And they'll continue arguing forever just because
This is the thread that never ends
...

[Mackenz]

I'd always put more value on non-arced weapons since dogfighting tanks will happen more than special situations. Most people will opt for the most flexible setup, meaning they could engage completely different types of units. Air is more different than infantry in that sense, thus AA.

Actually, I quite disagree - terrain height and obstacles can make direct fire useless. But I don't think that is convincing for you. Given a defense that is rounded, your will be useless in tanks.

Don't really see how jetpacks lead to indirect fire, rather than being more twitchskill and vertical leading demanding. Btw, they won't be able of firing AV I think? So how big will infantry threat be if most classes cannot defend themselves against vehicles in general?

I meant jetpacks demonstrates the use of dimensionality to PS2, so hence hopeful for that to continue to tank loadout options.

As for AV threat by infantry, if the Phoenix is in PS2, I and my Phoenix buddies will eat your tank lunch hiding behind and using indirect fire. And the rest of my buddies will be covering my butt.

I suspect that that won't sway you to needing indirect fire on a tank though, which is nice for me and my buddies :).

[Fenrys]

What was more useful against infantry hiding behind cover in PS1: the NC particle cannon or the VS mortar?

How about Thunderer v. Aurora?

Indirect fire is terrible outside of point-blank range.

[Figment]

Mack, you assume a whole lot of things. Engineer or heavy assault don't have jetpacks. CAN they get up on things? Mortar will be equally useless against cover due to arc not being steep enough.

What was more useful against infantry hiding behind cover in PS1: the NC particle cannon or the VS mortar?

How about Thunderer v. Aurora?

Indirect fire is terrible outside of point-blank range.

Thunderer.

Don't drive up to them from the front. Drive up from behind. Get twenty one shot kills.

[sylphaen]

Wow, if you say the aurora sucked vs. infantry, you never gunned for one properly.

The aurora gun was the best AI in-game both short, medium and long range. You could accurately hit the same mark at max range by using the single-shot mode.

With both gunners shooting at the same location from max range, the aurora was effectively a field mortar. At short range, it was the real "thresher".

[Malorn]

I think that Figment and I are probably talking about the same thing, but I have a really hard time understanding him.

The webcast was informative, but I didn't see anything in there about the lightning being a superior tank. It had different tradeoffs and was listed as effectively the Skyguard of PS2 so it was the best ground-based AA, but it comes with the price of HP.


As far as equations go you can mathematically determine at what point a secondary gun needs to be better than a main gun in overall effectiveness to justify having it around.

Pure Tank vs Tank scenario:

Lets say tanks have 100 effective hit points.
Lets say tanks have 5 effective dps (to simplify damage, rate of fire, accuracy, etc). So normally a tank would take 20 seconds to destroy another tank, and all things being equal, the tanks would destroy each other in a 1v1 fight.

Now lets take two tanks vs 1 tank, same numbers as above.
The one tank still has 5dps and 100 hp,
the two tanks now have 10dps for the first 100hp, and then 5 dps for the second, assuming the one tank focuses one at a time (which would be dumb if he didn't).

The two tanks will destroy the one tank in 10 seconds. In that time, the one tank will do 50 damage. So the two tanks survive with one of them at half-health and the other full.

Now here's where the equations come in - at what increase in firepower to the one tank does it overpower the benefit of having two tanks and therefore justifying a single gunner?

The answer is right about 17 effective dps. If the one tank had 17 effective dps, it would blow up one tank after 6 seconds (102 damage), and lose 60 of its health in the process (10dps for 6 seconds). Then it would blow up the second tank after another 6 seconds, leaving it with only 10% health left (it took another 5dps for 6 seconds to blow up the second tank, for a total of 30). So our single tank was able to take out two tanks simultaneously and come out barely alive.

This is an ideal situation, assuming both gunner and driver were attacking the same target switched perfectly, and the other tanks were not exploiting vulnerable positions. So even in that ideal situation....

17 effective dps means that the secondary gun added 12 effective anti-tank dps. Relative to the main gun, that is 12/5 = 2.4 times the effective anti-tank dps as the main gun. Lets round to 2.5 to play it safe and to keep the math a little nicer.

So that secondary gun, at the intended role, needs to be vastly superior to the the main gun in order to justify having a gunner over a second tank.

For infantry it's a harder equation, but armor is easy to calculate. I expect a similar number though - the Anti-infantry mortar needs to be overall 2.5 times as effective against infantry in order to justify not having a second tank.


The only way I see them balancing this out is accepting the fact that running two tanks is always going to be the better option, making the secondary gun roughly equal or slightly better than the main gun. To achieve balance they use the resource system.

They do this by making it it much cheaper to have a single tank w/ a gun upgrade than to have two tanks.

Exmaple, suppose a tank cost 100 of some resource, but the AV gunner upgrade only cost 10 of the same resource.

So from a resource perspective it is more efficient to run tanks with gunners over two tanks.

That isn't to say that the secondary gun still isn't 1.5-2x better at its specific role than the main gun, but that combined with resources is where you balance it out by making it prohibitively expensive to spam stock tanks vs upgrading a tank to have an AV gunner and running fewer tanks with more firepower but doing so continuously due to the affordable resource cost.

[Azren]

Alright, let's say Gun 1 (driver) does damage (D1) and Gun 2 (gunner) does damage (D2). Now, I'm not going to bother with firing modes. Tank has a total of armour (Arm) that provides endurance. Alright? For the sake of argument, I'm going to equate Arm to endurance directly (depends in reality on gun firing at it, normally the attrition would determine just how fast it dies, but that's irrelevant right now since I'm only going to adress the same tanks being used against eachother).

So, damage dealt by one tank is Arm * (D1*rof + D2*rof). So let's assume D1 and D2 put out equal damage over time. Then total damage potential is 2Arm*D1*rof, for one tank with two gunners of "equal" strength.

Now, if we bring two tanks, things are different. And then I'm not even talking about bonus to damage dealing time by outmaneuvring an enemy (getting behind their turrets, rotation speed and angles).

Just looking at endurance and firepower, two tanks have 2Arm * 2(D1*rof), not counting any gunners that might jump in along the way by accident. So, we got 4Arm*D1*rof, which is twice as much firepower-endurance.

That means that with one opponent, with two crew in both situations, you only need to wear down ONE lifespan worth of armour when facing a tank with two people in it. On the other hand, two tanks are two lifespans and you can only kill one in the time they need to kill you since both the single tank and two tanks have equal firepower.

So although it'll be equally fast at killing one single tank (2D1*rof), it will not win as its guns are mere equals (or less) between the crews. Simply because it has to deal twice as much damage in the same time. One of your opponents will not have taken damage at all in the time it took for you to kill the other, it will get another full lifetime to hit on you, so in total you are basically fighting "three lifetimes" worth of tank. You can't possibly win that with equal guns.

So to compensate, you need a much, MUCH stronger secondary weapon to bring down the total TTK to a half of the original in the case of AV. Hence it needs to be at least twice as strong as the main gun seeing as you are fighting three lifespans of tanks vs your one.



In any case, by the time it kills one tank, it itself is already dead or limping. I don't understand why this isn't obvious?

I like the math in this, shows the probably fault of ps2 drivergunner system. Having a very powerful secondary AV gun might help, but with instant seat changes, not much.

[Figment]

Wow, if you say the aurora sucked vs. infantry, you never gunned for one properly.

The aurora gun was the best AI in-game both short, medium and long range. You could accurately hit the same mark at max range by using the single-shot mode.

With both gunners shooting at the same location from max range, the aurora was effectively a field mortar. At short range, it was the real "thresher".

Hold on, I'm not saying it's not good. It was quite fun. Just not effective. You can tell this by what vehicles were actually used: people prefered the Magrider and Tresher. Aurora's were hardly used. Why? Mostly increased vulnerability to aircraft and vehicles, second because a Magrider did well enough against infantry and third because amphibious was not special to VS.

[sylphaen]

oh right... I forgot about the water part for you guys.
:)

IMO, the aurora was misunderstood because its guns compensated for our terrible AI. Even the thresher could not kill 10 guys under a second but the arc line of fire made people hate it. The only vehicles we had with an arc-ed fire line was the lightning and the VS BFR AI gun... To be honest, it was pretty hard to find a gunner good enough with arcs on the VS side and even harder to find one who did not hate them.

VS gunners did not have enough experience with the aurora's curve or simply hated gunning for one.

I'll conclude with one statement: magriders spoiled our gunners.
:D

Edit: and yes, one reason it was seldom used is because the transport cert had less appeal for the VS due to hovering and also because the Aurora was hyper-specialized for AI so you only saw them near base under assault from waves of footzerg. The Thunderer and Raider were more rounded and were seldom used too. I often felt the Aurora guns were OP but those thundies, ouuuuuch. At least, they had a crappy CoF: couldn't hit straight on target with a direct line of fire weapon. :lol:

[Figment]

As an avid Thundy driver, I usualy flanked Magriders and told people to wait with spamming till the Mag either saw us, or we were within 80-100 m distance. Then the cof was reliable enough against a large side view of a Magrider. :) Thundy would win if you could keep the Magrider's front from firing at you.

Of course my outfit usualy did raids of two Thundies and a Deli, to optimise damage output on multiple enemy types. Deliverer was prefered against air obviously, but against infantry or vehicles, Thundies all the way. :)


Once, after a failed Sundy event due to SOE disabling Sundies, I organised 18 Thunderers to move together as a group against TR on Cyssor (we came south from Wele), who were using Magriders as they had VS tech after some event.

Noob Magrider drivers vs 18 Thundies? :P Hell, we were firing 36 thundy rounds every few seconds, even a group of 6 Reavers died almost instantly if they made a pass at us. The first round, only one Thundy died to mines, all the others ran out of ammo. That went on as a single wolfpack of Thundies for a few hours. TR were quite desperate.

Maths + chance statistics of hitting something even with bad cof when in a large group = win.

That's also what I see happening with big tank groups. Someone will hit. :)

[sylphaen]

lol

Awesome story.
:)

The Aurora was definitely too limited to do something like that. The Mag's low armor always made me cry a little but its railgun was so sweet it was hard to complain.
:D

Now about that nerf on the Mag's CoF because we could hit aircav... Never forgive, never forget.
:evil:

[Figment]

The most hilarious bit was a VS Aphelion we came across near Bomazi. It died instantly.

[MrBloodworth]

This goes contrary to the originals core design of 1 + 1 = 3.

It really just feels like its to enable those who see teamwork as a roadblock to personal gains.

With this set up, you do not have to relay on others to gain power.

[Raymac]

This isn't World of Tanks. You can't try to balance it ONLY based on tank v tank when you have infantry and especially air to factor in as well. I think it is premature to say that MBTs won't need the secondary gunner. Save the dedicated drivers for the transports and let the assault vehicles, you know, shoot stuff.

[Malorn]

Other than for its Skyguard role, wtf would anyone ever use a lightning over a MBT?

The only answer I can think of that makes sense to me is that the Lightning is cheaper in resources to acquire than a MBT.

I think they will use resource cost to address this gunner issue. Having a 2nd gunner will certainly be cheaper resource-wise than running two tanks.

[Figment]

This isn't World of Tanks. You can't try to balance it ONLY based on tank v tank when you have infantry and especially air to factor in as well.

Ehrm, no? One balances tank vs tank balance either first or last by balancing the AV loadouts, then you balance AI and AA guns against the other units as required. Either way, you are going to to balance it directly.

I would like to hear your strategy on 'not balancing tanks'. Do you know exactly how much support each vehicle will have? No. You can't. Thus you balance units against each other and more importantly in this case, ITSELF (as I was demonstrating above), first. THEN you look at how to balance it against other units. OR rather, you first balance it against other units THEN balance it to itself. Just depends what you take as your starting point (most likely the lightest units, ie. infantry).

Regardless, you are going to eventually balance pure tank vs tank.

[Coreldan]

Other than for its Skyguard role, wtf would anyone ever use a lightning over a MBT?

The only answer I can think of that makes sense to me is that the Lightning is cheaper in resources to acquire than a MBT.

I think they will use resource cost to address this gunner issue. Having a 2nd gunner will certainly be cheaper resource-wise than running two tanks.

I'd also guess that there might be a chance that you can't pull MBTs from everywhere and/or you might need special conditions (although i feel there wont be the old benefit type things and rather just resources). But yes, I guess resources and with some luck, Lightning driver might be able to get their hands on two weapons at the same time. Like a solo Vannie only gets the big cannon which is hardish to use against infantry, but Lightning driver might be able to also switch into a machine gun of some sort?

Other reasons could be that Lightning is likely to be a lot faster, cheaper to pull as you mentioned, more maneuverable anyways, well.. We just gotta wait and see :D

That said, it's not like many would've pulled Lightnings if they could pull MBTs in PS1 either, yet to say Lightnings didnt have their place is a tad wrong IMO.

Maybe they take the MAX approach? Right click controls one weapons, left click another weapon? This way Lightning might be more worth it.

EDIT: Also all that said, I'm pretty sure even just for the Skyguard role it will be mandatory and around a lot.

[Azren]

Other than for its Skyguard role, wtf would anyone ever use a lightning over a MBT?

The only answer I can think of that makes sense to me is that the Lightning is cheaper in resources to acquire than a MBT.

I think they will use resource cost to address this gunner issue. Having a 2nd gunner will certainly be cheaper resource-wise than running two tanks.

I doubt this will factor into it. A high resource cost vehicle does not really fit into the fast paced action PS2 features. If people are very careful to stay alive (and so save resources), the battles will end up very long range. You will probably aquire the resources needed to pull a tank by killing two or three grunts (not to mention the constant resource flow you get from captured territories).

[Erendil]

This isn't World of Tanks. You can't try to balance it ONLY based on tank v tank when you have infantry and especially air to factor in as well. I think it is premature to say that MBTs won't need the secondary gunner. Save the dedicated drivers for the transports and let the assault vehicles, you know, shoot stuff.


We're not just balancing it based solely on tank vs tank warfare. We're just using that scenario as an effective illustration because it's the clearest and simplest way to show the inherent manpower vs firepower problem that arises when you give the main cannon to the driver. However, we also know this issue exists against air because 1 solo MBT + 1 AA Lightning will be more effective in a mixed AA/AV role than a single 2-man AA/AV MBT will.

That just leaves AI. But I'm willing to be the Devs have made an AI Lightning more powerful than the MBT's secondary AI options as well. I have nothing to base on tho other than their mention of the 6-shell rapid fire AI burst its cannon can be sidegraded to. :)


Other than for its Skyguard role, wtf would anyone ever use a lightning over a MBT?

The only answer I can think of that makes sense to me is that the Lightning is cheaper in resources to acquire than a MBT.

I think they will use resource cost to address this gunner issue. Having a 2nd gunner will certainly be cheaper resource-wise than running two tanks.


Actually IIRC, running two stock MBT's will cost exactly zilch, so speccing out that second gunner spot in any way will automatically make a single 2-man MBT more expensive than 2 stock, solo MBT's, since stock = free. My understanding is they did this because they never wanted the losing side in a battle to not be able to pull at least the barebones vehicles so they could still somewhat defend themselves if they didn't have enough resources to pull specced vehicles.


That said, it's hard to say why someone would pull a Lightning over a solo MBT because we know so little about Lightnings. We haven't even seen what one looks like! :mad: And both kevmo and higby have given me the cold shoulder when I asked them on Twitter if it still had a cannon/LMG combo turret, :cry: so we don't know its base-level armament either (It bloddy well better still have that dual turret tho! :mad: ).

However, I will say this: I fell in luv w/ the Lightning in PS1 the second they slapped a 360-degree turret on it during the first Balance Pass in 2003. I've spent more time in a Lightning than in any other vehicle in the game, so I know that if it's anything like the PS1 version it can be quite capable in the right hands. And based on my experiences with the Lightning in PS1 I think I can make a few inferences on its potential merits in PS2...


EDIT: I see some of the below points got ninja'd. I'm leaving them in anyway... :p

As you stated, a pimped out Lightning will probably cost less resources than a pimped MBT
Lightning certs/unlocks will probably cost less to acquire so you can advance in the Lightning tree more quickly
It might be more readily available than MBT's, like having a shorter timer, or be available at more locations (like enemy vterms, etc)
They said it can be made into a "tank killer" (whatever that means by their standards :p ), so an AV-pimped Lightning could be an impressive glass-cannon
It's significantly faster so it's better at quick flanking, interception, moving to support friendly units in trouble, and running down fleeing opponents, as well as running to safety when needed. :p
It's lighter armour means you can get repaired back to "full strength" and get back in the battle faster than MBTs
It's smaller and probably still a lot quieter than a MBT, and it's not 100 feet in the air like an ES Fighter, so it's often more difficult to spot and can easily go unnoticed, making it a great ambush or scout vehicle
Its size and speed makes it a much harder target to hit and probably means it can go places other MBTs can't (although that flying Magrider in the GDC video might make a liar out of me on this point :p )
Farming killwhores aside, it'll generally be passed over by the enemy in favor of larger, juicier targets when friendly, more threatening MBTs/Gals/Sunderers are nearby
Most people don't see it as a serious threat so they're usually not looking out for it, grossly underestimate its effectiveness in skilled hands, and often ignore it or don't even notice it until its too late :D
When being actively damaged by multiple vehicles, enemy forces will almost always ignore the lightning and deal with other, larger vehicles attacking it first since they're perceived as the bigger threat
It's an underdog - a thinking man's vehicle. In order to stay alive in a world filled with vehicles scarier than you are you have to constantly plan ahead, and be alert, ready, and quick on your feet (fingers?) when using one, and it can be quite a rush to drive one in the middle of a MBT tank battle
It's incredibly satisfying when you can kill - or even solo - the bigger, badder vehicles out there with one.. :D:D:D



So yeah..... If you haven't already figured it out, unless the Devs anally-rape the Lightning's design or the Magrider's abilities as a solo tank really really impress me, I'll probably use a Lightning quite a bit in PS2. :cool:

[Mezorin]

Other than for its Skyguard role, wtf would anyone ever use a lightning over a MBT?

The only answer I can think of that makes sense to me is that the Lightning is cheaper in resources to acquire than a MBT.

I think they will use resource cost to address this gunner issue. Having a 2nd gunner will certainly be cheaper resource-wise than running two tanks.

Remember, this isn't PlanetSide 1, and we haven't seen the Lightning yet. There is no arbitrary reason that balance wise a one man MBT has to be "better" than a Lightning anymore than a Heavy Assault troop must be "better" than a light assault on the ground. The developers have made it clear they want each vehicle to have its own set of strengths and roles, so they wouldn't want the Lightning to be the thing you buy when you are slumming it or need AA, but an actual viable unit that fits into the ecosystem of the game.

If the Lightning tanks have similar auto cannon armaments to an LAV-25 or a BTR-90 they will be very lethal infantry and MAX hunters that can still put the hurt on regular tanks. The fact that a Lightning will be bloody quick too will make it also great for chasing down ATVs, Sunderers, and other vehicles an MBT would be left in the dust by.

Lightnings can also react to stuff on the ground a lot quicker than MBTs can, and will be great for skirmishing. Remember, you need to control much more of the map in PS2 than in the original to win, and part of that is being able to react fast with vehicle/troop assets. A small group of lightnings (with varied load outs) can patrol friendly territory along a front line looking for enemies trying to sneak through, or areas where an enemy might be weak for an attack.

EDIT: Woot, nice to see fellow Lightning tank drivers in the forum!

[Coreldan]

BTW, has it been confirmed that Lightning is still a 1 player tank? They changed they are changing it quite radically, but I understood that would remain?

[Erendil]

Remember, this isn't PlanetSide 1, and we haven't seen the Lightning yet. There is no arbitrary reason that balance wise a one man MBT has to be "better" than a Lightning anymore than a Heavy Assault troop must be "better" than a light assault on the ground. The developers have made it clear they want each vehicle to have its own set of strengths and roles, so they wouldn't want the Lightning to be the thing you buy when you are slumming it or need AA, but an actual viable unit that fits into the ecosystem of the game.

If the Lightning tanks have similar auto cannon armaments to an LAV-25 or a BTR-90 they will be very lethal infantry and MAX hunters that can still put the hurt on regular tanks. The fact that a Lightning will be bloody quick too will make it also great for chasing down ATVs, Sunderers, and other vehicles an MBT would be left in the dust by.

Lightnings can also react to stuff on the ground a lot quicker than MBTs can, and will be great for skirmishing. Remember, you need to control much more of the map in PS2 than in the original to win, and part of that is being able to react fast with vehicle/troop assets. A small group of lightnings (with varied load outs) can patrol friendly territory along a front line looking for enemies trying to sneak through, or areas where an enemy might be weak for an attack.

EDIT: Woot, nice to see fellow Lightning tank drivers in the forum!


Wolf pack represent! :cool2:

I hear ya brah. A solo MBT should not be a clearly "better" combat vehicle than the Lightning. The two should have different and distinct combat roles, yes, (with some overlap) but also have at least a somewhat similar level of desirability.

And you have a great point about the extended front lines in PS2. Gone are the days of only having one or two bases to attack. There's going to be a lot more avenues of conquest available to our enemies, so patrols and quick response reactionary forces will be even more vital than in PS1 in stopping enemy incursions along the front lines.

Obviously ES Fighters will of course play a vital role in this as well, but a Lightning wolf pack arriving on the scene right behind the ESF's, a few decked out with AA, could be quite useful in repelling an enemy insertion before they can secure the area and establish a solid FOB deep within friendly territory.

I'd also luv to see them used as both forward scouts and u-boats. So certs for enhanced detection and intel gathering ability, stealth, silent operations and adaptive camo would all be wonderful unlocks/sidegrades for the Lightning that I think would beautifully fit a small, fast moving solo tank quite well. :cool:

However.... I don't want to derail this thread too much.... I guess the main point is that the Lightning can and should be made into an effective solo tank in its own right. And as such, if someone wants to drive a tank solo, the Lightning is already available so there's no real intrinsic need per se to give MBT's solo ability as well.


There are also several more points which others have already mentioned that go against giving the driver the main cannon:


Most people suck at simultaneous driving and gunning and would be better drivers if they didn't have to use the main cannon
The mainly defensive role of the secondary gunner (as asserted by Brewko on the SOE Forums) is a better fit for the driver whose primary purpose should be tank survival
One 2-man MBT appears to be inferior to two solo MBTs or one solo MBT and a Lightning
Some people hate simultaneously gunning and driving and want to only drive a tank, but they have no option to do so in PS2.
People are inherently self-serving and generally don't like playing "second fiddle" in a tank by getting stuck with the weaker, defensive weapon while the driver gets the big boomstick.



In light of all of this I'm of the opinion that there should be at minimum the option to hand the main cannon off to a gunner, or swap the primary and secondary weapons around. And of course, my sig should tell you how I think the Mag's main cannon should be modded to allow its handoff to a gunner since it's still not clear how maneuverable it is (although again, that flying Mag in the GDC footage certain does make one contemplate other possibilities..... :D )


BTW, has it been confirmed that Lightning is still a 1 player tank? They changed they are changing it quite radically, but I understood that would remain?


Yes, they confirmed in the vehicle webcast that the Lightning is purely a 1-man tank. :cool:

[Raka Maru]

Erendil, You sir have brought back my memory of the love for my Lightning.

I drove this a lot, but often resented it, but no longer...

[Vanir]

"Planetside 2 is still in Alpha so everything is subject to change." One thing to change is to let the driver be able to just dive and not have to deal with trying to gun at the same time. It sucks trying to do both at the same time.

[sylphaen]

Even Cthulhu would have nightmares from this thread.
:scared:

[basti]

Not going to close this, its far from a necro. And im quite happy Vanir used the search function instead of just creating a new thread. ;)

[Owalpo]

They should keep it how it is. If they make it so you need a second person for gunner then it is going to be a lot harder for new players, casuals and loners who hate aircraft and don't feel like sitting in a bus and will make them not like the game at all. Or even worse dozens of tanks with no gunners ramming each other. :ugh:

Then new players would need to buy mics, so they can communicate with their gunner or driver. Some of you hardcore guys may never have experienced this, but trust me I have witnessed this before and something like this is a deal breaker. Unless of course if you don't care that your gunner is looking at a soldier behind you when five tanks are in front and you are yelling in your head because you have no mic. Driving a warthog in Halo with no mic jeez...

Ever fill out a form or sign up thing online and then it says you have to fill out a survey to continue? You say to yourself "Well I'm done here, not wasting my time." Kind of the same thing with two people for a tank.

New player sees the tank and he can't shoot, "Well I'm done here!"

[Arius]

Surely someone said it before already, why not let the driver decide who controls the gun? Have the driver control the gun, if he wants to control the gun and drive, the second person in the car operates the secondary gun, and if not, the second person gets the option between the secondary gun and the primary gun.

[Vanir]

Surely someone said it before already, why not let the driver decide who controls the gun? Have the driver control the gun, if he wants to control the gun and drive, the second person in the car operates the secondary gun, and if not, the second person gets the option between the secondary gun and the primary gun.

Yes, this.
Why not make it optional for the driver to choose to whether to control one or none of the guns on the tank? Put it on the skill tree upgrade or something. For example when I'm deciding my load out for my tank, on the load out screen why not have tags to check off on whether I want to control the main gun or have a seperate gunner control the main gun (which would then open up a gunner spot on the tank for the main gun) and another check box for the secondary gun. For a maximum of a 3 man tank.

[Talek Krell]

They should keep it how it is. If they make it so you need a second person for gunner then it is going to be a lot harder for new players, casuals and loners who hate aircraft and don't feel like sitting in a bus and will make them not like the game at all.The Lightning already exists to cater to this group, and is better suited to doing so. No secondary crew required and every point you spend goes to your own use.

Or even worse dozens of tanks with no gunners ramming each other. :ugh:Hypothetically possible, but the first game didn't have this problem.

Surely someone said it before already, why not let the driver decide who controls the gun?It has, but there's some balance concerns with it. Also the Magrider's cannon is a spinal mount, it can only fire in the direction the tank is facing. Making it work as a gunner weapon would probably require some fundamental changes to the tank.

[Mechzz]

It has, but there's some balance concerns with it. Also the Magrider's cannon is a spinal mount, it can only fire in the direction the tank is facing. Making it work as a gunner weapon would probably require some fundamental changes to the tank.

The implications of the magrider's fixed-forward main gun combined with driver gunning has only slowly dawned on me. It reminds me of the early days of World War 2 when the French had the world's strongest mounted tank gun (in the Char-B if memory serves), BUT it was fixed forward in the hull. When the Germans crashed the party in their much weaker-gunned but more mobile Panzers they just ran rings round the Char B and annihilated them.

Look at this picture and weep, if it is the new magrider:
http://i.imgur.com/Z8BnH.jpg

Apologies to Erendil for not realising earlier the significance of his signature picture!

If this is what driver gunner means for the Vanu, there are going to be a LOT of unhappy magrider drivers out there.

I've already mentioned that I am happy about driver/gunning based on playing that way in BFBC2, but there SHOULD be an option for the driver to relinquish the main gun if so desired AND the magrider must be modded so that its main gun can rotate, otherwise it will be next to useless - it was hard enough to get kills with the old PPA with its jittery aim on uneven surfaces, ffs.

[Figment]

The Magrider indeed will be used as a Char B or M3 Lee/Grant, just with strafing. Both of those were semi-tank destroyers as their heavies firepower came from a fixed forward mounted gun.

http://tankstogo.com/United_States/images/USlee-1.jpg

The PS2 Magrider always was a bit of a sniper vehicle due to that, close quarters it's going to get completely pulverized as it was in PS1 as it wouldn't be able to deliver its high damage as effective as other tanks and would be made more stationary.

The only advantage it has to compensate is the ability to circle strafe, but it and certainly not its strafe speed seemed that fast in the footage we've seen so far, so I wonder if it'll be enough. Either way they will be very vulnerable to flanking again.


To me, I wouldn't mind the Magrider being turned into a TD if the other factions also get a TD and the VS get a new main tank.

[Amdefor]

I think giving the driver the big gun is a good idea, but I only wish they’d allow the driver to pass off the main gun to a gunner if he has one. I love driving tanks in PS1 but can’t hit the broad side of a barn to save my life. If they don’t allow players like me to pass off the main gun, they’ve taken tanks completely out of the game for me.

[Raztt]

There were good reasons they made it the way they did and with the fixed gun on the magrider it's likely there will be no option to give the control to a second player on any of the faction specific tanks as that would lead to imbalances in gameplay; and this change is likely permanent.

The only other option I see that would work is to add a common pool heavy tank or artillery vehicle that does have driver only and gunner only seats, a total of three seats would be nice.

and first post.

[Raka Maru]

The Lightning already exists to cater to this group, and is better suited to doing so. No secondary crew required and every point you spend goes to your own use.


I have been convinced of the benefits of the lightning and am looking forward to soloing that again.


It has, but there's some balance concerns with it. Also the Magrider's cannon is a spinal mount, it can only fire in the direction the tank is facing. Making it work as a gunner weapon would probably require some fundamental changes to the tank.

Would still like to see the options of driver/gunner seat customization on the MBT for TR and NC even if it means the VS driver cannot release his main cannon to a gunner.

Staffing, hovering, circle staffing, and perhaps some other magic could still make this balanced and unique as an ES vehicle. Maybe give it a emp or radar... Something to balance it.

[Bazilx]

I don't particularly mind either way, with the side-grades and all I can see the appeal of being able to take full advantage of these things yourself rather than delegate your way of playing onto someone who might play completely differently, maybe you don't want the guy with terrible aim to shoot the cannon with the 8 second reload timer.

[kaffis]

On the issue of the Magrider -- so long as it remains driver-gunned, it will be a fixed forward turret that the driver controls. Why? It's a simple matter of controls.

A tracked vehicle with a rotating turret controlled by the driver has 4 axes for the driver to control. Turret pitch and yaw (rotation), throttle, and vehicle yaw (turning). This is easily done with a mouselook for turret pitch and yaw, and then a 4-button keymapping for forward/backward/left/right.

A hovering vehicle with a fixed-forward turret (PS1 Magrider and current PS2 Magrider) under the driver's control similarly has 4 axes: turret pitch, vehicle yaw, vehicle throttle, and vehicle lateral movement (strafing).

Converting the Magrider to have a rotating turret under the driver's command suddenly gives him 5 axes to control. He'll have turret pitch and yaw, and vehicle throttle, yaw, and lateral movement. Now he's having to map and manage an extra two keys. I doubt most people really want that; that's more complicated than traditional flying controls (which uses pitch, yaw, roll, and throttle)...



Finally, though, it's worth noting that I would rather see the Magrider get a rotating turret for both guns, and see all ES tanks go 3-man required. Why? Quite simply, if the driver wants to gun, he's got a Lightning available to him. It worked in PS1; it should work here. That allows the devs to balance a solo vehicle to be more fragile than a 2-3 man vehicle (because let me tell you, giving a soloable driver-gunned ES tank armor for 2 is pretty broken from a survivability standpoint; as is giving two guys in an ES tank Lightning-esque armor -- that's just free XP for the second death, right?) without jumping through weird hoops.

It's simply the best solution to achieve a good balance no matter what options the driver takes. It is also the best way to make MBTs feel sturdy and worthy of the name.

[Raka Maru]

Why "require" ES MBT's to have 3 players? Just make it less effective if there is not a full crew.

So a solo lightning can fight a solo MBT. Out maneuvering the bigger gun or outclassing with special weapons.

Trying to think in line with the development decision, I would not cert a MBT if I could not drive/gun. Then again, it should be just as useful as a lightning until my buddies join me and I assign them their roles.

[Erendil]

On the issue of the Magrider -- so long as it remains driver-gunned, it will be a fixed forward turret that the driver controls. Why? It's a simple matter of controls.

A tracked vehicle with a rotating turret controlled by the driver has 4 axes for the driver to control. Turret pitch and yaw (rotation), throttle, and vehicle yaw (turning). This is easily done with a mouselook for turret pitch and yaw, and then a 4-button keymapping for forward/backward/left/right.

A hovering vehicle with a fixed-forward turret (PS1 Magrider and current PS2 Magrider) under the driver's control similarly has 4 axes: turret pitch, vehicle yaw, vehicle throttle, and vehicle lateral movement (strafing).

Converting the Magrider to have a rotating turret under the driver's command suddenly gives him 5 axes to control. He'll have turret pitch and yaw, and vehicle throttle, yaw, and lateral movement. Now he's having to map and manage an extra two keys. I doubt most people really want that; that's more complicated than traditional flying controls (which uses pitch, yaw, roll, and throttle)...


I might be misremembering, but I think this is the reasoning that the Devs gave us behind the fixed cannon when we first found out about it. But quite frankly it's a craptastic excuse, especially if it means gimping one empire's main assault vehicle in the process.

Any FPS that has a lean function like COD has the same number of control axes that a turreted Mag would, and people are able to control their characters in those games just fine so long as they're not using a console controller. In addition, the Descent series of games had a full six degrees of freedom and six axes to control: ship pitch and yaw, throttle, lateral movement, vertical movement, and roll. And people could fly those ships fine as well.

Thus, if given a chance people would be able to fully-operate a strafing Mag with a 360 turret once they got used to the controls. But even if they never mastered it, they could just simply not strafe and instead drive it like the other tanks. It's not like strafing is an absolute requirement for its operation.


Finally, though, it's worth noting that I would rather see the Magrider get a rotating turret for both guns, and see all ES tanks go 3-man required. Why? Quite simply, if the driver wants to gun, he's got a Lightning available to him. It worked in PS1; it should work here. That allows the devs to balance a solo vehicle to be more fragile than a 2-3 man vehicle (because let me tell you, giving a soloable driver-gunned ES tank armor for 2 is pretty broken from a survivability standpoint; as is giving two guys in an ES tank Lightning-esque armor -- that's just free XP for the second death, right?) without jumping through weird hoops.

It's simply the best solution to achieve a good balance no matter what options the driver takes. It is also the best way to make MBTs feel sturdy and worthy of the name.


Yeah giving the driver the main cannon has a lot of different problems both from a balance and useability perspective. But it seems as if either the Devs don't see it as a problem despite the clear illustrations posted both here and on the PS1 official boards, or they simply feel that letting MBT drivers go solo is worth the price of those imbalances, presumably in the name of player enjoyment.

Hopefully these are things we can show them firsthand once we get into Beta, and that they'll be open to setting up specific combat scenarios where we can demonstrate the inherent power disparities in such vehicle setups as well as the affect that gunning has on your average tanker's driving skills. :p

[CutterJohn]

Any FPS that has a lean function like COD has the same number of control axes that a turreted Mag would, and people are able to control their characters in those games just fine so long as they're not using a console controller.

When using lean, presumably Q & E, you aren't using WASD, because lean only works when motionless.

In addition, the Descent series of games had a full six degrees of freedom and six axes to control: ship pitch and yaw, throttle, lateral movement, vertical movement, and roll. And people could fly those ships fine as well.

Roll was unnecessary to control constantly since orientation didn't matter, and you can get by just fine by controlling horizontal strafe and ignoring vertical strafe.


Thus, if given a chance people would be able to fully-operate a strafing Mag with a 360 turret once they got used to the controls. But even if they never mastered it, they could just simply not strafe and instead drive it like the other tanks. It's not like strafing is an absolute requirement for its operation.

It will be balanced for strafing, presumably by having fewer hitpoints since it gains in avoidance. If you choose not to use it your tank will be weaker.


The only way to do it and not make the thing too complex to handle is to ignore the fact that turning and strafing exist, and instead wasd simply determines what direction you go, meaning W is always forward, towards your gun. A & D always strafe, and S is always backwards, and then the game itself just twists the tank around so that its going in the appropriate direction.

It would be functionally identical to a fixed cannon, but would add the turret graphic, giving the option of a gunner taking control of the turret.

Yeah giving the driver the main cannon has a lot of different problems both from a balance and useability perspective.

No. Its different gameplay. They are only 'problems' in the context of PS1, since PS1 was not balanced for such things.

[Erendil]

When using lean, presumably Q & E, you aren't using WASD, because lean only works when motionless.

Not true - at least in the versions I played frequently (COD 1 & 2). Leaning had no restrictions on its use so you could lean whenever you wanted. Some people in COD1 would even go so far as to constantly lean back and forth while strafing in a firefight because in that version it actually made them a harder target to hit. :cool:

Roll was unnecessary to control constantly since orientation didn't matter, and you can get by just fine by controlling horizontal strafe and ignoring vertical strafe.

Strafe in PS2 would also be unnecessary to control constantly if the Mag had a 360 turret, as evidenced by the capabilities of the conventionally-treaded tanks that don't strafe at all.

And if they allow Mags to conserve their momentum fairly well (due to lack of friction with the ground), then the need for such constant manipulation of both strafing and throttle would be lessened greatly since once the tank got going in the direction you wanted it'd coast that way until you wanted to make a correction. That by itself would be enough to counterbalance much of the added complexity in the movement controls, IMO, and 360 turret or not, I really hope they design the Mag's behavior like this. :cool:

It will be balanced for strafing, presumably by having fewer hitpoints since it gains in avoidance. If you choose not to use it your tank will be weaker.

Pure conjecture. Although it'd make sense if they took strafing into consideration when balancing the Mag's overall effectiveness, that doesn't mean that they will. And even if they do, it's incredibly hard to predict how much of an impact it may have on its design in other areas since the benefits of strafing are hard to quantify. But IMO the point is moot since I believe people would be able to fully-control a Mag with a 360 turret anyway.

The only way to do it and not make the thing too complex to handle is to ignore the fact that turning and strafing exist, and instead wasd simply determines what direction you go, meaning W is always forward, towards your gun. A & D always strafe, and S is always backwards, and then the game itself just twists the tank around so that its going in the appropriate direction.

It would be functionally identical to a fixed cannon, but would add the turret graphic, giving the option of a gunner taking control of the turret.

I disagree since your assertion seems to be refuted by the presence of movement controls in other games that are already that complex and are quite useable by the players of those games.

I'm not 100% against having a fixed forward turret. If they make the Mag nimble enough that it wouldn't suffer from the intrinsic drawbacks of such a design, then I'd probably be fine with it. Unfortunately though they haven't released any footage yet that has shown that to be the case. And until I get a chance to drive all three MBT's myself I'll most likely stand by the message in my sig. ;)


No. Its different gameplay. They are only 'problems' in the context of PS1, since PS1 was not balanced for such things.

It has nothing to do with PS1 specifically. The issues that we're talking about are ones that would exist in any FPS that uses a mix of solo vehicles and multicrew vehicles when the most powerful weapon is given to the driver and where manpower vs firepower is a consideration in the game's design.

It's pretty basic math and fairly sound logic, and some of it is illustrated quite nicely by Figgy on page 41 of this very thread and reiterated by Malorn on page 42. And once you look at it within the context of PS, it's pretty obvious that the following issues will exist:


Two solo MBT's will be more combat effective in an AV role than one 2-man MBT config'd for AV/AV
One solo MBT and one AA Lightning will be more combat effective than one 2-man AA/AV MBT
Dedicated drivers are much better at maneuvering a tank and keeping it alive than drivers that have to multitask and also fire the main cannon
Some people luv driving tanks but hate having to gun at the same time, but currently in PS1 they don't have the option to be a dedicated driver.


The question now is whether or not the Devs feel that any of these issues are big enough to warrant any change to the MBTs' designs.

[CutterJohn]

It's pretty basic math and fairly sound logic

Depends on how effective being a gunner is at increasing your effective DPS, which you can only assume at this point. The driver may have the 'main' gun, but the gunners weapon is no slouch either, and being able to focus 100% of gunning will make 360 coverage better, increase response time, increase situational awareness. This goes double for AA, since the driver would have to watch the ground and the sky.

You're also ignoring the fact that the guns will have different strengths and weaknesses and so be useful in different circumstances.

You're also ignoring the fact that not even close to everyone will pull vehicles constantly, and plenty of people who didn't want to pull one will be happy to jump into a back seat.

You're also ignoring the fact that vehicles cost money to pull, which could be a huge factor in favor of running two man to maximize effectiveness.

You're also ignoring the fact that its simply harder for two tanks to work together than 2 people in one tank. You have two people in two vehicles, both driving, maintaining proximity to each other, and gunning. And when one dies, they have to spend time regrouping that the 2 man tank does not

It is by no means clear that 2 tanks is greater than 1 2 man tank in every situation, and if it is, Higgles specifically stated that they want people in the gunner spots, meaning if its too useless, they'll.. improve it!


If you just look at dps vs hitpoints, and ignore every single other thing, sure, 2 tanks beats one every time. But that is by no means the whole story, and you really, really do have to wait to see how it plays before you can say its good or bad.

[Talek Krell]

If you just look at dps vs hitpoints, and ignore every single other thing, sure, 2 tanks beats one every time. But that is by no means the whole story, and you really, really do have to wait to see how it plays before you can say its good or bad.If beta arrives and it does prove to be an issue (let's say it's that people aren't generally using the secondary MBT weapon), what solutions would you propose?

[CutterJohn]

Theres a few options.

My preference would be: When the gunner gets in a shield is activated(with a really slow recharge, like amp station recharge) to bring a 2man tanks total hitpoints up. I say shield rather than a straight hitpoint boost for 3 reasons.

1. Its obvious that the tank has boosted hitpoints because of the shield flicker/glow. It would be annoying not knowing for sure if that tank has 50% more(or whatever it is) hitpoints.
2. Its more believable that the gunner can activate an extra system than that he bolted on more armor.
3. It can believably be shut off and turned on as the gunner enters and exits the vehicle(if it stayed active, you'd just get buddy drivers get into each others tanks for the buff).
4. And it might be good to let it be disabled by EMP. :groovy:
5. Oh, and it can be applied to just the AV turret(Since the other two turrets have roles the drivers cannot fill, its not so much of an issue).

Other than that, the most simple thing to do would be to rebalance the driver and gunner weapons. Either by straight up damage alterations, or by making the gunner weapon more dual purpose, like the AA turret could be a decent AV weapon as well, kinda like how the BFR weapons were. I don't like this option though since it messes with a whole crapload of balance. :)

Another option, less straigtforward, is to give the gunner some secondary perks/abilities. A countermeasure, an emp, one of those 2142 style temporary invuln shields, maybe the gunner has a darklight headlight, or a vehicle radar, etc, etc, etc. These would be things the gunner has access to that the driver does not.

And last but not least, simply make tanks more expensive and/or have a longer timer. The more valuable they are, the more likely two people will team up to share the cost burden/split the timer. You didn't often see a BFR without a gunner.

[Erendil]

My apologies to all ahead of time for the long post, but I feel Cutter deserves a response to each of his comments. Although I suppose it's a drop in the bucket compared to the length of this thread... :p

Depends on how effective being a gunner is at increasing your effective DPS, which you can only assume at this point. The driver may have the 'main' gun, but the gunners weapon is no slouch either, and being able to focus 100% of gunning will make 360 coverage better, increase response time, increase situational awareness. This goes double for AA, since the driver would have to watch the ground and the sky.

On the flip side, two solo MBT's have the benefit of being multiple targets, have 2x the total effective armour, gain 2 different views of the battlefield, can attack from different angles, are able to maneuver to flank the enemy in order to cut off enemy forces and minimize any terrain advantages they might have, can use crossfire and covering fire, can run interference for one another, can use bait-and-switch to draw out enemy forces, attack from behind, setup ambushes, etc.

In addition, a single 2-man MBT will statistically take more incoming fire than each of the separate solo tanks would, forcing it to dodge more ordinance and making it inherently more difficult to evade attacks since more opponents will be firing at it than would be at each solo MBT separately. And it'll be no more effective at dodging each shot since there's no dedicated driver.

And in the "two solo MBT's vs one 2-man MBT" scenario, the 2-man MBT also has the choice of either:

concentrating both weapons on a single target, allowing the other solo MBT to concentrate almost completely on gunning and thus matching the 2-man MBT's dedicated gunner advantage, or
firing one weapon at each solo MBT, in which case both gunners are at a fairly equal disadvantage to the solo MBTs since the main cannon gunner is also driving and the secondary gunner, while not having to drive, has no control over where the tank is going and so can't maneuver to maximize his chance of hitting his target since the driver is presumably maneuvering to better hit his target.


My point is that both setups have several situational advantages that can be extremely difficult to quantify, and having a second gunner in 1 tank doesn't automatically make it a better choice than if he were in a second solo tank. Not by a long shot.

You're also ignoring the fact that the guns will have different strengths and weaknesses and so be useful in different circumstances.

You are correct that my previous assertions do not take into account situational variables or the strengths and weaknesses of other secondary characteristics. I should have prefaced my statements with, "all else being equal..." I figured that people would realize that was a given but apparently that's not the case.

You're also ignoring the fact that not even close to everyone will pull vehicles constantly, and plenty of people who didn't want to pull one will be happy to jump into a back seat.

You are correct that there will be people that won't want to drive a MBT but will be willing to gun for one instead. But that's beside the point. Implying that a vehicle is more balanced - or that an existing balance issue is lessened - because not everyone will pull it is a massive failure of an argument because when the vehicle is used the imbalance is still there. We found that out in PS1 with BFRs, GGs, Reavers, etc, and inversely with MA indoors, and things like the Harasser and Basilisk. People will often use what they want to use whether or not it is over- or under-powered. That doesn't mean the issue itself is any less important.

You're also ignoring the fact that vehicles cost money to pull, which could be a huge factor in favor of running two man to maximize effectiveness.

My understanding is that Base-level MBT's cost nothing to pull, so that is actually a point in my favor since IIRC the default secondary gunner weapon is a LMG designed for AI work. If you want to beef up the secondary gunner to make a 2-man MBT more competitive to 2 solo MBT's in an AV/AV role, or if you want to give it AA or better AI ability, that is when you'll have to spend the resources. Thus the 2-man MBT becomes the more expensive option.

In addition, I'm betting a 2-man MBT pimped out for AV/AA work will most likely cost more resources than a free base-level solo MBT and an AA Lightning. So since the Devs have flat out stated the AA Lightning will be the better AA choice, all else being equal an AV/AA MBT will be both less combat effective and more expensive.

You're also ignoring the fact that its simply harder for two tanks to work together than 2 people in one tank. You have two people in two vehicles, both driving, maintaining proximity to each other, and gunning. And when one dies, they have to spend time regrouping that the 2 man tank does not

This is a myth perpetuated by some people who are in favor of multicrew vehicles but it doesn't hold any water when you actually observe how two people behave in a 2-man tank. Countless times in PS1 I have observed multicrewed vehicles behave such that it's obvious that both crewmembers are doing their own thing.

I've had MBTs chase after me in my Lightning whose gunner continues to fire at other enemies in a completely different direction from mine that are obviously no threat to them and that he has little chance of hitting or killing. Inversely, I've had many gunners fire shot after shot at me while a MBT is driving away from me, even if they are under no immediate danger from any other forces, and have survived solely because the driver drove them around a corner or over a hilltop. I've even killed many MBT's because I was able to chase them down, drive right up to them, and slam shell after shell at them with impunity at short range because even though the driver was trying to evade me the gunner seemed oblivious to my presence and didn't return fire.

The only teamwork advantage that a multicrew vehicle gives you is that of central positioning, where both players are at the same physical location and are moving in the same direction and so will be in proximity to the same targets. So to that end I'd say that teamwork happens more frequently in a 2-man vehicle than in 2 solo vehicles. However, if you actually make a conscious effort to work together as a team you can do so as effectively in two solo tanks as you could in one 2-man tank.

It is by no means clear that 2 tanks is greater than 1 2 man tank in every situation, and if it is, Higgles specifically stated that they want people in the gunner spots, meaning if its too useless, they'll.. improve it!

That's kind of the whole point of this discussion: So that the Devs can be made aware of these potential issues and make changes and improvements to the existing designs accordingly - either by changing the driver/gunner setup or by beefing up the secondary gunner weapon.

If you just look at dps vs hitpoints, and ignore every single other thing, sure, 2 tanks beats one every time. But that is by no means the whole story, and you really, really do have to wait to see how it plays before you can say its good or bad.

See my "all else being equal" statement above. I realize there are many other aspects that need to be considered when balancing this scenario. We are just making sure that they are aware of these particular issues, since based on what we know of the current MBTs design it appears that they are not. And even though we haven't yet used these vehicles, the sooner the Devs know about these potential issues, the better.

[Erendil]

Theres a few options.

My preference would be: When the gunner gets in a shield is activated(with a really slow recharge, like amp station recharge) to bring a 2man tanks total hitpoints up. I say shield rather than a straight hitpoint boost for 3 reasons.

1. Its obvious that the tank has boosted hitpoints because of the shield flicker/glow. It would be annoying not knowing for sure if that tank has 50% more(or whatever it is) hitpoints.
2. Its more believable that the gunner can activate an extra system than that he bolted on more armor.
3. It can believably be shut off and turned on as the gunner enters and exits the vehicle(if it stayed active, you'd just get buddy drivers get into each others tanks for the buff).
4. And it might be good to let it be disabled by EMP. :groovy:
5. Oh, and it can be applied to just the AV turret(Since the other two turrets have roles the drivers cannot fill, its not so much of an issue).

Other than that, the most simple thing to do would be to rebalance the driver and gunner weapons. Either by straight up damage alterations, or by making the gunner weapon more dual purpose, like the AA turret could be a decent AV weapon as well, kinda like how the BFR weapons were. I don't like this option though since it messes with a whole crapload of balance. :)

Another option, less straigtforward, is to give the gunner some secondary perks/abilities. A countermeasure, an emp, one of those 2142 style temporary invuln shields, maybe the gunner has a darklight headlight, or a vehicle radar, etc, etc, etc. These would be things the gunner has access to that the driver does not.

And last but not least, simply make tanks more expensive and/or have a longer timer. The more valuable they are, the more likely two people will team up to share the cost burden/split the timer. You didn't often see a BFR without a gunner.

I like the shield suggestion for when a secondary gunner hops in. I'm a little leery about its ability to recharge though, if only because o the risk/reward factor of getting what amounts to free repairs without any effort or risk. Plus it was one of the bigest things that were broken about the BFR's in PS1. I'd suggest only allowing it to recharge if the vehicle isn't moving or if it hasn't taken damage in the last 5-10 seconds, so keeping the pressure on a MBT would prevent it from recharging.

Adding in secondary abilities for the gunner like spotlights, EMP etc would be interesting too since it makes the gunner spot more attractive without directly affecting its firepower.

[Vanir]

My apologies to all ahead of time for the long post, but I feel Cutter deserves a response to each of his comments. Although I suppose it's a drop in the bucket compared to the length of this thread... :p

The length of this thread is testiment to how unhappy people are with tank drivers having to control the main gun and not being allowed to delegate the control of the gun to another player. A driver should be able to concentrate on navigation, staying alive and keeping mobile. Not have to bother with the distraction of controling a gun at the same time.

[Aurmanite]

The length of this thread is testiment to how unhappy people are with tank drivers having to control the main gun and not being allowed to delegate the control of the gun to another player. A driver should be able to concentrate on navigation, staying alive and keeping mobile. Not have to bother with the distraction of controling a gun at the same time.

No, this thread is a testament to the fact that the community is split. If everyone agreed, the thread would be short...not long.

[kadrin]

No, this thread is a testament to the fact that the community is split. If everyone agreed, the thread would be short...not long.

Shouldn't the community being split be a good indication that at the very least an option should be included for the driver to give control of the main gun over to the gunner?

[kaffis]

No, this thread is a testament to the fact that the community is split. If everyone agreed, the thread would be short...not long.
Okay, I'll admit -- I haven't read roughly the middle third to half of this thread, since I tend to post and read in bursts here on PSU (and it's been dredged back up enough times over a long enough period that I can't say that I recall the overall tenor very accurately in the first place), so I can't say whether this is the case or not in this thread, but...

Your statement is not universally true. A small handful of very stubborn, argumentative, and active people can drag a thread like this out against much larger numbers of people on the other side quite easily. It's simply a matter of repeating your arguments and boring the other side to death so they stop reading and others pick up the battle. Or, you know, failing to bore the other side to death and just continuing to respond to the same arguments in the same ways till you're all blue in the face.

So thread length alone can't always be considered indicative of an even split.

[Stew]

its like Battlefield game and its ok for me i have no issue agains it !

[Figment]

To be fair, there's predominantly a large group against and only a small group in favour, it's around 8 people that continuously argue. If you go chalk up the opinions, the majority is against. There's also a middle group that just wants to be able to reassign weapons to whoever or be able to change seats internally (I'm having severe gameplay exploit reasons against that myself though), as they would like to at least be able to recreate the old situation.

[Tamas]

To be fair, there's predominantly a large group against and only a small group in favour, it's around 8 people that continuously argue. If you go chalk up the opinions, the majority is against. There's also a middle group that just wants to be able to reassign weapons to whoever or be able to change seats internally (I'm having severe gameplay exploit reasons against that myself though), as they would like to at least be able to recreate the old situation.

Until we get actual statistical sample numbers, your argument is not valid. I can say majority is indifferent thus proving you argument invalid, but without any statistical proof, it's pointless.

[ItsTheSheppy]

I am very much against tank drivers being able to fire the primary gun.

[CollinBRTD]

Again and again

If a tank needs to have 2 or 3 persons to operate it needs to be VERY powerfull. This concept was already broken in PS1. (Raider). If you want to balance this vehicle against the reaver/mossi and the vanu crap which is NOBODY saying it should have a driver and a gunner. Tanks need to be way more powerfull.

I see this in PS1 when Reavers take down Prowlers even with this crappy third gun (which nobody wants to gun) you always feel robbed.

Now people say the reaver is a totaly different vehicle in game and it can be taken down by AA. But the three man tank has to fear even more. Mines/AV Max/AV inf aso.

Even worse when i see the alpha videos atm the Reaver seems to have very powerfull first strike weapons and even with aa on your tank i guess you will take more damage then the reaver. The Reaver can fly back reapair and rearm in no time while the tank is sitting duck.

So why do people argue that tanks need to have 2-3 gunners? First i say one or two have valid arguments that it fits the theme of Planetside but most of people fear the loss of the exclusivity of the soloaircav and its powers in the field.

I say IF a driver/gunner tank rolls in PS2 this tank NEEDS to be really strong and a single seater vehicle should not even have the slightest chance taking it down. I see here the lightning and MBT in PS1 were nicely balanced, but the Reaver/Raider/Skyguard/Buggies were very broken. While the reaver was WAY to strong especially the Raider and skyguard were way to weak for its manpower and amour. It was bad before the stealth reaverbuff but became totally silly afterwards.

[Tamas]

Let me compare something: BF series and Red Orchestra.

I've played BF since it's first game. It had "normal" driver also shoots and it had driver+gunner(arty). The latter one was always frustrating to play because either the driver was an idiot or the gunner was. Same with Red Orchestra - the tanks had several people spots and it was so annoying when the driver moved just when you shot or the gunner didn't face the direction the driver wanted him to.

It comes down to communication. Unless you are in an outfit, it won't happen. Face the reality - when random people play, teamwork is not a priority for them, unless some miracle happens and like minded people randomly play together. In an outfit it makes sense - communication is much easier and you perform better. I doubt PS2 random fights will be exceptionally more geared towards teamwork than other FPS with larger player numbers. Making it driver and gunner mandatory you deprive a lot of from a potential user-base- yes, there will be non PS1 vets playing it, unless of course you want less new people (thus introducing out of date mechanics, that few people are used to).

I personally like the optional approach. You can do it yourself or you can have a dedicated driver and gunner. No need for a significant bonus, as the tank should be balanced as a normal 1 version tank. You get the benefit of situation awareness and focusing - you can drive normally and fire at an enemy somewhere else while trying to do that solo would mean you either run off a cliff/hit rock (overall less efficient) or you can't aim so good.

I'm always baffled by people who go "my way is the correct way and everyone else is wrong". Why can't we get a compromise for that and not go A or B.

Also note that these forums do not accurately represent the future player base. Might be that most people will be fine (or not) or people will be indifferent. As these forums are for people who are willing to follow the game and discuss it, one can assume that this is the more active community, but in most cases it's only a fraction of the whole player base.

[headcrab13]

I like the arguments here about multi-seated tanks requiring teamwork, but I don't think we need to take away a tank driver's ability to fire.

Just give roughly equivalent firepower to each member of the tank crew, so a solo tanker can still be formidable, but rounding up a crew lets you really devastate your surroundings. Teamwork should cause more damage than solo play, after all.

[Figment]

Until we get actual statistical sample numbers, your argument is not valid. I can say majority is indifferent thus proving you argument invalid, but without any statistical proof, it's pointless.

Polls were conducted on this.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=37352&highlight=driver

There you go. Of course this is just a small poll and only goes for those who voted. Those that like the idea of how PS2 currently is done are HALF of those that prefer a split off controls.

The compromise crowd also contains some people that want to see that over PS2's driver/gunner. I've even seen some would even just want to see this compromise in beta to indicate its failure with respect to the PS1 system.



I will say though that from my perspective, there is a lot of ignorance involved with people who think that because something is done in another game, it can automatically work in any game. Quite typically they forget context and numerical limitations and other restrictions and power balances imposed in those other games.

[Tamas]

Polls were conducted on this.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=37352&highlight=driver

There you go. Of course this is just a small poll and only goes for those who voted. Those that like the idea of how PS2 currently is done are HALF of those that prefer a split off controls.

The compromise crowd also contains some people that want to see that over PS2's driver/gunner. I've even seen some would even just want to see this compromise in beta to indicate its failure with respect to the PS1 system.



I will say though that from my perspective, there is a lot of ignorance involved with people who think that because something is done in another game, it can automatically work in any game. Quite typically they forget context and numerical limitations and other restrictions and power balances imposed in those other games.

To have valid statistics you'd need a random sample size of 1000 people to get even close to plausible results (I didn't make up these rules, this is standard).

You have to agree that this place is more for PS1 vets, who will mostly vote PS1 way. It does not represent what the whole community might want, only that 62 PS1 vets want it.

[Hmr85]

To have valid statistics you'd need a random sample size of 1000 people to get even close to plausible results (I didn't make up these rules, this is standard).

You have to agree that this place is more for PS1 vets, who will mostly vote PS1 way. It does not represent what the whole community might want, only that 62 PS1 vets want it.

63 PS1 Vets want it... I added myself in there. :lol: I want a game focused primarily around Team work not wannabe Rambo's who where pissed off that they couldn't drive a MBT by themselves because it involved somebody else getting their kills. Having multiple seats in MBT's forced teamwork in PS1 regardless of what the bulk majority of the anti - multiple seat MBT crowd has to say. There was a vehicle for ppl who wanted a 1 seat tank. It was called the lightning.

But ppl where not happy with the lightning because it died to easy. They couldn't sit in front of a tower or a door and absorb more than 2 to 3 rockets to the face before it blew it up. Thus it was interfering with their K/D ratio. So thus, here we are with this asinine 1 seater tank that we have today.

For the record, I was hoping that the Reaver was going to be a 2 seater when we first started getting word about PS2 way back when to help cut down on the Reaver spam this time around. With a dedicated driver in control of the cannon and a gunner for missiles. Why you ask, It promotes team work and is more aligned in what you would see today. Same goes for the MBT.

./flame on :flamemad:

[CutterJohn]

I like the shield suggestion for when a secondary gunner hops in. I'm a little leery about its ability to recharge though, if only because o the risk/reward factor of getting what amounts to free repairs without any effort or risk. Plus it was one of the bigest things that were broken about the BFR's in PS1. I'd suggest only allowing it to recharge if the vehicle isn't moving or if it hasn't taken damage in the last 5-10 seconds, so keeping the pressure on a MBT would prevent it from recharging.

Adding in secondary abilities for the gunner like spotlights, EMP etc would be interesting too since it makes the gunner spot more attractive without directly affecting its firepower.

Yeah, recharge should not be so great that you could sit there and soak damage with it, but Amp station charging was only 5hp/s, so that really shouldn't be an issue. It might let you soak a beamer from max range.. :D

[atomos]

I hope they do allow the driver to act as gunner because otherwise we will see alot less tanks and I think it really helps players who want to play tank and don't have time to find a gunner. They just need to make the tank more powerful the more players that are seated to encourage team play, for example whatever gun the gunner is controlling there is a reduction in the reload time by half.

[Tamas]

63 PS1 Vets want it... I added myself in there. :lol: I want a game focused primarily around Team work not wannabe Rambo's who where pissed off that they couldn't drive a MBT by themselves because it involved somebody else getting their kills. Having multiple seats in MBT's forced teamwork in PS1 regardless of what the bulk majority of the anti - multiple seat MBT crowd has to say. There was a vehicle for ppl who wanted a 1 seat tank. It was called the lightning.

But ppl where not happy with the lightning because it died to easy. They couldn't sit in front of a tower or a door and absorb more than 2 to 3 rockets to the face before it blew it up. Thus it was interfering with their K/D ratio. So thus, here we are with this asinine 1 seater tank that we have today.

For the record, I was hoping that the Reaver was going to be a 2 seater when we first started getting word about PS2 way back when to help cut down on the Reaver spam this time around. With a dedicated driver in control of the cannon and a gunner for missiles. Why you ask, It promotes team work and is more aligned in what you would see today. Same goes for the MBT.

./flame on :flamemad:

Well I don't want to flame, just wanted to point the statistical thing. I mean if you got Coca-Cola forums (if there is one, don't know....) and ask people if they liked coke, 99% would say yes, but you can't say that 99% of the world loves coke based on that.

The way forums work, is that more dedicated people post, a bit more only read and most don't read them - this is common for most games.

As per driver and gunner - I'd like that to be a "specialization". Take Reaver - one man normal as seen in footage, however if it turns into 2 man, than it acts as Helis in BF - 1 pilot with the rockets and the gunner with now rotating gun/cannon (whatever you put there). Now the gun would rotate, zoom in, infrared vision - all that, making it far more deadly and powerful than the static gun we saw in the GDC video ( fixed aim, no zoom etc). Just by making it 2 man it becomes far more deadly without even "buffing" the damage, speed etc.

I would like to see the option to choose - you can go solo, or you can go as a small team, making the single vehicle more deadly (by allowing it do something you could not do alone).

In a tank - the gunner would have his hands full with just the machine gun - taking care of infantry/Air while the driver would take care of other armored vehicles (whatever the spec, the two can fill different roles). As a single person you'd have to switch from machine gun to cannon so you couldn't do both. Heck, you can have 3 people in tank (as in BF3), where the 3rd person laser designates targets/marks them for guided rockets (coordinating with infantry or the gunner who switched from machine gun to rocket launcher for more AT power).

I don't want to see "only one man vehicles" nor "only several people may operate it so it can fight". I'd prefer it optional, making it simply more efficient (if players are good of course).

[Sirisian]

I want a game focused primarily around Team work not wannabe Rambo's who where pissed off that they couldn't drive a MBT by themselves because it involved somebody else getting their kills. Having multiple seats in MBT's forced teamwork in PS1 regardless of what the bulk majority of the anti - multiple seat MBT crowd has to say. There was a vehicle for ppl who wanted a 1 seat tank. It was called the lightning.
I think a lot of people want the game to be team focused. Forcing people into vehicle just to make them do their primary role just isn't a good way to do it. You can have team work that isn't as forced by doing exactly what the devs have designed. The people driving a vehicle don't necessarily want to solo-killwhore. They just don't want to do nothing and to me driving is the equivalent to doing nothing in an FPS. If you want to drive a vehicle without a weapon you can use a quad or wait until the buggies are released, just don't mess with the tanks.

[Lord Cosine]

If the MBT and Lightning are both driver as gunner I see a role conflict. Why would anyone choose an AV lightning over an AV solo Vanguard?

In ps1 it was clear cut, if you have 2 dudes roll a mbt, if you have 1 roll a lightning. Furthermore since it has been stated that these vehicles can be customized to fill an AV, AI, or AA role, it makes the distinction between the vehicles even more vague.

Finally with integrated vivox and auto-generated chat channels between driver and gunner it will be easier then ever to coordinate with new players.

As long as the lightning is a competitive solo vehicle I really don't see why the mbts need to be as well.

[Rivenshield]

As long as the lightning is a competitive solo vehicle I really don't see why the mbts need to be as well.

Because the Lightning will prolly just have the same gun as a Sundy turret. There'll *be* no mission-configurable Lightning. Which makes the MBT potentially more powerful, which stimulates teamwork, etc.

That's the argument so far, and I don't buy it. Anything that promotes teamwork is good. Anything that doesn't is ghey. It should be easier, not harder, to find gunners in a game with multiple-hundreds of your own people in the area.

This is a mistake.

[CutterJohn]

Lightnings will have a choice of different weapons, like the MBT gunners do.

[Figment]

Because the Lightning will prolly just have the same gun as a Sundy turret. There'll *be* no mission-configurable Lightning. Which makes the MBT potentially more powerful, which stimulates teamwork, etc.

Ehr no. It will have fully customizable weapons, including AA, AI and AV, each of which supposedly just a bit more powerful than any MBT gunner.

[Figment]

To have valid statistics you'd need a random sample size of 1000 people to get even close to plausible results (I didn't make up these rules, this is standard).

You have to agree that this place is more for PS1 vets, who will mostly vote PS1 way. It does not represent what the whole community might want, only that 62 PS1 vets want it.

Already indicated that the sample size was small. Regardless, the PS1 playerbase, the entirety of it, will probably share that ratio because it's what they know worked. Each and every single PS1 player you bring this up to and didn't know about it yet will bring up the same issues.

The whole community will be PS2 vets. They will like whatever PS2 is. So if that's like PS1, then they will like it like we did in PS1. That's how mass opinion works.

Besides, players who never played PlanetSide don't HAVE an informed opinion on splitting roles because they probably never played that way. To say it therefore should never happen is a load of bull, because one day there were pre-PS1 players who had never played in two-three crew units. Yet somehow these people now believe it is the best way to do it.

Strange huh?

Never argue from a mass that is uninformed and has no opinion based on experience and worse, is not polled at all about this. I find it absolutely ironic that anyone that will say that any poll conducted here is biased, yet has absolutely no poll or statistic to back up their own claim of what "the masses" want ("yet somehow know exactly what they want") and even if they had, that it would be the opinion of uninformed people.

It's like polling people if they agree with the EULA or only ask those people that actually read the EULA.

[CollinBRTD]

The lightning is still a one man tank and the MBT is a 2 men tank in PS2.

I guess we just have to wait how its working in PS2.

[Figment]

As per driver and gunner - I'd like that to be a "specialization". Take Reaver - one man normal as seen in footage, however if it turns into 2 man, than it acts as Helis in BF - 1 pilot with the rockets and the gunner with now rotating gun/cannon (whatever you put there). Now the gun would rotate, zoom in, infrared vision - all that, making it far more deadly and powerful than the static gun we saw in the GDC video ( fixed aim, no zoom etc). Just by making it 2 man it becomes far more deadly without even "buffing" the damage, speed etc.

You forget that while this single unit becomes more effective compared to a single player version, there'd only be half the amount of them.

It is a numerical restriction. On the previous page, Atomos, stated he didn't want to see a split because then there'd be more tanks. That's a viable argument, though I and others are very concerned of 'spam', where it becomes too dominant, used too much and infringing on the viability of other units. Atomos and others suggested power being related to the amount of troops inside (weapons or shield or other characteristics). That would help in toning down their power and making gunners more attractive, but it'd still be a lot of potential spam and infringe on the Lightning's AV role.

[Tamas]

Already indicated that the sample size was small. Regardless, the PS1 playerbase, the entirety of it, will probably share that ratio because it's what they know worked. Each and every single PS1 player you bring this up to and didn't know about it yet will bring up the same issues.

The whole community will be PS2 vets. They will like whatever PS2 is. So if that's like PS1, then they will like it like we did in PS1. That's how mass opinion works.

Besides, players who never played PlanetSide don't HAVE an informed opinion on splitting roles because they probably never played that way. To say it therefore should never happen is a load of bull, because one day there were pre-PS1 players who had never played in two-three crew units. Yet somehow these people now believe it is the best way to do it.

Strange huh?

Never argue from a mass that is uninformed and has no opinion based on experience and worse, is not polled at all about this. I find it absolutely ironic that anyone that will say that any poll conducted here is biased, yet has absolutely no poll or statistic to back up their own claim of what "the masses" want ("yet somehow know exactly what they want") and even if they had, that it would be the opinion of uninformed people.

It's like polling people if they agree with the EULA or only ask those people that actually read the EULA.

"I can't prove there is no god, you can't prove there is one". By default both our statements are invalid. So even though I can't back up my claim, you can't back up yours, thus a standstill.


On another matter. I personally don't believe in balancing with players per vehicle approach. Lightning is a fun fast vehicle, that should primarily hit and run or go AA (as it was stated it will have the best AA), it should not the "Main battle tank" to lead the charge - the Vanguard/Prowler/Mag should be.
Defning their roles should be placed purely on their strengths/weaknesses.

Take WoT for example. A light tank (AMX 13 90) can destroy a heavy tank if the player knows what he is doing (above average skill). Heavy tank - great front armor, big gun, slow turret, light tank - normal gun, no armor, very fast. You can simply avoid the aim of the heavy and circle him to death.

In another case hard counters - a lot of tanks = just bring what counters them. There will be counters - from infantry to air vehicles and turrets (from engineers). Just like any RTS game - you stack one unit, you lose to anyone with some experience. Besides the tank problem would be solved by several liberators.

Since none of us are in the actual Beta, we are purely speculating on the information and building scenarios (what if). Until people test the actual thing, I don't want to say I'm 100% sure on what I say, since I'm not.

Yes, I'm more biased towards driver/gunner 1 person, since I hate my experience with 1 driver 1 gunner. However I'd prefer optional approach instead of only 2 or 2 mandatory players.


Let me point our something. Lets say you require 2 people. Yet anyone can take a Vanguard, drive to a location, switch to gunner and shoot. I'm very sure this would happen (hell, I'd do that if I didn't have any friends online to go 2 man). In this case players that do that are less efficient, but they still achieve their desire to go solo. In the process they are sort of hindering their team, as a tank is performing under strength and is likely an easier kill for the enemy.

[Figment]

Vanguard, Prowler and Magrider will each have different roles though.

If we are talking WoT, then as they have been defined sofar, the Vanguard is the Tiger II (heavy brawler), Prowler the Pershing (speedy flanker) and Magrider akin to a cross between Jagdpanther and an US turreted TD (agile sniper). You cannot expect each of these to lead the charge in the same way.

The Lightning will probably be something akin to the M26 Chaffee or VK3001(H). The AMX 13 90 is a bit too unique to compare with due to the clip gun. The AMX is a much more hit and run unit because it cannot stay around too long while reloading. Personally expect the Lightning to be more both hit and run and continuous circling unit (hence Chaffee).



I'd much rather have someone (get out and) switch seats and be a stationary target and easy kill, then someone driving around with heavy armour and a heavy gun, on his own, while all his buddies do so as well. That'd recreate the BFR-experience where fightning small numbers is hard but doable, but large numbers impossible because of the leverage of numbers in endurance and firepower.

The Liberator argument also requires it to be available and not instantly by shot down by all the Lightning AA that would drive along the one crew MBTs (besides, all MBTs would probably have AA on top anyway and switch to that).

[Tamas]

Just to be clear - Vanguard is IS4, not KT. KT - lol shoot lower armor = 100% pen, fire and dead engine.

I hope Mag plays as BF 2142 Type 32 Nekomata. Strafing sideways and firing is awesome.

I'm going NC and VS (different servers), as I love their weapons (how they perform/look) and both faction vehicles (except VS non nanite air - le terrible vehicle).

I hope Lightning is Type 59 prior to the nerf (lol had 78% win rate for first month). Speed, good gun and won't die very easily (unless ammo rack).

I'm going Lightning full AA - hope there are cannons (like flak) as I prefer them over heatseaker missiles. I just have a thing for AA vehicles - like when they show movies with air warning sounding and flak tracer fire going into the night sky - I just melt at it's awesomeness. Loved the part in GDC vids where Higby is flying in night time and has incoming VS ground fire - I imagine a lot of action on the ground in the actual game due to more players - that is so awesome!!! Also engineer for more AA turrets! And base defense for AA turrets! *stops shaking hand*

Anyways, I hope I get into beta to see how this all works out.

[kaffis]

If you want to drive a vehicle without a weapon you can use a quad or wait until the buggies are released, just don't mess with the tanks.
Wait, what?

Why on earth would you present *buggies* as the go-to for dedicated drivers, and present that as balanced with driver-gunned MBTs?

If anything could be considered acceptable, I'd argue that the lightly armored, faster buggies would be the more balanced choice to make driver gunned.

[Tamas]

Wait, what?

Why on earth would you present *buggies* as the go-to for dedicated drivers, and present that as balanced with driver-gunned MBTs?

If anything could be considered acceptable, I'd argue that the lightly armored, faster buggies would be the more balanced choice to make driver gunned.

erm the art showed a buggy with a grande launcher on it (I believe a tweet from Senior art director), so buggies will get weapons, also they hinted at 2 man buggies in some interview with Higby (said was a possibility).

[Erendil]

Wait, what?

Why on earth would you present *buggies* as the go-to for dedicated drivers, and present that as balanced with driver-gunned MBTs?

If anything could be considered acceptable, I'd argue that the lightly armored, faster buggies would be the more balanced choice to make driver gunned.

Buggies move way faster than MBT's do, so the current line of thought for some is that because of their higher speed it would be much more difficult for the driver to also have to concentrate on gunning and still keep control of his vehicle. Thus having a dedicated driver would be vital.

Mind you, I don't necessarily share that view since I drove a Lightning at near buggy speeds (75kph) quite often without much issue in PS1. I have seen others post such reasoning on the boards here though. :)

That said, driving a Thresher solo in PS2 would truly be an orgasmic experience! :D

[Hmr85]

Already indicated that the sample size was small. Regardless, the PS1 playerbase, the entirety of it, will probably share that ratio because it's what they know worked. Each and every single PS1 player you bring this up to and didn't know about it yet will bring up the same issues.

The whole community will be PS2 vets. They will like whatever PS2 is. So if that's like PS1, then they will like it like we did in PS1. That's how mass opinion works.

Besides, players who never played PlanetSide don't HAVE an informed opinion on splitting roles because they probably never played that way. To say it therefore should never happen is a load of bull, because one day there were pre-PS1 players who had never played in two-three crew units. Yet somehow these people now believe it is the best way to do it.

Strange huh?

Never argue from a mass that is uninformed and has no opinion based on experience and worse, is not polled at all about this. I find it absolutely ironic that anyone that will say that any poll conducted here is biased, yet has absolutely no poll or statistic to back up their own claim of what "the masses" want ("yet somehow know exactly what they want") and even if they had, that it would be the opinion of uninformed people.

It's like polling people if they agree with the EULA or only ask those people that actually read the EULA.

Very well said, I agree completely. I truly believe come beta. They devs should have the MBT's set up both ways. So for instance maybe have a month where it requires multiple guys to crew a tank. Followed by another month of 1 man tanks. Then hold a poll or a forum where they could receive feedback on what players want. I really believe a lot of people would ultimately choose multi crew MBT's after actually getting a chance to see how much more effective they could be with a dedicated driver and gunner.

[sylphaen]

That said, driving a Thresher solo in PS2 would truly be an orgasmic experience! :D

Dealing with turning AND strafing AND gun orientation would be pro.
:)

1-man threshers = the new "Land Reaver" ?
:lol:

EDIT:
Just to add a point about buggies. I think their force was from allowing 2 users with REXO and bailing. It compensated for the high risk associated with low durability.

The Tresher+Lancer combo was particularly good:
Tanks -> evade and come back to hunt with AV from long range
low-HP tanks -> finish off with AV or thresher orbs (good at AV, great at AI)
Infantry alone -> hit and run to kill softies, bail if very-damaged, resume on foot
Infantry among heavy vehicles -> hit and run to kill softies, bail if very damaged, resume on foot

The Enforcer was also god at roaming around battles and sniping targets (one hit kills on infantry with decent long-range accuracy). It was also great at evading with the best forward speed of all buggies and good armor. You could also finish things off with the Jackhammer should the vehicle get too damaged.
Bail+Jam+double phoenix/deci shots was also quite good if you did not miss the jam.

The marauder was a bit more complicated... It had decent AI and 2 guns but the machine gun turret usually did not really help that much. It forced you to get really close without giving the evasion/mobility of threshers. 2 guns did not compensate for that IMO. The pounder gun could clear a cluster of infantry really fast though.

With buggy bails, we may see more of suicide tactics than this kind of stuff, though. Bail is OP. :)

[CutterJohn]

will probably share that ratio because it's what they know worked.

Or because its just what they're used to, and lack the imagination to see anything else as capable of working, or just want the exact same game again(which is fine, but not an argument against change, just an argument for a preference).

Kinda like how nobody is complaining that the Lib has a powerful driver cannon, despite being a 3 man teamwork oriented vehicle. Why? Because thats how it was in PS1.

[Figment]

Or because its just what they're used to, and lack the imagination to see anything else as capable of working, or just want the exact same game again(which is fine, but not an argument against change, just an argument for a preference).

The only ones lacking imagination would be the ones who cannot fathom a multi-player unit while never having played with one. Considering everyone who played PS1 knows damn well how a single player tank works, they're the only ones with a legit argument for preference. The rest simply never had experience on BOTH systems. BOTH Cutter, BOTH.

New players will ALWAYS adapt to the game they meet, so to say they NEED single crew tanks to find the game acceptable for instance is utter bullshit. If that were the case, PS1 would NOT have had multi-crew split tanks! But keep ignoring that since it doesn't suit your own preference...

But ffs Cutter, you are a mod now, drop the ad hominems of others not knowing what they want and being biased, without having a good reason to back that up. People who have no experience cannot make a choice in advance. People that have experience can say what would happen, big difference.

Putting words in other people's mouths, pretending you know what they think and why in order to whenever they disagree with you dismiss them without any argument to backup that claim is very annoying. No, these people don't want a carbon copy of PS1, but that doesn't mean PS2 has to be a complete 100% overhaul in terms of game mechanics and systems from PS1 either. For something to be overhauled, PS1 would have to have failed in that respect or a better alternative available.

Changing for the sake of changing is what you get when you let Micheal Bay make a nostalgia movie.

Kinda like how nobody is complaining that the Lib has a powerful driver cannon, despite being a 3 man teamwork oriented vehicle. Why? Because thats how it was in PS1.

You want to compare a Libs' fixed forward level flying nose gun with a turret mounted (dual) 100mm or higher cal cannon? Good luck with that.

[kaffis]

Kinda like how nobody is complaining that the Lib has a powerful driver cannon, despite being a 3 man teamwork oriented vehicle. Why? Because thats how it was in PS1.
I was a Libby pilot, and would not have objected if the pilot gun was removed, especially now that they've changed from a bombardier to a downward-facing turret.

The nose gun on the Liberator in PS1 was only ever really any good at occasional potshots of opportunity. If you wanted to be in a dedicated air fight, you were better off in anything but a Liberator. If you wanted to perform the primary function of the Liberator, you don't have time to change heading to seek targets on a level with you, and you need to provide level flight over the target zone for your bombardier. So the Liberator was only ever good for 2 functional weapons at a time, in a 3-man vehicle.

Removing that nose gun and giving the bombardier a turret maintains that power balance and achieves the dedicated driver teamwork experience.

I'd be happy as a clam if nothing bigger than a Lightning was driver-gunned, and no air vehicles were. Give me two-man ES fighters, 3-man Liberators, and Galaxies with bunches of guns, and no fixed forward guns for pilots. Then also give me a dedicated MBT driver with two crew, and 1-man Lightnings that offer similar durability to beefy MAX suits (a few shots with dedicated AV weaponry). That sounds like a blast!

The reason that sounds fun as heck to me is that with that level of teamwork and manpower dedicated to each vehicle, you can balance them to be rugged and powerful without invalidating infantry choices in mixed-arms environments. Because the infantry maintains the power of numbers.

Ever wonder why Planetside 1 was all about the Reaver out in the open? Because it was a class of armament that allowed one person access to very high amounts of firepower along with an armor type (vehicle) which afforded him much more durability than otherwise available and required specialized dedicated weaponry to threaten him.

The only AV will be other vehicles, MAXes, and HA, folks. Allowing armored vehicles to be solo-operated is just begging to obviate infantry playstyles in any situation where the vehicle is permitted.

[Rocknoise]

imo the maingun at 2nd seat was perfect. Driving and gunning like in bf3 is so not funny. As driver i want to keep my eyes to the front. As gunner i very often to keep my eyes aftwards. Doing both is really crappy. One big reason FOR ps1 were the seperated roles in a tank.

So a hybrid version would be acceptable and a new aspect to ps2, but removing the rolesplit completly would compromise ps2´s mmo feeling alot.

Also the dependence of the 2 or 3 crewmen has been really a boost to teamplay and abilities.

So here im appealing: PLS MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR GUNNER TO USE MAINGUN!

sry for caps. but that really freaks me out to lose such an important feature.