Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2 [Archive]

FIREk

2011-09-16, 09:43 AM

So it's official now, and we can be 100% sure it won't change (if only because vehicle models have a set number of hatches;)). Tank drivers will control the main turret, leaving only the secondary gun in the hands of their gunner. This is bound to be a controversial topic...

Here are my thoughts:

1) There is a logic behind the main idea Higby mentioned - if you invested time in training tank certs, you deserve to not only be a chauffeur, but to take advantage of most of your tank. That's fair.

2) Because they will require less manpower, tanks are likely to be a lot "softer" now, especially if a skilled tank-buster knows how to get at the weaker sections of the armor. I always thought tanks could soak up way too much damage in PS1, so I would be more than happy with this.

3) This is how it has worked in all Battlefield games, all the way since BF1942, and there's no problem with that system there.

4) On the other hand, there are only 1-3 tanks per side on a Battlefield map. PS2 will be on a completely different scale, with 50 people being able to each pull a tank for themselves almost simultaneously, and roll those 50 tanks somewhere. So the way Battlefield mechanics are balanced towards overall gameplay doesn't have to translate well to PS2's scale.

5) On yet another hand ;), this can be resolved with appropriate vehicle spawn timer restrictions. If you can only roll, say, one tank every 10 minutes (maybe more), you will have to be careful not to get blown up. Therefore tanks are less likely to just swarm the battlefield, farming a few kills before being mowed down. Killing a tank will also be much more satisfying. :)

6) Being able to control the main gun saves zerg tank drivers the trouble of picking up an incompetent gunner, thus losing all possible fun in that particular tank.

7) It streamlines the process of tank warfare, removing any communication issues. Unlike real tanks, with a commander, driver and gunner (plus), we can't communicate as efficiently in a game (especially with randoms) and would likely have no convenient target marking tools.

8) That being said, it might make a lot more sense to give tank drivers control of the secondary gun - either arbitrarily, or optionally, but only if there's a second person in the tank. We don't fast seat-switching solo tanks with AA guns, do we? ;)
There are quite a few good reasons for this. Tank drivers get to use the upgraded secondary gun they have to "pay" for. The secondary turret will rotate faster, making it easier to look around an navigate. Plus, since the tank would now require two people to function properly, it could be given tougher armor without compromising balance.
This would, however, necessitate turning the Magrider into a classic two-turret tank.

All in all, I think that, once the details get hammered out during beta we will be happy with this new system. What do you guys think?

Also, on the subject of vehicles being mostly functional with only one player controlling them:
1) Take note that Higby pretty much confirmed that the Linerator's pilot will be the bombardier as well. It will be a 2-seater, and the passenger will likely only operate the rear turret, which isn't required for the bomber to do its job.
If implemented correctly, this will be fair, since the Reaver and MBTs will also require only one person to use their vehicles' basic functionality.

2) I'm also under the impression that Higby semi-confirmed an optional co-pilot/gunner for the Reaver. In the interview with NapalmEnima he might have let slip that the two-seater from the early screenshot is a two-seater variant. Of course the design might have changed by now, just like the Mossie is said to have changed.

3) Buggies, however, can't work with only one person aboard, since they're too fast and fragile to both zoom past trees and aim sideways/backwards. Since their design would necessitate two people, they should be made into "glass cannons" with powerful weapons, but relying on speed alone to survive. They can't be the "poor man's tanks" from PS1 anymore. :)

Graywolves

2011-09-16, 09:50 AM

Draep

2011-09-16, 10:04 AM

FIREk

2011-09-16, 10:05 AM

The impression I got was that it wouldn't be single-manned unless you did the customization to make it so.

Even if it's immediate, most lightning drivers go straight into trees so I see single-manned tanks as more of a disadvantage compared to one that is fully manned with a focused driver and gunners.

As far as I recall there weren't many trees in BF1942 and BF2, and you could mow down trees in BFBC2, so it wasn't a big problem there. ;) Tanks in PS2 will likely have two-axis turret stabilization, making driving them a bit less chaotic, than driving a PS1 Lightning, I think.

Logit

2011-09-16, 10:37 AM

Personally, I liked the way it was done in PS1.

I always found it cumbersome to try and drive and gun at the same time, and it promoted *GASP* team work between driver and gunner to be successful.

I know the team work isn't gone now, but I feel like there were a good amount of people that enjoyed how the prowler and vanguard were, as opposed to the magrider. It added to the empire specific feel of fighting.

SgtMAD

2011-09-16, 10:39 AM

I don't like it,it takes away from the teamwork aspect of the game.there is a commitment to team work when you cert armor and need a gunner,don't take that out of the game,its a dynamic that made PS work.

everyone complains about one man armies and SOE wants to make tanks a solo veh?

Logit

2011-09-16, 10:41 AM

Goku

2011-09-16, 10:58 AM

I don't like it this one bit. I loved the team based tank (half the time I was in PS I was driving my VG). This is no different then how the Reaver is at the moment in PS due to how powerful with only being a single seater. Taking too much from Battlefield in my opinion.

Baron

2011-09-16, 11:07 AM

I'm torn on this at the moment. I think it's too early to judge for certain since we can't see it "in action" however my initial instinct is not positive.

1) Not that PS2 (or any video game really) should be compared to real life, however no main battle tank can be driven and gunned by a single person crew.

2) Using some examples above by the OP, if you make the tank weaker (ability to soak less damage) AND give it weak points AND give it some large timer...this will be the death of that vehicle.

3) I think tank armor in PS1, pre-shield days, was a perfect balance of firepower vs. crew size vs. battlefield longevity. I do think the direction is moving a little TOO heavily toward the battlefield model.

4) If vehicles have some version of the defensive shield as in BF2142 that could compensate for the increased vulnerability (or make it completely invulnerable to small arms fire).... but have you jumped in the secondary gunner seat for a tank in BF2 or 2142? It's almost certain death.

TacosWLove

2011-09-16, 11:28 AM

Well being a mostly solo player my later days of PS, i can say it would have been really nice to drive a tank solo and gun ett. But i do agree in terms of balance and game play, it should be at the very least a two person thing.

If it is implemented with some skill tree, it should be at a major disadvantage to two/three person tank setup ups, and blown out of the water if the 2/3 person setups are all skilled for their respective tree in tank gunning/driving..

ikon

2011-09-16, 11:29 AM

id imagine even if they are zerging without gunners.

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

so free kills for me ^^

kaffis

2011-09-16, 11:33 AM

I don't think this is a great idea. Remember driving around a lightning? PS1 was the first game to have tank drivers focusing exclusively on driving to great effect. Also, I think this kills the manpower requirements of tanks. Tanks should require a lot of teamwork and you are right to be punished by allowing greenies to gun for you.
Mostly this. I think it's very insightful to point out that PS1 was an exception in promoting "good" tank driving.

If you guys'll pardon me for copy/pasting my reply from the Interview thread on the topic...

I'm not willing to say that it's a make or break issue without playing what they're putting together, but I liked the two-man coordination that the MBTs (and, yes, Liberator) demanded to be effective. Did it suck to get stuck with a lousy gunner/driver/pilot? Sure. But that's not limited to vehicles. It sucks as a medic getting stuck with infantry that can't hit the broad side of the barn, too. That doesn't mean you get rid of support classes.

I like vehicles that require good coordination to be effective, and I like how that demand for higher degrees of participation (and staffing, if you will) provides a good balance point in exchange for high durability. Less than high durability, and, I would think, you start losing the right "feel" for a tank. And a one-man high durability vehicle with optional gunner seat (which makes me think like the prowler's 3rd seat) means you can run alone with 80% of a 2-man vehicle's effectiveness. Does that balance out? My gut says no, but I'm willing to wait and see before I bitch.

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

Baron

2011-09-16, 11:48 AM

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

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

I hope PS2 gunners do not fall into the above categories. As the PS team has stated before, there is a large amount of customization so I still have faith that the secondary gunner can have some cool things to play with.

Goku

2011-09-16, 11:51 AM

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

I like! When I drove around I never had any random team mates. I always had a outfit member gunning for me, but most of the time it was my OL. He got to be quite a good shot and I was a good driver. We actually got into our own style of using the VG that was effective if you knew how to gun with my driving. Now a days anyone who gets in my VG cannot stand my driving, since I had a dedicated one must of the time lol. I do not have no major issues with upgrading a tank for a gunner due to that.

NewSith

2011-09-16, 11:58 AM

TTK for a tank steps in here. I wouldn't jump to assumptions just yet - a BF tank gets raped by just 2 AV shots. I think we should all wait for beta with this question. Even if the system they offer will be flawed (which I am, honestly, most sure of), deleting the skill from the tree is not very much of a drag.

klu

2011-09-16, 12:03 PM

CutterJohn

2011-09-16, 12:05 PM

If they do stick with the concept of the driver being the primary gunner and the gunner controlling the secondary turret, I for one hope they allow an option to swap control of the turrets, so you can give control of the primary turret to the gunner, and the driver takes control of the secondary.

Higby

2011-09-16, 12:05 PM

Secondary weapons on tanks are no joke.

NewSith

2011-09-16, 12:07 PM

they could simply make a gunner cert tree for any vehicle. the driver spends xp on the power or armor of the vehicle and the gunner spends xp on the power or versatility of the turret. share the xp spent and keep the teamwork element.

Sounds good, but fails in practice.

Remember that?
Raid Group LF ***** - Level 9999, Epic Set of "Armor of Awesomeness" and "Sword of Death" REQ. /w Guywithnolife

Graywolves

2011-09-16, 12:08 PM

Secondary weapons on tanks are no joke.

It is srsbzns

Goku

2011-09-16, 12:10 PM

Secondary weapons on tanks are no joke.

Can you elaborate anymore then this?

Higby

2011-09-16, 12:17 PM

Can you elaborate anymore then this?

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.

PsychoXR-20

2011-09-16, 12:22 PM

Any plans on making an option to allow the secondary gunner to control the main turret if the driver so chooses? I can see times where maybe you're running around with a good friend in a hectic battle and would find it more effective if you (the driver) could focus solely on driving and avoiding enemies/terrain obstacles, while letting your friend take over the primary gun.

Logit

2011-09-16, 12:24 PM

Bags

2011-09-16, 12:26 PM

I thought the biggest problem with release BFRs is it took multiple BFRs to kill one BFR?

Goku

2011-09-16, 12:32 PM

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.

I see what you are getting at, but I still prefer what the current system is like. Easily the most fun moments I remember from playing PS is driving with a good gunner. Sounds like this is doable with what your team wants to do with PS2, but I still see the the gunners role being to diminished even if there is a good secondary gun. The driver is has the strongest one correct?

Hearing this news I know not bother with tanks now and I preferred the team aspect more, not just having a complementary gunner. If I wanted to solo I would of learned how to use a reaver in PS. At least I will be focusing more on more infantry based ops now. The best part of PS was the huge vehicle fights. I really hope you are not making it like battlefield with how the tanks are and just getting blown up with 2 well placed AV rockets. That will ruin it imo. I am just to stuck on the current driver/gunner system in PS. I just found it balanced out good.

IceyCold

2011-09-16, 12:33 PM

Do you remember BFR's? Weren't they the death of the first game we all loved so much?

I'm all for change but with the scale of the game it would make sense that tanks require more people, rather than giving less people more power.

BFR's "benefitted" from a second gunner, but it wasn't entirely necessary.

But it was made not neccisary because of the one man BFR. The 2 man ones were much more powerful with 2 people.

Another thing is the driver's guns on a BFR could be switched, here not so much from the sound of it. The driver of the tank has access to a single weapon.

So now a 1 man tank is decent enough for head to head ground conflict against vehicles or infantry in the open; but much MUCH weaker against aircraft and infantry with any kind of cover. That is a fairly big tradeoff if you ask me, forcing yourself into a very singular role just because you were too lazy to find a gunner is a good incentive for teamwork.

I am not too worried about it to be honest, but I want to see how it pans out in beta.

Logit

2011-09-16, 12:34 PM

I thought the biggest problem with release BFRs is it took multiple BFRs to kill one BFR?

I think the biggest problem with BFR's is that the idea ever popped into someone's head.

Traak

2011-09-16, 12:36 PM

HEY! I HAVE AN IDEA!

If you cert the heavy tank, you can be the commander and gunner, which allows some uncerted person to be the driver.

How's THAT for making tank certs more attractive, instead of the guy who bothers to get the certs being hosed while some n00b gets to do (and often suck at) the gunning???

That way, EVERY tank has either a tank commander driving and no one gunning, or a tank commander gunning and someone else driving, but no tank will EVER have an uncerted n00b gunning, period, while the guy who went through the slog to get the tank cert turns into a glorified Cadbury the butler/chaffeur while the passenger gets to go all Duke Nukem and have all the gunning fun.

Want to gun a tank? GREAT! Go get your OWN certs.

Graywolves

2011-09-16, 12:46 PM

Redshift

2011-09-16, 12:48 PM

giving the more powerful vehicles the ability to only require 1 player is what caused the BFR's to be utter shite.
I'll wait and see how it goes but i've always been of the opinion that nothing bigger than a lightning should be solo

Logit

2011-09-16, 12:54 PM

kaffis

2011-09-16, 12:55 PM

Hell, I never really liked even lightnings because they were solo.

Redshift

2011-09-16, 01:01 PM

Hell, I never really liked even lightnings because they were solo.
Well the weaponry on the lightning coupled with the difficulty of driving and gunning stpped it being to much of a problem as you could jammer and run, or jammer and scare it off with AV, but if the lightning had a vanny gun on it you can all but guarantee it would be the only vehicle on the ground, farming troops all day long

Raymac

2011-09-16, 01:31 PM

Well the weaponry on the lightning coupled with the difficulty of driving and gunning stpped it being to much of a problem as you could jammer and run, or jammer and scare it off with AV, but if the lightning had a vanny gun on it you can all but guarantee it would be the only vehicle on the ground, farming troops all day long

But you still have the "difficulty of driving and gunning" applying to the MBT as well. I think it is sounding like one of those things where you will be effective solo, but far more dangerous with a crew.

In fact, I would like to see the Main Gun locked in the forward position if the driver is controlling it, to encourage having a gunner. Like most stuff in this game, I'm waiting to hear more information before I pass judgement.

I do like the idea of not having to spam V-N-G if you really don't want to. While this as a lesser effect on organized outfits, it will be a huge help to new and casual players.

FIREk

2011-09-16, 01:37 PM

Secondary weapons on tanks are no joke.

This.
Baron, I think you were thinking of Battlefield 1942, where the secondary gunner was exposed (meaning certain death, indeed). In BFBC2, the secondary gun is insanely powerful against infantry. Especially if you exploit the spotting system, you simply mow down squishies without remorse.
It should also be noted that, with powerful AV weapons at the Engineer's disposal, tanks in BFBC2 are very vulnerable without a decent secondary gunner to watch the flanks and rear.

Higby, I have three questions for you, if I may:

1) Will tanks' survivability be scaled down to that of BFBC2, where 2-3 well-placed handheld AV shots were enough to blow a tank up? I played engineer and got most of my kicks from merciless tank-busting, so I know what I'm talking about. ;)

2) When making this decision, did you factor in the common, ridiculous scenario from BFBC2, where the gunner/driver unleashes hell, while his secondary gunner/engineer continuously repairs him? Depending on the speed of the repair, and the amount of fire being taken, this gives the tank something like double or triple effective HP.
In PS1, this "tactic" would have required at least 3 people, which is a bit more fair.

3) Have you considered letting the driver use only the secondary gun? This would be especially fair considering that (as far as I understand) all (or most) of the unlocks for an MBT are for the secondary gun. This gives the guy who spent time certing the MBT+unlocks full use of what he invested time in, while requiring a second person for the second gun.

Majikk

2011-09-16, 01:41 PM

In order for this to work, a tank with a secondary weapon has to be more effective than two tanks without a secondary weapon. If a fully crewed MBT is not twice as effective, then few will bother with secondary weapons. How do you define 'effective'? I don't know. But this will come out in the wash. Single crewed MBTs need to feel like a compromise, rather than an efficient use of resources.

Of course, if spawning the tank only consumes the driver's respawn timer, then a pair of players can respawn their vehicle twice as quickly.

Accuser

2011-09-16, 01:41 PM

I'm looking forward to seeing how this works in the beta.

We obviously don't want the driver controlling the secondary gun, or he/she will simply use AA/AV/AI based on the situation and effectively be an unshielded BFR.

On the other hand, gunning a magrider was my favorite part of PS1... I hope gunners continue to have that straight-shooting railgun option.

Espion

2011-09-16, 01:42 PM

You'll be able to switch out a variety of weapons up there that add a ton to your tank's situational viability

So are you going for a BFR-like approach where individual parts of the tank can be destroyed (i.e. destroying the secondary weapon, taking damage to the main weapon so RoF slows, etc)

Graywolves

2011-09-16, 01:43 PM

.........gunning a magrider was my favorite part of PS1.......

After gunning a Magrider.....I don't want to gun anything else...

Aractain

2011-09-16, 01:45 PM

Im loveing the idea. Mainly because of the problems that Planetside had. This will ultimately lead to more vehicles on the battlefield, bigger fights and more fun.

Teamplay was required before now its an option for those who are organised.

Scow2

2011-09-16, 01:46 PM

Dangit... I was hoping the guy who acquisitions a tank would be able to apply all his certs/enhancements to that tank, and choose whether he wants to gun or drive.

I hated the Lightning and ATVs in Planetside because I couldn't focus on my driving.

Hopefully I can give my main gun to another player, or give let someone else drive while I shoot. Internal seat-swapping should be possible as well, but not instantaneous.

Draep

2011-09-16, 01:50 PM

How am I as the driver going to dodge through fire while I'm picking out targets? This feels like its taking the cavalry aspect out of tanking and gives them too much of a forced infantry support role, PS1 tanks may do both.

Graywolves

2011-09-16, 01:53 PM

With the larger maps and greater numbers/possibility of field/vehicle battles.

I think that increasing the availability of tanks and ease of use for the scrubs is actually a very good decision.

What it boils down to is how to keep the single-manned vehicled from being able to compete with a fully crewed vehicle head on. I am sure that someone somewhere will figure out how to take a one-manned vehicle and wreck everything they find. But there still needs to be a clear advantage from having a focused crew of drivers and gunners.

In most encounters, a driver who is just focused on driving while his gunners take care of the enemy, should come out on top with a combined improvement in accuracy/damage output and meneuvers.

Aractain

2011-09-16, 01:58 PM

I would say the second gun should be (a bit) MORE powerful than a main gun of another vehicle so theres a nice trade off between powerful tanks and multiple tanks.

I also hope that there is more than just tank + AA, tank + AI etc. I want main vehicles to cover the roles (esspecially AA).

Traak

2011-09-16, 02:19 PM

No

LOL

Yes. Instead of rewarding lazy and selfish people who want to gun but not drive, reward people who get certs with the primary fun thing to do with that cert.

How about we make HA so that if you cert it, you can ONLY feed ammo to someone, namely anyone from BR 0 on up who is NOT HA certed so they can do all the HA gunning while you man the ammo can?

That's a similar effect of getting a Skyguard or MBT cert in PS. You get to be the chauffeur for some selfish dork who gets to have all the fun. Nah.

No. PS 2 should reward teamwork, AND reward those who acquire a cert with the most fun thing to do with that cert. Some may argue that they REALLY love driving. GREAT! You can get a driver's cert, maybe let someone else get a commander's or gunner's cert, and drive all you want.

But to "reward" someone for getting the armored certs for a tank by FORCING him into the driver's seat is not productive. I don't think tank driver should be able to gun, because that produces Magriders that are a one-man hovering BFR, but I don't think anyone should be able to gun a tank that doesn't have the certs to command and drive one.

Driver/commanders can internally switch positions to gun or drive, without having to get out and get knifed by a cloaker. Without the long deployment delay and obvious graphic of the flail.

Reward cert holders with most fun thing to do with that cert. Forcing heavy armor cert holders to be the chauffeur is no better than forcing the owners of HA certs to be ammo-feeders for anyone else who doesn't have the HA cert, but can fire the HA weapon.

And, please, don't be so dismissive with a one-word "rebuttal". Please elaborate.

Graywolves

2011-09-16, 02:21 PM

LOL

Yes.

No

SgtMAD

2011-09-16, 02:26 PM

this is a huge mistake,we liked PS because it was a game that pushed teamwork,ppl hated the one man army concept and so now we are getting tanks that let the driver gun.

are we getting too much BF influence here now?

we don't want a clone or even a game that just steals ideas from other games, we want you to steal the idea of PS and execute the concept correctly this time.

we don't want a game that is like "XXXX",we want a game like PlanetSide

Sirisian

2011-09-16, 02:27 PM

Higby

2011-09-16, 02:31 PM

This.

Higby, I have three questions for you, if I may:

1) Will tanks' survivability be scaled down to that of BFBC2, where 2-3 well-placed handheld AV shots were enough to blow a tank up? I played engineer and got most of my kicks from merciless tank-busting, so I know what I'm talking about. ;)

2) When making this decision, did you factor in the common, ridiculous scenario from BFBC2, where the gunner/driver unleashes hell, while his secondary gunner/engineer continuously repairs him? Depending on the speed of the repair, and the amount of fire being taken, this gives the tank something like double or triple effective HP.
In PS1, this "tactic" would have required at least 3 people, which is a bit more fair.

3) Have you considered letting the driver use only the secondary gun? This would be especially fair considering that (as far as I understand) all (or most) of the unlocks for an MBT are for the secondary gun. This gives the guy who spent time certing the MBT+unlocks full use of what he invested time in, while requiring a second person for the second gun.

1) I love AV in BFBC2 also, but I always do with a Assault + Lightweight kit + C4. C4ing tanks in that game is the most fun thing imo. It's CURRENTLY not quite as easy to take a tank down, but well placed shots definitely count, and concentrating fire is very possible with our AV classes.

2) Yes.

3) It wouldn't work very well for the magrider, but allowing the driver to man the secondary weapon seems like it could be worth trying. We can consider that and see how it plays.

Traak

2011-09-16, 02:40 PM

How about making it so the gun is locked to straight forward and level when the driver is driving and gunning, whether secondary or primary?

SgtMAD

2011-09-16, 02:43 PM

How about making it so the gun is locked to straight forward and level when the driver is driving and gunning, whether secondary or primary?

yea lets make it easier for the driver to aim

Traak

2011-09-16, 02:49 PM

yea lets make it easier for the driver to aim

Not the idea. I meant instead of having it able to elevate like the MagBFRider. So there is definite profit in having a gunner, instead of having one-man rolling MAX suits/BFRs with uber armor and guns.

Sirisian

2011-09-16, 02:50 PM

How about making it so the gun is locked to straight forward and level when the driver is driving and gunning, whether secondary or primary?
How does that work? Only the Magrider can rotate freely. The other tanks will probably have tighter turning radii. That can't possibly work.

Speaking of small changes. Since I already said I like driving and gunning how about making it so that the driver can right click and release control of the main gun to the gunner. The gunner could then right click and switch between the main cannon and secondary weapons. At no point can the driver access the secondary cannons, but if they prefer they can give up control of the main cannon. (If the driver right clicks when the gunner has control they'll take over the main cannon again).

Traak

2011-09-16, 02:55 PM

How does that work?

With the more realistic physics, it would be difficult, while in motion, to get a proper elevation for a hit, because I believe, based on what they are saying about the physics, that the vehicle would be bobbing more. AND, weaving more, as I said, IF the physics really do mimic running over real terrain more.

I guess we will see.

I just don't want to see tanks that are so powerful with only one person. But I also don't want to see being punished for having the tank cert by being relegated to being a driver.

Raymac

2011-09-16, 03:24 PM

The more I think about it, the more I love this idea.

Also, I'm not worrying about balance at all at this point. The devs obviously have balance in mind, and the balance details will get ironed out in beta.

Logit

2011-09-16, 03:26 PM

2 Shotting tanks? Is that what I'm getting out of this?

wildcat140679

2011-09-16, 03:27 PM

I'm somewhat shocked to hear the driver will have control over the main gun.

Like most pointed out already, PS1 was one of those few games where you needed an extra person to effectively operate a tank.

I've had many hours of fun with a Lightning, but no matter how good I was, my skills could never match a driver/gunner setup.

I really hope there will be an option that allows the Player (the driver) to choose for him self to give up the control over the main gun to have a dedicated gunner. And even then, I'm not all that eager to have control over the secondary gun. My driving skills are only good when I'm facing forward, meaning I can only cover my forward arc and exposing my rear.

I'd rather see tanks being a dedicated driver and dedicated gunner setup and through the certification tree you can gain control over the main gun when lacking a gunner for I'm pretty sure no matter how good those tanks will be, they will never be as good as having a a dedicated driver and a dedicated gunner setup.

Aractain

2011-09-16, 03:28 PM

Remember the locational damage...

DviddLeff

2011-09-16, 03:47 PM

Initially outraged as a veteran Mag driver, but then I remember that it works in BF so why not here?

Logit

2011-09-16, 03:49 PM

Initially outraged as a veteran Mag driver, but then I remember that it works in BF so why not here?

I wish Higby never played BF, or anyone at SOE for that matter.

kaffis

2011-09-16, 03:49 PM

What it boils down to is how to keep the single-manned vehicled from being able to compete with a fully crewed vehicle head on. I am sure that someone somewhere will figure out how to take a one-manned vehicle and wreck everything they find. But there still needs to be a clear advantage from having a focused crew of drivers and gunners.
I think what you mean (or should mean) to say is,

"how to keep two single-manned vehicles from being able to compete with a fully crewed vehicle head on"

That's the real issue, IMO.

XPquant

2011-09-16, 03:49 PM

I think the answer here lies in the customization of vehicles. The ultimate reward for a tanker I believe, would be to allow him to unlock tank load outs designed for one person or multiple. There are so many way's you could design an unlocks tree to support this with just turret mods with the higher echelon requiring more manpower or simply just limit some higher power systems to requiring a gunner, for main gun or otherwise.

As an avid tanker in planetside I feel the pain of never getting to enjoy my own tank, but when I had a squad going with full tank crews it was amazing and i didn't miss the gun at all. The true power of a tank comes from combined arms and I think having a static gunner/driver position will greatly limit the tactical application of tanks. That being said I still think the option of being able to drive and gun in some aspect is important.

Armor should not be as reliant on manpower as it was in PS1 but it should not be placed in a one dimensional role. A tank with one man in it should never be a match for a tank with two. I think the best approach would be to use the already existing doctrines of the empires to influence the tank designs just like in PS1. The main battle tank should represent the core military values of their faction and the associated upgrades/sidegrades should follow that path. So a TR tank while able to be driven/gunned alone but would never match an NC tank driven alone, because the two have fundamentally different views of power. To completely remove the gunner role would kill a large tactical portion of the game.

Goku

2011-09-16, 03:52 PM

I wish Higby never played BF, or anyone at SOE for that matter.

/sign.

Traak

2011-09-16, 03:52 PM

I don't think trying to whore PS2 out to BFOMGz players is how to succeed.

I think the way to succeed is to actually spend more than fifteen cents on advertising and marketing.

kaffis

2011-09-16, 03:58 PM

Also, I'm not worrying about balance at all at this point. The devs obviously have balance in mind, and the balance details will get ironed out in beta.
That's the thing. I'm not worried that it can't be balanced. I'm worried that I won't like the way a Main Battle Tank that's balanced to have the main gun operable while the tank is crewed by a single person will feel.

Now, maybe there's a wild card we're not privvy to, like "the 'main' gun isn't the biggest threat on the tank; why do you think we give you so many options for the secondary gun?" or something else that could turn the whole argument on its head in a jiffy. And that's fine. That's why I said I'm happy holding off from voicing dissent until I get a chance to test out the feel and balance in, say, a beta.

In the meantime, though, I'm happy to help make sure the discussion gets framed in what I feel are useful, meaningful, and intelligent terms.

I will say, however, that I like the notion of people referring to a tank "commander." I'd like the cert tree to be for tank commanders, and commanders can either gun or drive, and must be the first in/last out of the vehicle (or else the other seats are locked or people are ejected). That way, it gives the option of what role to actively take in the tank to the player with the certs who's pulling the vehicle, without just giving the driver the keys to the kingdom.

kaffis

2011-09-16, 04:03 PM

I wish Higby never played BF, or anyone at SOE for that matter.
That might be a bit strong. But I would like the devs to keep in mind that there's a reason I'm excited for a Planetside 2, but don't care a fig about Battlefield 3. And it's not, surprisingly enough, because one's made by the devil's own video game developer.

basti

2011-09-16, 04:09 PM

1) I love AV in BFBC2 also, but I always do with a Assault + Lightweight kit + C4. C4ing tanks in that game is the most fun thing imo. It's CURRENTLY not quite as easy to take a tank down, but well placed shots definitely count, and concentrating fire is very possible with our AV classes.

2) Yes.

3) It wouldn't work very well for the magrider, but allowing the driver to man the secondary weapon seems like it could be worth trying. We can consider that and see how it plays.

I still dont understand how you guys could even remotly consider this new concept. It wasnt broken in Planetside 1.

Ofc you sometimes ended up with a stupid gunner who didnt hit crap, or you jumped into a tank to gun and the guy drove you right into a mine field, but thats part of the game. I often enough ended up getting a random guy who actually got a clue, heck i sometimes spend several hours in the same magrider with some random guy.

Im guessing that none of you guys ever did a big proper tank collum. ITs a shame. :/

I strongly suggest you give the driver power over the secondary weapon, and let the gunner get the main weapon.

Logit

2011-09-16, 04:11 PM

That might be a bit strong. But I would like the devs to keep in mind that there's a reason I'm excited for a Planetside 2, but don't care a fig about Battlefield 3. And it's not, surprisingly enough, because one's made by the devil's own video game developer.

I agree man, I was really pumped for Planetside 2. Part of me still is, but the more I hear this game being a clone of Battlefield, the less it appeals to me.

There's a reason we all loved Planetside 1, most of all because of the originality and innovation of a new genre of game play.

Seems piece by piece the things that made Planetside so awesome are getting changed, conformed if you will, and it's a damn shame.

When we first heard of the sequel we all had this vision in our heads of what it would be. Sadly, this wasn't mine.

FIREk

2011-09-16, 04:17 PM

1) I love AV in BFBC2 also, but I always do with a Assault + Lightweight kit + C4. C4ing tanks in that game is the most fun thing imo. It's CURRENTLY not quite as easy to take a tank down, but well placed shots definitely count, and concentrating fire is very possible with our AV classes.

2) Yes.

3) It wouldn't work very well for the magrider, but allowing the driver to man the secondary weapon seems like it could be worth trying. We can consider that and see how it plays.

Thanks for replying!

1) I haven't played in a while, but mine was Engineer with a pump-action shotgun and whatever made me have more rockets and run better. ;)
I hope that you liking the concept of C4ing tanks semi-suggests that we may see sticky Boomers in PS2? ;)

2) Good to know, sorry for putting that in doubt. Just checking, you know? :)

3) I'm assuming this means that you switched weapon positions on the Mag and put the main gun in the hull, ass opposed to the turret in PS1's Mag? :)
Thanks for putting this under consideration.

This driver/gunner concept makes me wonder, though - what about buggies? Assuming they're in the game (and I hope so - buggies are cool too drive, too bad they were gimped in every Battlefield title I ever played, though), do they currently also require only one person to drive and use the main gun?

Talek Krell

2011-09-16, 04:32 PM

I wish Higby never played BF, or anyone at SOE for that matter.
/sign

Battlefield's vehicle gameplay isn't remarkable for being good, it's remarkable for being present. They are winning the vehicle race because no one else bothered to show up.

If the secondary gun is at all weaker then people will just pull their own vehicles. There's no reason to have a tank with an AA gun when you can have a tank and a skyguard, unless the skyguard is so terrible at it's job that no one will ever pull it.

3) It wouldn't work very well for the magrider, but allowing the driver to man the secondary weapon seems like it could be worth trying. We can consider that and see how it plays.
You fixed the main gun forward didn't you? This is stupid, and I have never seen any situation in which it was implemented well.

And then there's the Lib. Are you kidding me? The Lib has 3 seats, 1 of them never fills. You should be combining the bomber with the TG not the pilot. All you've got now is the BF2 jets, which were so hilariously bad that the devs came out and basically said "we fucked this up pretty bad last game, so we're leaving it out of the next one".

basti

2011-09-16, 04:34 PM

Just got an idea: What about optional gunners? MEans, if i have no gunners in the tank, im taking control of whatever weapon while also driving. If i get one gunner, the guy takes control of one gun. If i get a second gunner, the guy takes control of the other gun, and im just down to driving the thing.

Because, lets face it, gunning and driving at the same time is a bad bad bad idea, and every serious mag driver will tell you that. Its not just that you do the boring driving, you also have to take care of pathing etc. Its a lot to do to be a good tank driver...

FIREk

2011-09-16, 04:36 PM

2 Shotting tanks? Is that what I'm getting out of this?

If they follow the BFBC2 concept, then it's 2-3 shots to kill a tank, IF you've got the proper class (Engineer) with the proper weapon (AT4 or RPG-7, which are less all-rounders and more tank-busters), had good aim and, most importantly, worked your way into a good position.
You had to place these shots on the tank's sides or, ideally, the rear. And believe you me, it can be really difficult.

On the other hand, the MBTs in PS1 require very little care and skill from the driver in order to be successful. All they need to do is watch the health and start running when it's down below 50% or so.
Unless the conditions are really bad (a minefield, superior air, BFRs, or multiple enemy vehicles/infantry with AV), they can just waltz through the battlefield, soaking up damage, then bolting behind a hill to do some repairs.
Tanks in BFBC2, however are generally very powerful and tough, but require cautious and skillful driving. They have obvious weak points that can be ruthlessly exploited if the driver doesn't know what he's doing. You screw up, you get punished, hard and fast.

So you can still munch a lot of AV missiles, or tank shells, as long as only your front armor is exposed. If you let me get behind you, or don't notice me waiting in ambush while you drive past me, you deserve to get 2/3-shotted dead. ;)

I wish Higby never played BF, or anyone at SOE for that matter.

There's no way I can agree with this.
The Battlefield series is very successful because of how vehicles, aircraft and infantry are balanced and work together on the same map. The balance is near-perfect, so it's a good idea to draw inspiration from this series when making a combined arms game.
Whether or not this balance holds water when you remove the let everyone get a tank or plane, that's a different story.

And then there's the Lib. Are you kidding me? The Lib has 3 seats, 1 of them never fills. You should be combining the bomber with the TG not the pilot. All you've got now is the BF2 jets, which were so hilariously bad that the devs came out and basically said "we fucked this up pretty bad last game, so we're leaving it out of the next one".

Wait up. We know the Lib is a 2-seater now, and I only assumed that the pilot becomes the gunner, essentially making the Liberator a dive-bomber, instead of a high-altitude, hovering, carpet bombing tedium generator. ;)

Raymac

2011-09-16, 04:39 PM

I still dont understand how you guys could even remotly consider this new concept. It wasnt broken in Planetside 1.

Ofc you sometimes ended up with a stupid gunner who didnt hit crap, or you jumped into a tank to gun and the guy drove you right into a mine field, but thats part of the game. I often enough ended up getting a random guy who actually got a clue, heck i sometimes spend several hours in the same magrider with some random guy.

Im guessing that none of you guys ever did a big proper tank collum. ITs a shame. :/

I strongly suggest you give the driver power over the secondary weapon, and let the gunner get the main weapon.

I think one excellent reason is for the casual player.

It's hard for most of us to put ourselves in that position, but I've been there alot. Say you don't know alot of people in game. Right now, if that's the case, and you want to take part in using a tank, you have to spam and beg for a gunner, or wait around and spam and beg to gun for somebody else. This makes multi-person vehicles very much a hassle to use, and takes away from one of the amazing aspects of Planetside.

Now, with the new system of the driver getting a gun too, it's infinitely more inviting and FUN to the casual player that just wants to jump in, blow stuff up for a little bit, then get on with their busy lives.

I think it's a great idea that a tank can be effective with just the driver, but be far deadlier when filled with a full crew.

For many of us, we are used to running with organized outfits where setting up tank columns is common, but I don't want Planetside 2 to ONLY be for the hardcore, well-organized players. I want scale more than anything.

Logit

2011-09-16, 04:40 PM

2coolforu

2011-09-16, 04:46 PM

This is where drivers come in, with a driver its far easier to maneuver properly and find tactical hull-down turret-down positions. In BF:BC2 I *NEVER* see tanks being used properly, they are used either as BFR's are and sit on a hill miles away and act as Ghetto-artillery firing shells down on far away targets (A very bad way to use armor, but made possible due to not having a driver to get bored out of his skull) or they are just rushed into the battle because your secondary gunner jumps out if you aren't in the middle of a street with eighteen infantry for him to pop shots at.

The problem with gunning and driving is that people do dumb stuff, tanks drive into stupid areas because they get target fixation and just drive after one enemy into obvious traps or they panic in extreme situations and are too busy deciding what to shoot so they can't reverse properly. Having a driver that can look around and see where he wants to head is a huge advantage, the gunner has to keep his aim fixed on a target which means he can be driving into an area that is out of his FOV leading to crashes etc.

Another thing is it's fine having a secondary machine gun or mortar/Spigot AT launcher a-la a BMD-1 but Anti-Air? If it's effective enough to engage the interest of a secondary gunner then it'll have to be pretty powerful, isn't this the sort of role-overlap that caused the BFR's to alienate about 90% of Planetside 1's population. The only other option is to have a secondary gun that's only a deterrent and useful en-masse, with this option we have something like the Prowlers 12mm's which sucked so hard that it was a hindrance to have one, that guy could be being 1000% more useful in a skyguard or pulling another tank.

Another huge advantage of the Planetside 1 system was it made you friends, if you by chance got a good gunner or a good driver you would chat and make sure you teamed up again. I mean, if infantry zerging was bad enough in PS-1 what will armor zerging be like in PS-2, I mean this is the reason the 1 man variant of the BFR was taken out wasn't it?

2coolforu

2011-09-16, 04:54 PM

I don't know how many times I've said this.

The reason things work in Battlefield is because there are 64 people playing. When you have thousands, and you lower the TTK, no matter where you have to shoot the tank if you have 50 people shooting at it, like..ya know..in the original. It's going to die, and quickly.

Balance doesn't mean a damn thing when you're cloning a game that doesn't compare in scale. SOE can't possibly test this until Beta so they, like us, have no idea how it will work.

And once the game is in beta it's going to be too late because you're not going to remake the whole game.

I think a good way would be to make it like real life, tanks have extremely thick front armor, effectively impenetrable turret armor but paper rear armor/top armor and side armor that can defend against most infantry-mobile AT but not other tanks. This would mean armor would have to be used like armor, it would be used in the open where infantry weapons could have zero effect on them as they could keep the front toward enemy.

The real disadvantage of tanks is they fail hard in urban warfare and close combat, there have been like 2 real life battles in which armor hasn't been bent over by the defenders in close combat and that's Basra and Fallujah which was when top-of-the-line US/UK armor was fighting against a force not properly equipped or trained to defeat armor. Every other battle, even assymetrical ones [Chechnya] where armor has been used in close terrain has resulted in failure.

If we throw in mobility kills, so a close range shot to the tracks disables the tank, then we have a solution. Tanks are strong in situations they are made for (Open combat) but as soon as they try and whore a courtyard/city/forest/close terrain they can be easily immobilized and dealt with.

FIREk

2011-09-16, 05:01 PM

The reason things work in Battlefield is because there are 64 people playing. When you have thousands, and you lower the TTK, no matter where you have to shoot the tank if you have 50 people shooting at it, like..ya know..in the original. It's going to die, and quickly.

I've mentioned on multiple occasions that I realize that the scope of the game influences the balance. But think of what you're saying here.

So I'm in a tank and there's 50 enemies in the general area. Why would they should me? I'm not a megalomaniac, so I won't assume that I'm the most important target in the game. ;) If there are no friendlies in the area, and I'm indeed the only target for these 50 people, then I'm a moron for going in solo against insane odds, and deserve to get blown to bits.

I think I know why you're referring to 50 people firing at one tank, though - PS1 is your point of reference.
The reason why situations like this happen is that tanks are so skill-less in PS1, that they will indeed plunge deep into enemy lines, where they will be the prime target for 50 guns. They can soak up tons of damage before they need to start worrying, and so they don't care about incoming fire for a long while.

Lower the anti-tank TTK, and tank drivers will finally have to start thinking and won't casually expose their vehicles to 50 barrels and launchers.
As a side bonus, AV players (and it looks like AV will be a class now- I'm getting one!) will be able to kill tanks if they do a good job and out-skill the tank.
In PS1 you would need like a dozen people to kill a full-health tank, before it hid behind a hill for repairs. NC with Phoenixes would succeed here, though, but that's an exception. ;)

Do keep in mind that overall the pacing and TTK in PS2 will be slower than in BFBC2. This will likely translate into anti-tank damage as well, so it might be 3-4 well-placed AV shots, or a dozen to the front armor. ;)

Logit

2011-09-16, 05:01 PM

I think a good way would be to make it like real life, tanks have extremely thick front armor, effectively impenetrable turret armor but paper rear armor/top armor and side armor that can defend against most infantry-mobile AT but not other tanks. This would mean armor would have to be used like armor, it would be used in the open where infantry weapons could have zero effect on them as they could keep the front toward enemy.

The real disadvantage of tanks is they fail hard in urban warfare and close combat, there have been like 2 real life battles in which armor hasn't been bent over by the defenders in close combat and that's Basra and Fallujah which was when top-of-the-line US/UK armor was fighting against a force not properly equipped or trained to defeat armor. Every other battle, even assymetrical ones [Chechnya] where armor has been used in close terrain has resulted in failure.

If we throw in mobility kills, so a close range shot to the tracks disables the tank, then we have a solution. Tanks are strong in situations they are made for (Open combat) but as soon as they try and whore a courtyard/city/forest/close terrain they can be easily immobilized and dealt with.

Lucky for us, this game takes place in the future, and it's not real life.

Or unlucky for us, depending on how full you think the glass is.

Who wants to be in a tank that can be "dealt with" in 10 seconds?

Sirisian

2011-09-16, 05:03 PM

I mean, if infantry zerging was bad enough in PS-1 what will armor zerging be like in PS-2, I mean this is the reason the 1 man variant of the BFR was taken out wasn't it?
You mean why the BFR was not included in PS2? I imagine that came down to their chassis style or the refusal to rebalance the vehicle into another role. It can't be zerged if a rocket/tank round can take out vital components. I digress since I went into the rebalancing discussion in massive detail in another thread. (The mech one in my signature to rebalance the mechs into ground based reavers essentially).

If we throw in mobility kills, so a close range shot to the tracks disables the tank, then we have a solution. Tanks are strong in situations they are made for (Open combat) but as soon as they try and whore a courtyard/city/forest/close terrain they can be easily immobilized and dealt with.
That's how I view a tank also. A slow firing main cannon really adds to this. Really glad other people are opening up to this gameplay style.

Who wants to be in a tank that can be "dealt with" in 10 seconds?
Really depends on the situation. If you've just stormed into a courtyard and 4 AV users lock on to you and fire then you're probably not going to last long. 10 seconds sounds about right. If you're sitting back at like 20-50 meters firing rounds into armor and you have a gunner with AI rockets or something it's a huge difference.

Logit

2011-09-16, 05:08 PM

I've mentioned on multiple occasions that I realize that the scope of the game influences the balance. But think of what you're saying here.

So I'm in a tank and there's 50 enemies in the general area. Why would they should me? I'm not a megalomaniac, so I won't assume that I'm the most important target in the game. ;) If there are no friendlies in the area, and I'm indeed the only target for these 50 people, then I'm a moron for going in solo against insane odds, and deserve to get blown to bits.

I think I know why you're referring to 50 people firing at one tank, though - PS1 is your point of reference.
The reason why situations like this happen is that tanks are so skill-less in PS1, that they will indeed plunge deep into enemy lines, where they will be the prime target for 50 guns. They can soak up tons of damage before they need to start worrying, and so they don't care about incoming fire for a long while.

Lower the anti-tank TTK, and tank drivers will finally have to start thinking and won't casually expose their vehicles to 50 barrels and launchers.
As a side bonus, AV players (and it looks like AV will be a class now- I'm getting one!) will be able to kill tanks if they do a good job and out-skill the tank.
In PS1 you would need like a dozen people to kill a full-health tank, before it hid behind a hill for repairs. NC with Phoenixes would succeed here, though, but that's an exception. ;)

Do keep in mind that overall the pacing and TTK in PS2 will be slower than in BFBC2. This will likely translate into anti-tank damage as well, so it might be 3-4 well-placed AV shots, or a dozen to the front armor. ;)

No.

The reason I think like this is because our only point of reference is the original. However skill-less you think tanks might be, my point is still valid.

People use Teamspeak, Ventrilo, whatever...single tanks are easily pointed out and fired upon 1 at a time if you have any organization at all.

If tanks have these weak spots and it takes 3 shots to kill them if hit in a certain spot they will get dominated 1 at a time.

Platoons have what..40 people? 3 out of 40 sounds like pretty good odds to me.

Again, you're comparing something that works in a game with 64 people, to a game that will apparently have hundreds per side.

basti

2011-09-16, 05:11 PM

I think one excellent reason is for the casual player.

It's hard for most of us to put ourselves in that position, but I've been there alot. Say you don't know alot of people in game. Right now, if that's the case, and you want to take part in using a tank, you have to spam and beg for a gunner, or wait around and spam and beg to gun for somebody else. This makes multi-person vehicles very much a hassle to use, and takes away from one of the amazing aspects of Planetside.

Now, with the new system of the driver getting a gun too, it's infinitely more inviting and FUN to the casual player that just wants to jump in, blow stuff up for a little bit, then get on with their busy lives.

I think it's a great idea that a tank can be effective with just the driver, but be far deadlier when filled with a full crew.

For many of us, we are used to running with organized outfits where setting up tank columns is common, but I don't want Planetside 2 to ONLY be for the hardcore, well-organized players. I want scale more than anything.

Err, sorry to burst your bubble, but no matter what they do for the casual, the outfits will still roll them all down. Great, now you got 20 casual tanks. THey wont even leave the CY because they are to damn stupid to drive AND gun.

FIREk

2011-09-16, 05:32 PM

No.

The reason I think like this is because our only point of reference is the original. However skill-less you think tanks might be, my point is still valid.

People use Teamspeak, Ventrilo, whatever...single tanks are easily pointed out and fired upon 1 at a time if you have any organization at all.

If tanks have these weak spots and it takes 3 shots to kill them if hit in a certain spot they will get dominated 1 at a time.

Platoons have what..40 people? 3 out of 40 sounds like pretty good odds to me.

Again, you're comparing something that works in a game with 64 people, to a game that will apparently have hundreds per side.

If you're using organized squads, or even platoons, to make a point, then why not compare them to an equal number of organized vehicles? :P They pick out a few of those 20 tanks, then they get suppressed, scattered and eventually mowed down.

Most of the time it will be zerg+small squads versus zerg+small squads. Most of the time you will not have a platoon, alive and present in one place, preferably all with AV weapons to make your point valid. :P

Assuming AV is now a class (very likely) you need to also take into account that only some of those 40-50 people will have proper anti-tank gear. Others will be grunts, snipers, medics, engineers, jump infantry, MAXes, whatever.

And again I know that the larger scale of PS2 changes things. I keep repeating that, so it's excruciatingly hard to miss...
Keep in mind, though, that a 32vs32 battle in Battlefield is packed into one map. The amount of contestable territory in PS2 will be quite huge, meaning those hundreds of people will be spread out. The typical engagement will quite possibly not be that much "denser" than a solid fight in Battlefield.
Big numbers aren't the key issue here - the real difference is that there is more freedom in PlanetSide - you've only got up to 3 tanks per map in Battlefield, and after one is blown up, it takes a minute or two for it to respawn. In PS2, you can have a dozen tanks per side, fighting in a single place.
Reality shows that this doesn't actually happen much, though... ;)

Talek Krell

2011-09-16, 05:49 PM

The Battlefield series is very successful because of how vehicles, aircraft and infantry are balanced and work together on the same map. The balance is near-perfect, so it's a good idea to draw inspiration from this series when making a combined arms game.
Whether or not this balance holds water when you remove the let everyone get a tank or plane, that's a different story.
I call bullshit. Battlefield treats it's vehicles like disposable powerups, people snag them when they pop, drive them for a few seconds, and then jump out once they're low on health. The tanks can't survive firefights unless you're jumping out to repair between shots (it's only 4 rockets even from the front armor), the gunner seats are always empty, and people have learned to drive them like either suicidal lemmings or gutless cowards. These are not things that I would refer to as near perfect balance.

Wait up. We know the Lib is a 2-seater now, and I only assumed that the pilot becomes the gunner, essentially making the Liberator a dive-bomber, instead of a high-altitude, hovering, carpet bombing tedium generator. ;)
Due to whatever bug it is I still can't get the actual interview to load, so I'm going off my interpretations of people's interpretations. Sorry if I got that wrong then. Also, if the only thing you're doing with a lib is stationary high altitude carpet bombing then you are flying it wrong. And not just because stationary carpet bombing is an oxymoron. ;)

FIREk

2011-09-16, 06:10 PM

I call bullshit. Battlefield treats it's vehicles like disposable powerups, people snag them when they pop, drive them for a few seconds, and then jump out once they're low on health. The tanks can't survive firefights unless you're jumping out to repair between shots (it's only 4 rockets even from the front armor), the gunner seats are always empty, and people have learned to drive them like either suicidal lemmings or gutless cowards. These are not things that I would refer to as near perfect balance.

We must have played on different servers, then. ;) Of course I usually played with at least one friend, so we were able to use the tanks to their full potential, but even when I played with randoms I usually enjoyed having a secondary gunner. There are, of course, n00bs that use tanks as taxis or as a temporary power-up, but we shouldn't base arguments upon workings of mindless fodder, I think. ;)

Tanks are somewhat fragile in BFBC2, but only in specific conditions - when shot by someone with the proper equipment, and who knows what they're doing. If you're reckless and drive it somewhere where its weaknesses can be exploited by the right person, with the right tools, in the right place, then you deserve to be extra-vulnerable. If you don't overtake friendly infantry in urban areas, letting them protect your ass armor ;), you will be effectively a lot more durable.
I think that's reasonable - a tank should just be another vehicle, with pros and cons. It shouldn't be able to withstand ridiculous damage from weapons designed to kill it, just because it's big, armored and called a "tank". ;)
At least that's what I believe... :)

As for my take on balance in the Battlefield series, it pretty much boils down to this:
Vehicles and infantry both have their place on the battlefield - one doesn't make the other useless, nor does one dominate the other.
Vehicles aren't OMFGoverpowered and can be either avoided, or dispatched under the right conditions.
The can also be very powerful in the right hands, which is true for all the infantry classes as well.
OK, maybe buggies are useless, fragile taxis, but let's forget that for a moment. ;)

Also, if the only thing you're doing with a lib is stationary high altitude carpet bombing then you are flying it wrong. And not just because stationary carpet bombing is an oxymoron. ;)

I over-simplified, of course, but usually when I see a Liberator, it's at flight ceiling, either hovering above a tower, or slowly circling over a base, raining down death.

As an observer, I always found Libs boring as hell. I'm under the impression that PS2's Liberator will be more like PS1's Vulture, which I personally love to watch in action. :)

And, indeed, I oxy-moroned myself. :P HOWEVER, if you roll up the carpet and place it vertically, that carpet describes the bombs' trajectory when the Lib is indeed hovering. Right? Right..? :P

BorisBlade

2011-09-16, 06:45 PM

This is one of the same major reasons we dont like the BFR's. Gives teh pilot too much power and you end up with people goin out rambo style with no secondary gunner, cause it works. Even if its not optimal, its still too much for one person. Plus its just bad for a teamwork oriented game.

I personally hate the idea. I dont want to drive a giant lightning. It emphasizes selfishness and rambo-ism. Pilot-only slots were somethin that PS1 did right unlike BF (which is the game they keep just doin copy/paste with rather than stayin ps or being original). The multiple crew for a vehicle was not only better gameplay but it really emphasizes teamwork and a very important "social" aspect that is very important to gameplay and keeping people playing. For once we need to keep somethin from PS that was done right, with so little left from what made PS1 great (aside from big fights which were only a part of the overall draw), its hard to feel like I'll be playin PS anymore but instead just a boring and lazy BF clone with more players.

I want to be a driver, just a driver. I want to focus on driving skillfully to get my gunners in position. To be able to maneuver around to also avoid enemy fire. And to focus on the best routes to my target. If im just driving a giant lightning, im gonna be a half ass pilot and half ass gunner, its just gonna be half ass crap.

Since they dont have animations, they could cheat it by lettin you spec into a "driver only" spec that let you drive only while opening up another gunner slot for someone to take over your gun.

Dont give me the spec excuse, i spec for things to make the vehicles i drive better. It helps me and my team. People want to gun for my more awesome vehicle. Stop with your selfish ideas of "i specced for it so i should be able to be rambo with it and screw lettin anyone else use it" idea. Its a team based game. If you need to adjust your skill trees, then do it. Stop screwin up the game to fit the trees or so you can just copy BF more. Grow some balls and do somethin original, dont copy BF, do somethin from PS1 or totally new, but somethin thats Planetside.

Goku

2011-09-16, 06:52 PM

Boris A+ post.

FIREk

2011-09-16, 06:59 PM

This is one of the same major reasons we dont like the BFR's. Gives teh pilot too much power and you end up with people goin out rambo style with no secondary gunner, cause it works.

I always thought the problem with BFRs was not that it only required one person to work, but:
1) the ridiculous shield mechanics, requiring a dozen people to kill one BFR,
2) the fact that it could conveniently fly away,
3) the two things above giving it ridiculous amounts of power.

Talek Krell

2011-09-16, 07:31 PM

I usually played with at least one friend, so we were able to use the tanks to their full potential, but even when I played with randoms I usually enjoyed having a secondary gunner. There are, of course, n00bs that use tanks as taxis or as a temporary power-up, but we shouldn't base arguments upon workings of mindless fodder, I think. ;)
Most of the people that have manned my secondary have been squad spawning. And regardless they seem to jump out after a 30 seconds or so. Possibly because it quickly becomes apparent that I can slaughter infantry with the main gun. The only reason to fully crew a tank in Battlefield is because you can't just pull another like you can in Planetside, or because the second guy is jumping out to repair when you find an actual threat.

The "mindless fodder" can be expected to make up large quantities of the player base. They're worth considering.

If you're reckless and drive it somewhere where its weaknesses can be exploited by the right person, with the right tools, in the right place, then you deserve to be extra-vulnerable.
You mean like a fight? There's going to be plenty of people with AV in any given place you go, unless the AV is so poor that no one wants to use it. I mean look at PS1. The AV is terrible but there's no shortage of rocket launchers and lancers in any given battle. To have the same lethality as battlefield is instant death from any angle. Especially if the AV works at long range like in PS1.

As an observer, I always found Libs boring as hell. I'm under the impression that PS2's Liberator will be more like PS1's Vulture, which I personally love to watch in action. :)The most effective way to fly the Lib was like an A-10, not a B-52. I found the Vulture to be the inferior version in almost all situations. Including against tanks, which were supposed to be it's specialty.

if you roll up the carpet and place it vertically...I'ma smack you so hard. :p

2coolforu

2011-09-16, 07:38 PM

sylphaen

2011-09-16, 08:13 PM

To me, a decision like that simply proves their view that Planetside 2 will be an infantry game where vehicles are meant to serve as an enjoyment or to serve those infantry players.

My best time with PS1 has been group vehicles. I met great guys over the years and getting to play together overshadowed all the mediocre gunners I had the unfortunate chance to get in the gunner seat.

When I get a tank or buggy in PS1, I do not feel "why do I cert something where only others but me can enjoy the gun". This is selfish others-are-a-just-a-means-to-reach-my-selfish-goals state of mind.

As I said, I met great gunners and I loved every minute playing with them. It was challenging to coordinate, it was challenging to position the tank, give them good aim, read the way the battle is going, not overextend, etc...

To me, this is what made PS1 truly superior to any other FPS.

While a lot boast their own personal performance ("You suck! I do 40K/3D/0A any day in 15 minutes!"), I feel pride from seeing a frag ratio like this in PS: 10 K/20 D/100 A from vehicle runs. It's the success of 2 people having overcome coordination challenges and working as one.

A lot of people keep talking about "skill" and I think someone even mentionned something like "solo driving & gunning will raise "skilled" players above the herd and show who the losers are". Technically, I agree. A better player is a better player Now should people who prefer teamplay over solo be forced into it?

(OOT: by the way, I believe a good player does not need to boast about being good. With him playing better, his skill will simply show itself as he plays and respect would flow naturally from it; The "skill" word is being used so condescendingly nowadays that I almost feel it is only used to put others down nowadays instead of showing how you respect someone and his proficiency).

Even if we get the option to have a dedicated gunner on the main gunner, should the whole game dynamic be balanced penalize around solo ? Someone made that great point: would you rather have 1 vehicle with 2 gunners or 2 vehicles with 1 ? The secondary gun would truly have to have a role unique to that vehicle or we would always roll 2 vehicles with dedicated roles.

Another player mentionned the "disposable" feeling of BF vehicles: I played only BF2142 but I felt like that too and never enjoyed it. In PS1, having a vehicle with longer longevity made me care about keeping it alive and repaired. Making it last was a nice challenge. Having an extra guy also added responsibility in your actions and pushed for improvement.

In summary, I feel that 2 or 3 people learning to know each other well and think/act as one weapon a whole different level of game and I like it. This is what I consider to be the "MMO" part in MMOFPS.

I would not be playing Planetside anymore if it was not for my outfit and the great guys in it. The majority of us are not Navy Seals like content PS-wise but we get along well and have a lot of fun playing the game.

If PS is meant to be BF with a large map, more players and placeholder vehicles, you can forget seeing me play as a driver i.e. forget about me certing vehicles to be the bitch of a class which will only exist for the purpose of being Anti-Armor. I'd rather pick-up a support kit and play with a HMG all day.

Of course, take what I say with a grain of salt.

Will armor battles be fun ? No one knows. Will the vehicle game-mechanics design and its balance with infantry in a heavily infantry-centric game make great and fun battles for everyone ? Only time will tell.

I'm wait and see and hopefully, we will all love it. In that was, free-to-play is a great idea: it's as easy to enter the game as it is to drop from it if I do not enjoy my time.

-----

Edit: I'm OK with the inflated ego of air-vehicle players. If being good with flying gets as challenging as it sounds, being an ace will deserve a nice accolade.

Cheers to the reaver-whores whom I hate so much but do show incredible skill and intelligence at times !

Bags

2011-09-16, 08:29 PM

^ I personally don't drive anything but buggies because driving is so boring!

sylphaen

2011-09-16, 08:34 PM

But do you like gunning ?
:cool:

There is always someone who likes the driving part.
:groovy:

and buggies are my favorite ! They really are little action-packed vehicles.
:D

Talek Krell

2011-09-16, 08:39 PM

I never liked buggies. Like wheeled coffins those things. In one case it doesn't even have the wheels! :p

BorisBlade

2011-09-16, 08:40 PM

^ I personally don't drive anything but buggies because driving is so boring!

I love drivin the thresher (the awful physics made the enforcer/marauder handle like crap in comparison to the hover physics on the thresher), it was the most fun thing to drive in PS imo. Its too bad they never balanced the buggies appropriately. If they dont screw em up with the same "driver is the gunner too" crap then with specialization and more tweaks they could be crazy fun and actually very effective. I cant wait to see what happens with them. (as well as deliverer, loved its old school version before the tank buffs.)

Another good example of where its awesome to get a skilled driver, and a skilled gunner, two separated jobs, and head into a fight. Fun beyond belief with the quick hit and run guerilla tactics. The skilled and focused driver is every bit as important as the skilled and focused gunner. "Driver is the gunner too" would just kill this off completely. Good luck navigating at high speed while still shooting worth a darn as you bob and weave thru trees, over hills and also manuever thru enemies.

Baron

2011-09-16, 08:43 PM

+1 Boris' post (rather than quote the entire thing) this mirrors my feelings as well.

Higby,

First, thank you for reading this thread and the PSU forums in general, we as posters and veterans of PS1 greatly appreciate it. Second, please consider the option to let drivers relinquish use of all vehicle weapons to the gunner, so that they can focus on driving (obviously special cases like the magrider may exist).

One situation in particular, the flee / evacuation / omg we're going to die run, has now become much harder. Since as the driver and gunner, you will not be able to effectively flee, navigate terrain AND keep firing at your attackers to defend yourself.

sylphaen

2011-09-16, 08:55 PM

Forom the Q&A:
Wolfhound490: @planetside2 Is there going to be a pilot class? In ps1 you needed agile, in ps2 is the class that boosts vehicles?
@mhigby: @Wolfhound490 @planetside2 There isn't a "pilot class" for vehicles. Any non-heavy infantry class can pilot / gun in a vehicle.

I'm afraid they are aiming for vehicles more as a utility than as a dedicated playstyle. Basically, infantry game, jump in/out vehicles instantly (no animations), use vehicles to taxi from point A to point B, etc...

It does sound feel like a large-scale enhanced Battlefield clone.

I'm not saying that in a judgemental way, we'll see in time if it's a fun game or not. I just had expectations of something that would feel more PS-like rather than just the art or map-scale.

With different mission objectives, it will be like multiple BF maps all next to each other with players fighting in one zone or another. It can be a great game !

Forget PS though, the only thing not from BF is outfits. And hopefully, we'll have a lot more things for them than just a chat system (which they said we would).

I'm hopeful ! But we may as well forget PS as we knew/experienced/imagined it.

Bags

2011-09-16, 08:57 PM

Uh, vehicles will "most likely have a start up sequence". Animations are pretty fluff.

sylphaen

2011-09-16, 09:05 PM

Good luck navigating at high speed while still shooting worth a darn as you bob and weave thru trees, over hills and also manuever thru enemies.
:D

Yes, fighting with a vehicle in a forest vs. infantry was quite challenging, fun and... balanced ?

Jammers were a great tool to control vehicle pushers (i.e. don't get too close so you don't get wasted, don't stay too far so you have a better chance vs. AV).

Just like you would deserve to get wasted if you overextend and get in big trouble, those troops deserved to get decimated for not being prepared. In PS1, enjoyed both playing trooper and driving vehicles.

If AT mines 2-shot tanks, it will be great to be engineer rather than bother with vehicles.

Anyways, of all this is conjecture... Everything will depend on how they balance playstyles... Or if a driver/gunner playstyle even remains a relevant concern in PS2...

sylphaen

2011-09-16, 09:19 PM

most likely have a start up sequence

Sound of the engine starting and able to move the vehicle half a second later after your screen has switched from black to the vehicle HUD ?

I haven't played any recent BF game (so let me know if I am wrong) but what I understand with no animations is that you click and magic ! You're in the vehicle instantly.

Corollary assumption: if it is so fast to get in, it would be as fast to bail out of the vehicle and start blazing with your SMG/shotgun.

Some of those elements are somewhat present in PS1 (e.g. getting a "second-life" by bailing from a reaver and have a MCG?!?!) but are slower. So my concern is more about the feel of the gameplay and the image I get is something that will be totally different from PS.

It's necessarily a bad thing, just very different from the FPS I played some of the things I like might disappear while new things I will like may appear.

Bags

2011-09-16, 09:20 PM

Like it will work like PS1 (delay wise), but just without the animations. That's what Higby hinted at tonight.

sylphaen

2011-09-16, 09:22 PM

Ah ok, thanks Bags.
:)

Scow2

2011-09-16, 09:25 PM

I don't like the idea of both gunning and driving an MBT.

Perhaps they could add three tiers of tanks?
1-man Light Tanks
2-man Medium tanks (Driver and Secondary Gunner)
3-man Heavy Tanks (The classic Driver, Main Gunner, and Secondary Gunner)

That way, the biggest guns still come at the greatest cost in manpower and teamwork required.

Then again, in PS1, I usually drove the Thunderer because it was more fun, and I could carry two gunners.

Bags

2011-09-16, 09:31 PM

Well, they seem to be listening to us (went from no delay and animations to just no animations) so if you guys get united enough about this they may listen again!

SOE is doing the umpostibibble!

Sirisian

2011-09-16, 09:47 PM

Well, they seem to be listening to us (went from no delay and animations to just no animations) so if you guys get united enough about this they may listen again!
Don't encourage them. :lol: We got a good thing going here.

Talek Krell

2011-09-16, 10:12 PM

Don't encourage them. :lol: We got a good thing going here.
Only according to you.

Brusi

2011-09-16, 10:26 PM

Perhaps they could add three tiers of tanks?
1-man Light Tanks
2-man Medium tanks (Driver and Secondary Gunner)
3-man Heavy Tanks (The classic Driver, Main Gunner, and Secondary Gunner)

That way, the biggest guns still come at the greatest cost in manpower and teamwork required.

fuck yeah, can we have mammoth tanks plz?

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQs8T3id62o2XVrIKKe9I6MKux1GPxY6 71-IrW54AarYfPT1T9LcQ
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbiiMmc9ztpEZzr4YQTLp0aZEMTii6_ oaZv5MC1WxcMRlnfwd0
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/peterlmorris/Mecha/Mammoth/mammothf10.jpg

Talek Krell

2011-09-16, 10:35 PM

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbiiMmc9ztpEZzr4YQTLp0aZEMTii6_ oaZv5MC1WxcMRlnfwd0
CREEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!!

kaffis

2011-09-16, 10:48 PM

Wait up. We know the Lib is a 2-seater now, and I only assumed that the pilot becomes the gunner, essentially making the Liberator a dive-bomber, instead of a high-altitude, hovering, carpet bombing tedium generator. ;)
Um, the Liberator has always had a pilot gun. The only reason it wasn't a dive bomber was because of level pitch restrictions on the bombardier.

Logit

2011-09-17, 12:20 AM

BorisBlade +1

My greatest fear with PS2 was SOE would find a way to screw it up. More and more everyday it seems that's exactly what they are doing.

All of the things that made Planetside feel like a different genre of game are being changed, and it's no secret where they are taking the ideas from.

I, as well as many others, don't play Battlefield for a reason.

Even the BIGGEST and BADDEST BF edition doesn't compare to a single one of my Planetside experiences. Even to this day it's not even close.

I wanted the Sequel, not Planetside:Battlefield Edition

Raymac

2011-09-17, 12:33 AM

Err, sorry to burst your bubble, but no matter what they do for the casual, the outfits will still roll them all down. Great, now you got 20 casual tanks. THey wont even leave the CY because they are to damn stupid to drive AND gun.

You're not bursting my bubble at all. That's exactly the way it should be I believe. Organized groups working together should definitely be able to roll over a disorganized ramble.

I'm really not understanding the level of panic about this. So a tank driver will have a gun....kinda like the Magrider, right? "Oh that's totally different." you say? When you take a step back and think about it, it's really not all that different at all.

If a tank with driver + gunners is > a tank with driver as gunner, then I don't see what the big freakin deal is.

CutterJohn

2011-09-17, 12:47 AM

If a tank with driver + gunners is > a tank with driver as gunner, then I don't see what the big freakin deal is.

I think people are worried that 2 1-man tanks will be greater than 1 2-man tank in most situations.

Both have perks and drawbacks with the current plan, so its tough to say. The 2-man tank will have greater mobility and somewhat better aim, and be better able to flee and effect repairs.

The two 1-man tanks will have double the hitpoints.

I think they may be even on vehicle costs.. The 2 tanks won't have to buy a secondary turret, but they'll need twice as many tank upgrades, if such things exist.

How it works out... Who can say?

Raymac

2011-09-17, 12:53 AM

I think people are worried that 2 1-man tanks will be greater than 1 2-man tank in most situations.

Both have perks and drawbacks with the current plan, so its tough to say. The 2-man tank will have greater mobility and somewhat better aim, and be better able to flee and effect repairs.

The two 1-man tanks will have double the hitpoints.

I think they may be even on vehicle costs.. The 2 tanks won't have to buy a secondary turret, but they'll need twice as many tank upgrades, if such things exist.

How it works out... Who can say?

Ah, ok. I can see that arguement. You really don't see that now with the Magrider, but thats because the main gun is so much more powerful. Giving the driver the main gun changes that dynamic a bit. Hard to say how it will balance out.

This might fall under T-Ray's "If it doesn't work, we'll change it" catagory.

Talek Krell

2011-09-17, 01:04 AM

This might fall under T-Ray's "If it doesn't work, we'll change it" catagory.
The problem is that I'm not sure they will. That's why I'm concerned. This isn't just adjusting some numbers to affect the right balance, it's fairly fundamental.

Accuser

2011-09-17, 01:08 AM

I'm really not understanding the level of panic about this. So a tank driver will have a gun....kinda like the Magrider, right? "Oh that's totally different." you say? When you take a step back and think about it, it's really not all that different at all.

As you may have already realized, it's pretty different. Not sure if you've been in a magrider, but the driver's gun is a little like a Lasher set to anti-armor. You'd get more kills running people over if you drive a magrider solo.

Let's imagine for a moment that we put the magrider's main cannon on a lightning and jacked up the armor to MBT level... Yeah, that's different, and it's concerning.

CutterJohn

2011-09-17, 01:10 AM

So long as they can balance it so that in general, for most situations, 2 people in a tank is slightly better than pulling 2 tanks, I think it will be ok. I don't mind so much if 2 1-man tanks is like 90% of the 2-man tank. Teamwork should be rewarded, and 2 1-manned tanks working together is still teamwork.

That CAN be balanced by tweaking numbers.

Let's imagine for a moment that we put the magrider's main cannon on a lightning and jacked up the armor to MBT level... Yeah, that's different, and it's concerning.

But lets also imagine that it would be facing off vs something with two magrider cannons.. Also a scary proposition.

SgtMAD

2011-09-17, 01:14 AM

this gunner/driver idea is a pretty good indicator of what SOE is up to, they are building their version of BF and putting it on planetside style maps.

who could blame them,PS at its best was 60k active subs and those BF games sell in the millions of copies range,the bean counters must be pushing for that type of game, they want and need PS2 to sell like all the other big FPS's out there or ppl will call it a failure and all the promised dev support will disappear over time. sound familiar to anyone here?

all i know is I would like to see an updated revamped version of PS,not some clone of another game.

We Want PlanetSide2

dsi

2011-09-17, 01:21 AM

One man tanking is a horrible, horrible, horrible (horrible, horrible, horrible) thing, please require separate driver and gunner in anything that can do major damage.

Ugh, I was feeling so great today before I decided to check these forums :/ hopefully they decide to make PS2 not suck...

sylphaen

2011-09-17, 02:19 AM

Actually... I thought about it and I'd take a driver/gunner vehicle...

Make it a light AIFV with some decent AV canon on top, 2 guided lock-on missiles for AA, top-manoeuverability and speed, water-crossing, and room to transport infantry. I could live with less armor and more speed.
:rofl:

More seriously, in an infantry based game, a decently armed FIGHTING platform to support infantry with enough transport capacity, decent armor to withstand some hits and enough mobility to cover large areas in rugged terrain fast could be a winning concept.

Dynamic fights & fast troop movement to move or create a fight !

Now.... about those tanks.... mmm....
:D

@Devs: Sorry but tanker crews are not your everyday grunt and for us, a 1-man tank will never feel like a tank. A tank without a crew is not a tank.The closest thing I would feel is outdoors MAX on wheels !

I have no doubt a 1-man MBT can be given a big canon to look awesome and kick serious ass but , immersion-wise, it just won't cut it.

Here is just one biiiiiiiig difference in dynamics. When a tank is about to explode in a fiery blast of molten steel and scorching fire:
- the 1-man vehicles drivers bail and couln't care less.
- in the tank crew, the driver will tells the gunner to bail and the gunner says he'd rather go down with the ship.
:D

So I do get the point that there will be 2-gunners and the the second gunner will not be meaningless (i.e. Magrider MkII > driver with the railgun, gunner with PPT cannon ? :rofl:) but I am intend to convey the cultural shock anyone who has been part of a tank crew would feel when they are told "you can play alone now but having a buddy is a nice bonus". The tank is not about the bad-ass canon, it is about the kick-ass crew!

(oh, and I am serious about thinking through the concept of ground transport better in PS2 than PS1. Rarely did these vehicle were used for transport: aurora>tower camping/softie farming, Thunderer>super-fury, raider... free BEP, sunderer>noise machine)

Traak

2011-09-17, 04:42 AM

And once the game is in beta it's going to be too late because you're not going to remake the whole game.

On the contrary, it takes almost no effort to slide some slider that controls how much any particular weapon affects a tank, soldier, whatever.

To go from three shots to kill a tank, which is laughable, because cloakers will be killing tanks, to thirty just isn't that hard in the code, IF the code is as I think it is, and is programmable for how much damage each weapon does to each class of target.

Captain1nsaneo

2011-09-17, 08:40 AM

Before I go into a thread relevant wall of text:

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbiiMmc9ztpEZzr4YQTLp0aZEMTii6_ oaZv5MC1WxcMRlnfwd0
mmmmmmm, baneblades. When I first heard we were getting heavy tanks (BFRs) this was what I hoped we were getting. Lots of guns, lots of gunners, lots of armor, and no move speed. The thought we might get one of these as a HBT makes me shiver.

First, thank you for reading these threads. Thank you for caring about the game. But why are you here? Why do you still like this very old game? Other games are prettier, faster, better balanced, and some even have similar numbers of players. No, I bet that you are like me and there is a very different reason you are here. Community. We aren't addicted to min/maxing, leveling up skills, or mining gold. We may enjoy them for sure, but they aren't our meat and bread. We want to relive those sleepless nights were we fought shoulder to shoulder with our friends.

How do we get that community? It's by finding strangers and turning them into acquaintances and then into friends and family. This change is not quickly made and requires close and regular contact. It requires trust and time. Planetside fosters this in its heavy focus on teamwork. Quick example of the difference, name me 5 people from a server based fps you've played. Now name me 5 from Planetside. Which set of names came faster?

There's been arguments about how single driver/gunner vehicles are bad or good and I could add my own voice as a veteran driver and justify why I think the liberator as it stands now is utterly perfect but I don't think that's the real problem. The problem is a philosophical one which is putting greater focus on the individual and infantry.

Obviously the class system seems to argue against this as it would take a lot of teamwork for a squad with MAXs, medics, light infantry, and grunts to be effective. However, infantry fights tend to be madcap and feats of heroism during them are hard to share. In a vehicle everyone shares the glory or defeat and as such they can revel together easily. Vehicles force people to work together or be ineffective on the field whereas in an infantry fight an individual can always be a threat.

What is effective is not always fun, what is fun is not always effective.

Kurtz

2011-09-17, 02:50 PM

GTGD

2011-09-17, 03:09 PM

While I agree that it didn't make sense for the person who invested cert points to get stuck driving around, giving the driver the main gun isn't a good solution.

Making the tanks paper-thin and have longer timers won't solve this, and will in fact just slow down gameplay (which is what has seemingly been the primary focus of PS2: faster action).

Things could go one of two ways:

1) Tanks are still powerful, and everyone certs them. The game turns into Vehicleside, where every battle features a short-lived vehicle battle outside which turns into an infantry fight in a base.

2) Tanks timers are too long and they are underpowered, nobody certs tanks.

sylphaen

2011-09-18, 06:27 AM

1) Tanks are still powerful, and everyone certs them. [...]
2) Tanks [...] are underpowered, nobody certs tanks.

Yup, something that has a specific function and is not adequately good at it will simply not be used.

The question for tanks and other vehicles will thus be : what is their intended role in PS2 ? Will they do it well ?

dsi

2011-09-19, 10:55 PM

Just because we've been playing COD & BF while we waited for the next Planetside doesn't mean we want Planetside to be like those games.

If anything we've wanted DICE to be more like You guys.

The teamwork factor is what lead to the immersion and camaraderie that was Planetside. You needed to communicate between the driver and gunners (2 TR), you needed to communicate to your AA covering your tanks to stay close....THAT was planetside.

I understand that the tactics will be different without an AMS and maybe a slightly faster TTK and spawn to action...But don't eliminate teamwork, the need for good communication and the diversity of vehicles.
Planetside is teamwork the video game, maybe you're communicating to focus a platoon's worth of cannon fire onto the enemy, or maybe you're communicating to escape enemy aircraft strafing you, or maybe you're communicating to split up enemy loot. Anything lowers the requirement for communication is a BAD THING, and one man tanks are quite possibly the most obvious thing to not do so far. (and if they've screwed this up you know they've screwed up other things too)

BorisBlade

2011-09-19, 11:53 PM

Planetside is teamwork the video game, maybe you're communicating to focus a platoon's worth of cannon fire onto the enemy, or maybe you're communicating to escape enemy aircraft strafing you, or maybe you're communicating to split up enemy loot. Anything lowers the requirement for communication is a BAD THING, and one man tanks are quite possibly the most obvious thing to not do so far. (and if they've screwed this up you know they've screwed up other things too)

So very true, I try my hardest to tell myself how all these total changes of everything that made PS fun for me into something thats more like a BF game which I honestly dont wanna play, are somehow still gonna work. I was holding on to vehicle fights, thinking they cant and wont mess this up, its key to PS. The fun i have driving for my crews is fun as hell. The teamwork we use, esp in the 3-5 man vehicles, was the best and most memorable aspects of the game. PS and esp PS2 is a game with a crapload of players. You should be focusing on gettin those players together in vehicles, not giving each one their own version of a solo BFR/making everything a lightning.

I cert to buff my vehicle, i just want to be the driver only, i buff it so my crew will be able to kick as much ass as possible. I have the uber vehicle so it makes for the most fun and effectiveness when we get together. If someone wants to be a selfish killwhore then they should hop in a lightning or reaver. Leave all the other vehicles for those of us who play a team based game......as a team.

Azren

2011-09-20, 03:00 AM

It is not really possible to drive and gun a tank at the same time. Looking at how the Lightings are doing is proof enough of that. Currently for the most time in game I'm driving a magrider around, which as you all know has a gun for the driver to use. In reality I often find myself not using the driver gun at all - for one part it is hard to use, but more importantly; getting pre-occupied with shooting down enemies is a sure way to get yourself killed in PS. You can not focus on a target and keep a good situational awareness.

I really hope that this "driver side gunnery" thing will only be an option you get with vehicle customisation, and not a default. Meaning that every tank will give a gun to the driver (just like the magrider does now), but the firepower of the driver gun and that of the real gunner are exchangeable (for example, 20% damage comes from driver and 80% from gunner by default, which can be changed to 80% driver 20% gunner if you want to)

Crator

2011-09-20, 09:18 AM

That's cause lightnings aren't really meant for you to sit in one spot and focus on a target for a very long time.

FastAndFree

2011-09-21, 05:17 AM

Yesterday I mentioned on our outfit's voip that drivers will control the main gun in PS2. Apparently most of our "tankers" did not yet hear this, and they... did not care for the idea.

Meaning that they almost lynched me :rolleyes:

Azren

2011-09-21, 09:17 AM

That's cause lightnings aren't really meant for you to sit in one spot and focus on a target for a very long time.

and that is why 90% of the lightings I face end up hitting a tree and dieing. Bad game design at its best right there...

FastAndFree, I am hardly surprised at that. For me the fun in PS1 is either driving a tank or gunning for one, and now they want to take both of that away.

I do not care for one man armees. This the same concept as they had with BFRs, just in a smaller scale. Driver operated main gun cries for one man tanks.

I enjoy sitting behind the "wheel", doing my best to find a good fireing position for my friend sitting in the turret, calling targets, ect. All of that will be gone with this. What do we get instead? I will go and find a good fireing position for ME, killing whatevery I want ALONE. How is this team based gaming experience?

I hope at least the buggie remains as a dedicated driver, dedicated gunner vehicle, or this game will be a very short experience for me...

Goku

2011-09-21, 09:23 AM

I hope the devs are reading this thread. Perhaps it will make them change their mind. This is changing the core of ps way too much when it comes to vehicles.

Baron

2011-09-21, 09:36 AM

With the driver having access to the main gun, tanks will become more like artillery with "park and shoot" tactics instead of something more dynamic.

FastAndFree

2011-09-21, 09:50 AM

With the driver having access to the main gun, tanks will become more like artillery with "park and shoot" tactics instead of something more dynamic.

This is the line of thought that I agree with, why this is not a very good idea.

For the record I do not use tanks very often, but yesterday I just happened to gun a mag, and it took absolute focus to keep tracking my targets and maintain any semblance of awarness at least in the target's direction, as my driver was weaving through obstacles and going up and down hills. As mentioned above, the lightning is proof that it is nigh-impossible to shoot at something chasing you and not crash into obstacles. (Which, being an aircav pilot myself, works for me...)

Now about teamwork, I don't think that argument works at all.
Aircav are 1-man units. Does that mean they can't work in teams? No.
Not buying it? Then what about... Soldiers? Are soldiers one-man armies because they do not require a separate player for walking and aiming?

You will still be able to work as a team with tanks, only now the gun layout will be different, or you will have 2x as many tanks working together (and also be reaverbait)

Or maybe not, because SOE changed it's mind. You can always hope for that :)

TheRagingGerbil

2011-09-21, 09:58 AM

I dont think this is going to be that big of a deal. Especially with the emphasis that the devs are putting on the secondary weapons. They always mention flak attachments.

This leads me to believe the tanks will be similar to those in BF2142. Hell a single shot up the tailpipe from an AVR and the tank was a fireworks show.

Azren

2011-09-21, 10:01 AM

Now about teamwork, I don't think that argument works at all.
Aircav are 1-man units. Does that mean they can't work in teams? No.
Not buying it? Then what about... Soldiers? Are soldiers one-man armies because they do not require a separate player for walking and aiming?

You will still be able to work as a team with tanks, only now the gun layout will be different, or you will have 2x as many tanks working together (and also be reaverbait)

Or maybe not, because SOE changed it's mind. You can always hope for that :)

I was talking about teamwork in terms of vehicle crew, thought that was obvious. I sure as hell won't put any time into tanks if I don't get to be the dedicated driver of it - still holding out some hope for buggies, if they get screwed up too, I'm done with this game.

Goku

2011-09-21, 10:52 AM

Well air is normally one man unless we are talking bombers. Tanks are known for needing crews to work. I do not think you can apply that to tanks as a result. The more I think about it this for the cash shop. Giving the driver the main means more money spent on upgrades for yourself. I wouldn't spend cash for others in my tank. No issue doing certs for upgrades of course.

Raymac

2011-09-21, 12:45 PM

It seems there are some contradictory arguments being made here.
1) Solo tanks will be overpowered because 2 solo tanks > 1 tank with 2 players
2) Solo tanks will suck because driving and shooting at the same time is hard.

Now, I've said I'm not a big fan at all of the driver controlling the main gun, but I do see alot of people turning a blind eye to one of the benefits to it. More casual players (which is something PS2 needs to not only profit, but even have the numbers to play) have a much more difficult time gunning or finding a gunner which means the whole tank portion part of the game is at best difficult to try and at worst impossible to participate in.

Having an individual player be able to participate and enjoy the fun of the tank game is a bonus. A solo tank will also be very gimped in that they will be VERY easy targets for air units, so a tank crew will always be preferable.

Like I said, I don't like it, but that seems like a legitimate argument in favor of it that none of us here will mention because we've all been a part of organized outfits.

Now, since I don't like it, I lobbied the devs on twitter a bit and got this response from Higby: "We've discussed giving certain vehicles a cert for a "gunner seat" that would allow them to spec to have a dedicated gunner...TBD"
Higby: "a dedicated secondary gunner is going to be a bigger threat 2 ur reaver. There will be a lot more A2G and G2A gameplay in PS2."

The first response is fairly interesting since it would allow organized tank crews to still have dedicated drivers and dedicated gunners which seems to be the main point of contention from most of us here.

FIREk

2011-09-21, 01:27 PM

It seems there are some contradictory arguments being made here.
1) Solo tanks will be overpowered because 2 solo tanks > 1 tank with 2 players
2) Solo tanks will suck because driving and shooting at the same time is hard.

This is not contradictory, both points are independent of each other.

2) A driver that also has to gun is relatively ineffective, since he can't aim his turret at an angle and still drive properly.
1) Since a tank is always gimped due to 2), two gimped tanks are superior to one gimped tank with a relatively weak secondary gun manned - unless you count in air, of course. ;)

I'm still saying that the driver should use the secondary gun for reasons described earlier, here (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?p=592880#post592880). ;)

NapalmEnima

2011-09-21, 01:34 PM

Now, since I don't like it, I lobbied the devs on twitter a bit and got this response from Higby: "We've discussed giving certain vehicles a cert for a "gunner seat" that would allow them to spec to have a dedicated gunner...TBD"
Higby: "a dedicated secondary gunner is going to be a bigger threat 2 ur reaver. There will be a lot more A2G and G2A gameplay in PS2."

The first response is fairly interesting since it would allow organized tank crews to still have dedicated drivers and dedicated gunners which seems to be the main point of contention from most of us here.

A "dedicated gunner" still won't be investing unlocks/certs that affect the tank at the time its conjured out of a vehicle terminal. Oh there might be "+5% gunner traverse speed" type certs, but it's the person calling up the vehicle in the first place that'll be spec'ing out the engine/armor/secondaries/etc.

Malorn

2011-09-21, 01:35 PM

And yet according to Higby secondary guns are "no joke"

If his statement is accurate (and we have no reason to believe it isn't), and his other statement about the secondary guns being more powerful than the main gun then we have reason to man the tanks as opposed to running around with a bunch of solo tanks.

If a vanguard ends up being a main-gunned tank with a skyguard turret on the top of it that's a pretty awesome thing. Mix a few of those in with mortars or whatever and you've got a strong set of tanks that will be hard to destroy. Run around without the secondary guns and you have no air defense and you may have weaker effectiveness against infantry, which gives the single-manned tanks a strong counter which a group of fully manned tanks does not have. The end result is motivation to fully man tanks.

This will be one of those key pieces of feedback for beta - is a fully manned tank worth doing vs many single-manned tanks.

As far as the effectiveness of single-manned vehicles...BF games have done it for years and its actually surprisingly easy to drive and spin a turret at the same time. And it ends up being a lot like driving a lightning.

Raymac

2011-09-21, 01:37 PM

This is not contradictory, both points are independent of each other.

2) A driver that also has to gun is relatively ineffective, since he can't aim his turret at an angle and still drive properly.
1) Since a tank is always gimped due to 2), two gimped tanks are superior to one gimped tank with a relatively weak secondary gun manned - unless you count in air, of course. ;)

I'm still saying that the driver should use the secondary gun for reasons described earlier. ;)

I don't know if I 100% agree with you there, but I definitely see what you are saying. I guess it kind of depends on how "weak" the secondary gun is, and how prevelant air is.

That whole part of my post was kind of a side thought. The most important thing I wanted to convey was this:

Higby: "We've discussed giving certain vehicles a cert for a "gunner seat" that would allow them to spec to have a dedicated gunner...TBD"

I really hope that is something they put into the game.

Goku

2011-09-21, 01:39 PM

Now, since I don't like it, I lobbied the devs on twitter a bit and got this response from Higby: "We've discussed giving certain vehicles a cert for a "gunner seat" that would allow them to spec to have a dedicated gunner...TBD"
Higby: "a dedicated secondary gunner is going to be a bigger threat 2 ur reaver. There will be a lot more A2G and G2A gameplay in PS2."

I still do not want the driver having anything to do with gunning anything to be honest. There is plenty of areas for a "casual" player to have fun with. Don't ruin tank fights because of that. Casual tank battles would suck if their the majority of the tank force. I want coordinated 2 man team based tank platoon commanded by outfits going head to head on the battlefield. Not some guy smacking into a tree or using the tank as artillery.

NapalmEnima

2011-09-21, 01:48 PM

guy smacking into a tree or using the tank as artillery.

1-man MBTs will be vulnerable to AV troops and much more so to A2G attacks without a secondary gunner.

Tank vs tank battles rarely happen in isolation (though it does happen). Yes, a tank vs tank battle might go poorly for a 5-tanks-with-secondaries squad versus a 10-tanks-without squad. But that second squad is LUNCH when the Reavers and AV infantry shows up. The first squad (given a good mix of secondaries) can handle all that with style and come out the other side with a few scorch marks.

OTOH, we don't know how powerful AV secondaries are. They just might out-DPS the main gun in some circumstances. Or all. We Just Don't Know.

waldizzo

2011-09-21, 02:01 PM

Should just get the "best" (using the term loosely) solution for both points of view. Have it so if someone pulls a tank, they control the main turret. If someone gets into the "main gun" spot, then the driver just drives like normal.

FIREk

2011-09-21, 02:08 PM

That whole part of my post was kind of a side thought. The most important thing I wanted to convey was this:

Higby: "We've discussed giving certain vehicles a cert for a "gunner seat" that would allow them to spec to have a dedicated gunner...TBD"

I really hope that is something they put into the game.

What I'm reading here is "optional 2-man Reaver". ;) I'm tellin' ya, Higby sounded very cocky when he commented on the old screenshot in light of the currently-solo Reaver. :P

Goku

2011-09-21, 02:12 PM

That is what I am getting at. The tank battles should NOT be that way. Most fights should be far more coordinated. Coordination is what actually breaks stalemates instead of zergs just keep on killing each other for hours on end. I still do not even like the idea of tanks having AA in my opinion. I do not see how air will really even fair against ground targets unless their TTK in the is far quicker compared to what the Reaver did in PS. The SG worked wonders, I see no reason to take away that vehicle either. I just do not know what the devs are thinking in regards to vehicle battles with this one change and how it impacts it.

I do not care how good the secondary is either. I just do not want anything to do with it. The driver and gunner system was perfect in PS. No reason to change it for PS2 for the casual player excuse. I keep seeing this swung around all the time. From the sounds of it a casual player will not be even playing with anyone with how everyone talks. If casual players are going to be the base of the game pop wise I do not see how this game can work. The number of players on conts is suppose to be far higher then in PS, how is that going to be coordinated properly without being with in a outfit? Random squads rarely get anything done too. In my outfit I had quite a few guys who I would call casual that played only a few hours per week. Though they loved all the team oriented ops we were doing, not running around doing solo kill whoring.

Talek Krell

2011-09-21, 02:22 PM

Now, I've said I'm not a big fan at all of the driver controlling the main gun, but I do see alot of people turning a blind eye to one of the benefits to it. More casual players in PS2."I understand the need to bring in additional players and I far from disagree, but shafting your existing playerbase and compromising one of the most unique and interesting parts of your game isn't the way to do it.

Ideally I'd like to see both groups appeased, and I don't think that's much to ask. You could use the Lightning. You could work it into the modular system. Even just tweaking the squadding tools would help address any difficulty in finding like minded individuals.

Kurtz

2011-09-21, 02:30 PM

Individually all these changes may seem like "WTF change?, this would never work in PS", but collectively they could all work together flawlessly.

I can see the need to modernize the Franchise to steal away CoD/BF fans, and am remaining neutral on all the changes until I see them together.

Personally I'm a big fan of Slower TTK and the good ol RTB (returning to base) after a successful mission. I'm not really into the BF/CoD spawn, die, spawn, die, spawn, die game play and paper tanks and planes. I feel that living for a long time is a morale booster. Dying often has the adverse effect, even if you win the match, round or whatever.

Driving a vehicle in PS1 was a pretty thankless job due to the lack of stats for drivers. A good tank driver (Someone you could trust not to push in too far, knew when to retreat, avoided mines, and most importantly found you a tower door to camp), was a hard thing to find. So from that perspective, I can certainly see why they did it. After all you want to reward the person doing all the work to earn the certs.

I can go on a "stay off my lawn" rant and say "in my day I drove an AMS...we didn't have turrets...I didn't get a % of kills or any BXP % from kills from those who spawned off it....it was the single most frustrating experience of my life setting those up on Emerald around June 2003." Knowing a good AMS would turn the battle was enough.

Those days are over, and those types of gamers are long gone...or they're playing ArmaII. The point is that there aren't enough folks that like slow TTK and have the patience for the PS1 gameplay. Certainly not enough to fill a 5000 slot server.

We just have to be patient and see.

moosepoop

2011-09-21, 02:42 PM

I am very against the idea of drivers controlling the tanks. it would discourage teamwork and encourage noob soloing and rushing. it would also allow for massive tank spam completely dominating infantry outdoors.

i think the tanks should stay in the classical ps1 format: a driver, primary gunner and secondary gunner.

i have played battlefield games and the tank combat is MUCH less dynamic than planetside, there is a lot less strategy and teamwork.

mister higby, in my opinion, my favorite part about vehicle combat in planetside are the vehicles with a lot of gunners, like the raider. i think vehicles should have more gunners, not less. gunning with other players is a special unique experience in planetside i found nowhere else. if you remove this critical aspect of the game, it would negatively impact gameplay. please remember battlefield games have a lot less players, and some of their concepts may not work as well for an MMOfps.

the only reason i still occasionally come back to ps1 is to experience the team based vehicle combat. it was the one thing that stood out to me about this game. if this aspect is removed, i would be a lot less interested in planetside.

inspiration from other games is one thing, plagarism is another.

the whole point of the class system is to prevent people from going commando and solo in a team based game. giving the drivers solo control of one hit kill turrets is a very bad idea and sevrely hampers teamwork, and goes against the overall gameplay design. it doesnt make sense.

NapalmEnima

2011-09-21, 03:49 PM

the whole point of the class system is to prevent people from going commando and solo in a team based game. giving the drivers solo control of one hit kill turrets is a very bad idea and severely hampers teamwork, and goes against the overall gameplay design. it doesn't make sense.

Unless that vehicle is extremely vulnerable to air or AV infantry.

And we don't know that the turret will be able to one-shot infantry... though seems a reasonable assumption given PS1's gameplay + faster TTK.

I get the feeling tanks are going to feel a lot clunkier unless the driver works hard to cert/spec it for maneuverability.

Malorn

2011-09-21, 04:00 PM

On one hand PS already broke the teamwork rule with single-man aircraft. The result long-term was that most of the vehicles people used were these aircraft because they were effective. Vehicles in BF games where the driver is also a gunner are also effective. It could be that this is the correct direction to go.

However, one consequence of this is that tanks must be easier to kill. I think this is a natural consequence of classes as well since not everyone will be running around with AV and we will likely have a specialized class for dealing with vehicles (such as the Engineer). Other classes will likely have weapons that are effective against vehicles/maxes but are not strictly specialized for it (grenades, C4-like weaponry, etc).

It could be the right direction to go given the class system. If we had vehicles like PS1 and the class system of PS2 then we'd have a severe shortage of AV I suspect. However if the AV we had was more effective and the vehicles easier to kill, that would increase the pacing and help cover the gap.

One fundamental difference between the BF games and PS thought is that in the BF games the vehicles were strictly limited. In PS2 anyone who wants to pull a tank can go pull a tank - there is no limit to the number of tanks on the field.

In PS this was also OK because there were counters to tanks - mines, lots of AV, and aircraft were all counters, with aircraft being the hardest counter. If the enemy pulled tons of tanks you counter with aircraft or by grabbing AV. You can do that in PS2 also but it seems the counters are not as strong when the secondary gun can be configured to also counter and/or provide a well-rounded approach. Consider if 50% of the tanks had AA and the other half had the mortar upgrade. Aircraft would have a hard time dealing with mass tanks, and infantry would have to deal with a rain of mortars and main guns.

The thing I fear now is that there are no more hard counters in the game. This opens the door for blob/spam/zerg tactics to reign supreme as opposed to good tactical decisions and countering.

NapalmEnima

2011-09-21, 04:55 PM

In PS2 anyone who wants to pull a tank can go pull a tank - there is no limit to the number of tanks on the field.

We don't know that. I suspect the MBTs will have to be trained for and unlocked, as will most-if-not-all other vehicles. These unlocks may be certs (unlocked with time spent training for it) or purchases with various combinations of resources.

It's also possible (given that you have to buy access with resources) that different empires will require different kinds of resources to unlock their empire specific vehicles. Vanu might need more Auraxium, while the NC need more Grass. Dude, where's my Vanguard?

We just don't know. I suspect no one at SOE has all that nailed down either, or Higby wouldn't have said some of the things he said over lunch.

FIREk

2011-09-21, 05:19 PM

We don't know that. I suspect the MBTs will have to be trained for and unlocked, as will most-if-not-all other vehicles. These unlocks may be certs (unlocked with time spent training for it) or purchases with various combinations of resources.

Tanks will be free - it is only the sidegrades/minor upgrades that will cost resources.

Also, if they had to be unlocked, it will probably be 30 minutes worth of skill training. Otherwise, PS2 wouldn't have tanks for (for example) its 2 first weeks. Can you imagine the bad publicity when reviewers start pointing out that PS2 has got only infantry and ATVs? :)

Malorn

2011-09-21, 05:37 PM

Also Higby said at the fanfaire that you could train all of the basic roles (including a tank) on Day 1.

Crator

2011-09-21, 06:09 PM

Do not think he stated how long each will take to train though. Or how many you can train at one time.

Talek Krell

2011-09-21, 06:11 PM

Going off EvE as an example, adjusting somewhat for PS2s faster pace and the volume of skills they've suggested they'll have I would say that it's not unreasonable that you'd be able to fill every role at a basic level within a few days at most. Then from there you spend years training everything to five and unlocking all of the crazy gadgets and cool toys.

Pure conjecture, of course.

NapalmEnima

2011-09-21, 06:29 PM

Tanks will be free - it is only the sidegrades/minor upgrades that will cost resources.

To get an instance, yes. He also said that there would be some large things you purchase with hours worth of earnings.

I suspect one of those large purchases might be "unlock MBT". Purely conjecture.

Higby said all the classes will be available right out of the gate. He said there was no specific vehicle driving class. Ergo, classes have nothing to do with vehicle availability.

So I suspect each vehicle will have to be unlocked. There might be PS1-esque requirements for unlocking A before B (mossy before reaver, lightening before MBT).

We also don't know if the initial unlock is a cert or one of the big purchases Higby mentioned over lunch.

So no. I don't think everyone will be able to pull any old vehicle right out of the gate. We have no idea what it'll take to unlock a vehicle (or even if, I could be wrong), or how deep the vehicle tree[s] will be. MBTs might be the final leaf in a training tree that takes 48 hours to get all the way through. Vehicle unlocks might be flat, and require a Significant Resource Outlay.

Time will tell.

FIREk

2011-09-21, 06:41 PM

I'm just saying that limiting the availability of basic vehicles at launch is a great way to run said launch. I'm pretty sure that, even though no MMO launch has ever been perfect (?), those first few days are very crucial, if only for the sake of publicity (both critic and user reviews + whine).

Classes and vehicles will be balanced against each other. If people can pull Mossies, Liberators and MAXes, but not Tanks, part of that balance starts being off.

We should treat all non-upgraded and non-sidegraded stuff, including Reavers and MBTs, as basic gameplay mechanics. In EVE, you can train a basic skill to level 1 in 7 minutes. Being able to roll out a Prowler can't possibly take more than an hour from character creation.

moosepoop

2011-09-21, 06:51 PM

being able to control turrets as driver should be a skill unlock, it should not be default. its going to discourage teamplay.

NapalmEnima

2011-09-21, 06:52 PM

We should treat all non-upgraded and non-sidegraded stuff, including Reavers and MBTs, as basic gameplay mechanics. In EVE, you can train a basic skill to level 1 in 7 minutes. Being able to roll out a Prowler can't possibly take more than an hour from character creation.

Maybe. Maybe not. I agree that all vehicles should make their initial appearances in the first couple days.

One of the ways they might "take care of" PS1 vets is to give them a couple days worth of free training or a big stack of resources right out of the gate, so they can get those vehicles Immediately, while everyone else has to wait a day or two (ohs nos).

Were you around in the first days of PS1? I was. It had a very different feel. AI MAXes owned. Most people had either Rexo OR AV, but not both, and folks really hadn't figured out decimators. A month in, and you start seeing some rexo/ha/av troops, though there are still lots of new characters running around. A year in, everyone has the basics covered, and a few bells and whistles thrown in for good measure. Reavers and MBTs were relatively rare that first month as well.

moosepoop

2011-09-21, 06:55 PM

tank spam is already pretty cheap in ps1, if the driver is allowed to be main gunner the amoun of tank spam will be doubled. you guys need to realize this can be game breaking. it might totally mess up infantry combat outdoors.

FIREk

2011-09-21, 06:55 PM

being able to control turrets as driver should be a skill unlock, it should not be default. its going to discourage teamplay.

Not sure if trolling, or mad...

One of the ways they might "take care of" PS1 vets is to give them a couple days worth of free training or a big stack of resources right out of the gate, so they can get those vehicles Immediately, while everyone else has to wait a day or two (ohs nos).

I thought about this, but one of the last thing you want to do, especially on day one, is create divisions and elitism among players. It's pretty much saying "you, sir, are a piece of crap, unlike those cool kids over there with their awesome vehicles they're probably too cool to let you gun". ;)

Were you around in the first days of PS1? I was.

I wish I was, but PS1 was never sold in my country, let alone on day one. I think there was still a problem with credit card availability, but I may be wrong. Anyway, I eventually was able to buy a copy off some site - at least they sent me the CD key when I asked them to, because I never received the actual game... ;)

Anyways, I know the stories of the early days and can imagine how it looked like, but at the end of the day, if you wanted to get a tank on day one, you could do it on BR4 or something. If you sacrificed everything else, of course, but it was possible to see tanks on the battlefield. ;)

moosepoop

2011-09-21, 06:58 PM

i am mad, bro.

if you can single man a main tank, whats the point of a light tank then?? these devs arent making sense.

in ps1, it takes 3 soldiers to fully man a prowler. imagine if instead they could pull 3 prowlers. magnify that a hundrefold. it would totally unbalance the game. its common sense, man.

Raymac

2011-09-21, 07:02 PM

moosepoop

2011-09-21, 07:03 PM

Call me crazy, but if the amount of vehicles doubled, I'd say that's a good thing.

in battlefield the amount of tanks are limited. in ps2 anyone can pull one. i assure you it will not be a good thing. you wont even be able to set foot outside as an infantry.

and you know it WILL happen because the ps1 veterans are cheap as hell and will do anything to win.

right now the tanks need teamwork and coordination, so they deter ramboing. remove that and the tanks will be the new reavers.

Raymac

2011-09-21, 07:09 PM

in battlefield the amount of tanks are limited. in ps2 anyone can pull one. i assure you it will not be a good thing. you wont even be able to set foot outside as an infantry.

and you know it WILL happen because the ps1 veterans are cheap as hell and will do anything to win.

Your assurance doesn't sway me, unfortunately. I spend probably 75% - 90% of my time outdoors, because I grew bored of fighting in the same stairwell over and over. If you are worried about vehicles pwning infantry, there is a very very simple solution...cover. In PS1, if you are caught out in the open by a vehicle, you are toast, and I'd figure the same will be true for PS2.

Therefore, infantry will use cover to protect themselves from getting rolled by vehicles, just like they've always done.

One of the most beautiful sights in Planetside is seeing a huge armor column rolling to a target. The more of that we have in PS2, the happier panda I'll be.

Sirisian

2011-09-21, 07:24 PM

One of the most beautiful sights in Planetside is seeing a huge armor column rolling to a target. The more of that we have in PS2, the happier panda I'll be.
Wait aren't you a Reaver pilot? meh who am I kidding I'll be bombing them. :lol:

Raymac

2011-09-21, 07:29 PM

Wait aren't you a Reaver pilot? meh who am I kidding I'll be bombing them. :lol:

Yup, and the best view of the column is from the air, providing air support. Or like you said, shooting the hell out of them if they are bad guys. Either way, seeing it brings a big juicy smile to my face.

Baron

2011-09-21, 08:22 PM

Touching on the Skill Unlock discussion, remember that Higby also said that the skills available to you are limited by Battle Rank as well (not just time to train the skill).

BorisBlade

2011-09-21, 10:21 PM

Call me crazy, but if the amount of vehicles doubled, I'd say that's a good thing.

At the cost of gameplay? No. (and we will have a ton more vehicles just with the 3-4x player numbers anyway) The best times we had were with the vehicles that required teamwork. I dont see how a game tahts just a bunch of boring lightnings running around is even appropriate in a game that has a bazillion people. They should be taking advantage of the huge popluations, not going in the opposite direction and tryin to make us all be Rambo solo selfish tards. Sounds like somthin you'd do on a console where they have just a handful of players and cant support the crew, not a game that will have more players than they know what to do with.

And no the reaver argument doesnt hold up, yeah we had em in ps1 as solo vehicles, as were bfr's and it was a problem. You dont fix the problem by making everything in the game have the same problems.

It loses alot of the cool factor of seeing large groups of vehicles roaming around when you realize its just a bunch of solo tards in their outdoor version of MAX armor, dressed up as a tank.

I would pay a ton of certs to get versions of the vehicles that werent this stupid idea and gave us back real tanks, with turrets, gunners, and pilots. Honestly at this point if every vehicle just goes to this solo style of gameplay, I'm really gonna find it hard to wanna even play the game. I cant keep talkin myself into liking all the changes if nothing, esp the core team based stuff i like, is still anything like PS. I can do the stuff they talk about now in BF. I dont want that, i want PS. =(

Sirisian

2011-09-21, 10:49 PM

At the cost of gameplay? No.
I personally find vehicle combat more interesting that the infantry gameplay. You can still have infantry outdoors by making most vehicles suck at killing infantry. The idea should be that infantry are mostly focused on infantry and vehicles focus on vehicles outdoors. This really comes down to balance and how the terrain is set up. The maps are hand crafted so I'm imagining rocks and trees that allow players to hide behind and move around in the battle keeping infantry and vehicle combat generally divided.

Raymac

2011-09-21, 11:23 PM

It loses alot of the cool factor of seeing large groups of vehicles roaming around when you realize its just a bunch of solo tards in their outdoor version of MAX armor, dressed up as a tank.

I'm not going to try to change your mind, but I just want to throw this out there. To somebody new to Planetside (i.e. everyone except the few thousand that ever played it) the above quote would probably never even cross their mind. I'd bet they'll see a crap load of tanks and think "wow thats a crap load of tanks". Not everybody is cool with just driving Miss Daisy around. Clearly a number of PS vets don't feel that way, but my guess is that most people play a shooter to, you know, shoot.

So while, like you, I prefer the PS1 style of vehicle gameplay, I don't think the new way is game breaking. Even if everyone is just solo tanks with no secondary gunners at all, you'd still see teamwork, right?

moosepoop

2011-09-22, 12:04 AM

Even if everyone is just solo tanks with no secondary gunners at all, you'd still see teamwork, right?

no, they will ruin all outdoor infantry combat.

Raymac

2011-09-22, 12:13 AM

no, they will ruin all outdoor infantry combat.

Terrain.

But lets just say, for the sake of argument, that there will be no outdoor infantry in PS2, you'd still have teamwork among the players.

moosepoop

2011-09-22, 12:23 AM

But lets just say, for the sake of argument,
im not arguing for the sake of arguing. im arguing because i know the devs read forum feedback and im trying to give clear concise statements about how i think it is a bad idea. and it is a bad idea.

-single man tanks with heavy firepower allows for tank spam, ruining infantry combat outdoors. the number of tanks will be doubled and tripled, and might even outnumber infantry.
-being able to solo such power tanks makes drivers lose team cohesion and decrease teamwork, in a game where teamwork is vital
- the unique sense of comeradery and intensity with gunning with other players is lost
- being able to single man battle tanks eliminates need for light tanks and light vehicles. why drive a three man buggy when you can drive a solo killing machine?
- at least reaver has low hp. a tank has high firepower and high hitpoints. it will be used extensively for farming infantry, which ruins gameplay.

moosepoop

2011-09-22, 12:32 AM

headshots and squad spawning, that can add intensity and bring more action. but this has potential to be game breaking.

when we try to imagine the impact and consequences, we must imagine on a massive scale. people are used to the empty dead current ps1 and dont realize how badly solo main tanks can be with thousands of people.

a skilled av infantry can kill a lightning by himself. but if the tank driver will be able to solo in a main battle tank, that spells disaster. it will be a infantry farming rape fest.

Brusi

2011-09-22, 12:54 AM

We know that infantry will have more power with destroying tanks (FB style demo charges), so i don't think it will necessarily end outdoor infantry combat...

I like the idea of balanced scalability of power.

1 AV infantry guy is obviously outgunned by a 1 guy in a tank but still stands a chance depending on terrain
1 AV infantry guys vs a 2 manned tank is toast
2 AV infantry guys vs a 1 man tank will be a real danger to him
2 AV infantry guys vs a 2 man tank will be a semi-fair fight (terrain deciding the outcome)

ECM

2011-09-22, 01:15 AM

I wonder if you do know that the devs could always make gunning while driving as a skill you need to unlock first. Think about that. Also if you are in a great outfit there will always be great teamwork involved, thats a fact. Also there is also the possiblity of driving and let someone else gun. Plus we still don't know how we are to capture a territory and I think the devs have hinted at having multiple ways. Until you see it in action and also the resource system, complaining about tank gunners is pointless. Plus you guys all acting like only the nme can use 1 manned tanks, your own factions can do this too. if you see a bunch of tanks rollin you better get yours.

Talek Krell

2011-09-22, 01:19 AM

They could, and hopefully we can convince them to do so, or to have some concession to those of us who prefer the PS1 style of vehicle play. At the moment however that's not the plan they've given us. Also, I don't think anyone is under the impression that this is a one faction thing.

ECM

2011-09-22, 01:27 AM

it's just the tone of those complaining about something they haven't seen, not about one faction.

Raymac

2011-09-22, 01:34 AM

im not arguing for the sake of arguing. im arguing because i know the devs read forum feedback and im trying to give clear concise statements about how i think it is a bad idea. and it is a bad idea.

-single man tanks with heavy firepower allows for tank spam, ruining infantry combat outdoors. the number of tanks will be doubled and tripled, and might even outnumber infantry.
-> Terrain and structures.
-being able to solo such power tanks makes drivers lose team cohesion and decrease teamwork, in a game where teamwork is vital
-> Power balance in beta. If teamwork is vital, it will be used.
- the unique sense of comeradery and intensity with gunning with other players is lost
-> Still will have secondary gunners
- being able to single man battle tanks eliminates need for light tanks and light vehicles. why drive a three man buggy when you can drive a solo killing machine?
-> Smaller, faster, and more manueverable, just like the enemy Migs -Top Gun
- at least reaver has low hp. a tank has high firepower and high hitpoints. it will be used extensively for farming infantry, which ruins gameplay.
-> Wouldn't change even with dedicated drivers

Trite responses in red

I know those sound rude, and I honestly am not trying to be rude. I can totally see why you don't like it. I'm not a fan of it either. I just don't think it's gamebreaking. Even though I tend to use quite a bit of hyperbole myself, I just think the point is better expressed if you don't ignore some basic things.

The maps arn't going to be all salt flats. Also, right now in PS1, 1 solo AV infantry can turn away multiple MBTs. It's way too early to criticize damage balance.

Night

2011-09-22, 07:03 AM

I must say I am not a fan of this. One of the good things in PS1 was to team up. The time after release was the best. Then everybody rode together in a Gal for example. In the end everyone soloed all the time.

A big tank needs a crew as well. I remember the differance when you managed to pick up a good gunner compared to a bad one. The same thing for driver, the driving was a big part of the tank fight. Just make it so both people in the tank get credits for the kills made. Then you dont have to run people over all the time to get a few kills for yourselve.

I hope, what they mean is that you can operate the big gun by yourselves but you can also let a gunner do it. That would solve the "VNG!" problem.

moosepoop

2011-09-22, 01:32 PM

i think a giant super heavy tank with multiple gunners (like juggernaught, but with more firepower ) would be cool.

moosepoop

2011-09-22, 01:37 PM

Trite responses in red

I just don't think it's gamebreaking. Even though I tend to use quite a bit of hyperbole myself, I just think the point is better expressed if you don't ignore some basic things.

The maps arn't going to be all salt flats. Also, right now in PS1, 1 solo AV infantry can turn away multiple MBTs. It's way too early to criticize damage balance.

i seriously think it will be game breaking, speaking from experience:

-TR and VS av weapons in ps1 need direct line of sight, while tanks can fire over cover; cover is more advantageous to the tanks than infantry.
- one time i ambushed a group of footzerging TRs with a lightning, and i killed 6 of them under 30 seconds. they tried to take cover, but my lightning shells fire OVER the cover. if i were to get my hands on a solo main battle tank, it would be a total disaster, i would be able to relentlessly rape outdoor infantry. i dont want to resort to that, i want the game to be fair, and everyone to have fun.
- tanks will swarm infantry outdoors. one of the best aspects of ps1 was the outdoor infantry combat.

i am not exaggerating my opinions, i really think this is a very bad idea.

in bad company 2, if i get my hands on a tank, or even an apc, i can stay alive the entire game, and get 20:1 kill ratio. especially on wide open maps like heavy metal. that wouldnt be fun in mmofps format. there would be no time limit, no other servers to go to. the infantry will be farmed for hours.

Raymac

2011-09-22, 01:59 PM

If you are able to hit infantry behind cover, then that's not cover is it? Here's a perfect clear example of what I mean by 1 solo AV can turn away multiple MBTs. We've all fought on that hill on Cyssor between Kaang and Itan, directly east of Gunuku. You can rain AV all day long down on the tanks on the road and there is nothing they can do about it. THAT'S cover. If you can still get hit by a tank shell where you are, you are not behind cover.

Infantry caught out in the open is always going to be toast whether they are caught by a Lightning, a Reaver, or other infantry. Nothing is going to change that, and it shouldn't.

One of the first things Higby ever said about the terrain of Planetside 2 is that there will be open areas that are condusive to vehicle combat, and there will be more dense terrain that will give infantry the advantage....not too different from PS1. That's basically why I don't think it's gamebreaking. On the other hand, I just responded to Malorn's post that I'd prefer to see dedicated drivers and gunners, just as you would.

moosepoop

2011-09-22, 02:03 PM

im glad we both agree on something. since the devs pay attention to the forums, its better not to be apathetic but to have a clear stand on something.

devs dont want to know what fans prefer, but what we want.

dsi

2011-09-22, 02:15 PM

-being able to solo such power tanks makes drivers lose team cohesion and decrease teamwork, in a game where teamwork is vital
-> Power balance in beta. If teamwork is vital, it will be used.

Both of you are making the assumption that teamwork will be required, even when one of the most basic forms of teamwork has been removed from the game.

Sirisian

2011-09-22, 02:55 PM

Both of you are making the assumption that teamwork will be required, even when one of the most basic forms of teamwork has been removed from the game.
Mandatory teamwork you mean? PS2 doesn't really need it. Players will work together without it.

Talek Krell

2011-09-22, 04:41 PM

Mandatory teamwork you mean? PS2 doesn't really need it. Players will work together without it.
This from the man who planned to dual box a second account rather than find a Lib gunner?

Sirisian

2011-09-22, 05:07 PM

This from the man who planned to dual box a second account rather than find a Lib gunner?
Indeed. If you ever saw me in the game using a liberator 90% of the time I didn't have a bomber. Forcing a bomber to rely on someone else (mandatory teamwork) to use a primary feature of a vehicle isn't fun for me. Most of the time I used the liberator's front machine gun to take down BFRs, Lightning, infantry etc from afar. I was ecstatic when I heard that liberator's driver will be dropping their own bombs. I'll finally be using a bomber for what it's meant to be used for. This also moves the secondary gunner to the tail position which is how it always should have been. That is the gunner offsets the driver's weakness.

Talek Krell

2011-09-22, 05:36 PM

Indeed. If you ever saw me in the game using a liberator 90% of the time I didn't have a bomber. Forcing a bomber to rely on someone else (mandatory teamwork) to use a primary feature of a vehicle isn't fun for me, and thus no one else. Most of the time I used the liberator's front machine gun to take down BFRs, Lightning, infantry etc from afar, thus establishing my superiority to everyone else. I was ecstatic when I blindly assumed that the liberator's driver will be dropping their own bombs. I'll finally be using a bomber for what it's meant to be used for without having to share any of the glory or work as part of a multi-person group. This also moves the secondary gunner to the tail position which is how it should have been. That is the unworthy gunner offsets the weakness of the glorious driver master race. Of course the unworthy gunner is not actually there because the tail position is empty, just like it always was in the first game.

I have modified your post in a manner that is both amusing and highlights some of the problems I see in your way of thinking. I know it's long. Fear not! There's a TLDR.

TLDR: Our idea of teamwork is everyone supporting each other. Sirisian's is everone supporting him. This colors his ideas and I feel they lead the game in a bad direction. Bad for everyone else, anyway.

Sirisian

2011-09-22, 05:41 PM

Sirisian's is everone supporting him. This colors his ideas and I feel they lead the game in a bad direction. Bad for everyone else, anyway.
You edited my post just enough to say something I didn't say at all. Good job?

In the future my ideas are for vehicles and infantry to work together to offset each other's weaknesses. The goal isn't to promote solo-play. It's to remove anything that might be non-interesting for normal FPS players. I used "me" in my posts to specifically denote where my opinions are. This is in contrast to how people in forums will often say "the community wants X". I don't do that because I respect other's opinions.

Raymac

2011-09-22, 06:17 PM

Both of you are making the assumption that teamwork will be required, even when one of the most basic forms of teamwork has been removed from the game.

Do you know why I know there will be teamwork? BECAUSE THERE ARE 3 FUCKING TEAMS.

If they make PS2 a free-for-all deathmatch, then yeah, there likely won't be much teamwork.

Talek Krell

2011-09-22, 06:22 PM

BECAUSE THERE ARE 3 FUCKING TEAMS.
Empires. Working as a team means more than just being the same color and running in the same general direction.

Raymac

2011-09-22, 06:38 PM

Empires. Working as a team means more than just being the same color and running in the same general direction.

Wow, professor. I'm glad you are here to tell me these things. :rolleyes:

There will be solo rambos no matter what, but when you have teams, err excuse me, empires, then many people will naturally work together. I've been seeing both going back to my CounterStrike days 10 years ago.

Talek Krell

2011-09-22, 08:07 PM

There will be solo rambos no matter what, but when you have teams, err excuse me, empires, then many people will naturally work together.People will naturally work toward the same goal. That is not the same as working together. There are three "empires" in Planetside right now but the game is primarily composed of large groups of people who's most pronounced form of cooperation is not shooting each other. Much. They do not communicate with each other. They do not coordinate with each other. They do not function as part of a team unless the game railroads them into doing so.

Wow, professor. I'm glad you are here to tell me these things.Well you seemed so sad not knowing, I'm glad I could help.

moosepoop

2011-09-22, 08:52 PM

There will be solo rambos no matter what

i agree, that is true. but when you give a rambo more powerful tools, thats going to encourage him.

nothing wrong with soloing and going commando once in a while in planetside, but so far in ps1 soloers arent that overpowered (other than reavers hunting lone infantry). but having the ability to solo in a main battle tank is going to turn you into a one man killing machine. and thats not beneficial for this type of game.

if the devs are worried about casual gamers not liking the idea of coordinated vehicle play, they can use light tanks. make the light tanks interesting, have "oomph" , nice sound effects, it will be fine, players will like it. there is nothing wrong with one manning a balanced light tank. but a powerful battle tank is another matter.

if drivers find it boring just driving, well you can compromise and give the tank driver a small frontal machinegun, similar to the magrider driver's gun right now.

i think tanks shouldnt have less gunners, they need MORE gunners. juggernaught and raider are exciting and fun.

Raymac

2011-09-23, 12:59 AM

People will naturally work toward the same goal. That is not the same as working together. There are three "empires" in Planetside right now but the game is primarily composed of large groups of people who's most pronounced form of cooperation is not shooting each other. Much. They do not communicate with each other. They do not coordinate with each other. They do not function as part of a team unless the game railroads them into doing so.

Well you seemed so sad not knowing, I'm glad I could help.

Yeah, I guess you're right. Outfits won't exist, and everyone will just be running around just shooting anything that moves. The game would be a hell of alot better if they take away any form of freedom and force the game to be an MMOFPD. (massive multiplayer online first person driver) In fact, why stop at vehicles? Remember Master Blaster in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome? Now THAT sounds like a good time. I mean I thought I liked to play shooters to shoot things, but that's just silly. I'll let you have the last word. :groovy:

Talek Krell

2011-09-23, 01:46 AM

Remember Master Blaster in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome?No.

Headrattle

2011-09-25, 07:02 PM

fact: And this seems obvious to me. Drivers with large guns won't need gunners to get kills. Thus, you will see large tanks without gunners reaping havoc on the battlefield.

That is always how it has been. I remember lots of Magriders without gunners floating around and messing up infantry. If you are going to have a single player killing machine you need to make it weak. This is why the Lightning worked so well. If you wanted a powerful killing machine you needed to work with a gunner. That is what made it good, fun, and not over powered.

Also, BF 1942 (and on) vehicles sucked in my opinion. Just play the game, the guy who gets his tank first got lots of kills. In the end they had to counter that by making them weak. That isn't fun. I love driving the tank, and I don't want to man the gun. I want to drive, and have someone else man the gun. It is more interesting and fun that way.

I have officially lost interest in PS2.

Sirisian

2011-09-25, 07:23 PM

If you are going to have a single player killing machine you need to make it weak.
Step back for a second. Think about all the properties of a tank that make it "strong" and what it's goal is. Is its goal to kill infantry? Not really. The main cannon is more directed toward armored targets. So how can this be reflected in the gameplay.

What if the tank round moved relatively slowly through the air. Not painfully slowly. Now when a player in a tank shoots at another tank it's a large target that they can lead a little ways. When a tank shoots at an infantry unit from 100 meters away suddenly you find yourself strafing or sprinting out of the way. This coupled with a long reload time for a single shell decrease the chance of it being used to kill infantry.

To further this when you lower the handling of the vehicle you make it less likely to be used for running into people.

This brings us to the magrider which can strafe out of the way of rounds, has a raycasted bullet essentially for sniping infantry, and has high maneuverability completely breaking the normal balance of a tank. I won't go into details, since I've done that before, but things need to be changed so that all the tanks fit into a role of fighting other armored vehicles. If it's caught by itself with an infantry unit it needs to set up so that the infantry unit has nothing to fear really from a single tank. Either it strafes around or gets too close to the tank so it can't make a good shot. I digress since as I said I've discussed these changed in depth in other threads.

basti

2011-09-25, 07:25 PM

Quite Drastic, considering you dont know anything about the power of the Main gun yet.

Guys, just chill, hmkay?

Aractain

2011-09-25, 07:26 PM

I don't think the magrider has a pin-point gun anymore but the rest of the points still stand.

Good tank gameplay requires depth not "one man = weak" because all that equals is boring gameplay.

Sirisian

2011-09-25, 07:31 PM

I don't think the magrider has a pin-point gun anymore but the rest of the points still stand.
If they changed it then I missed it. I just went by this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBCp_rgAkfc#t=35s) which I presumed was the main cannon firing.

Mastachief

2011-09-25, 08:16 PM

Really not a fan of this.

Back in 2004 i had 2 rigs and two accounts i could drive and gun my own vanguard this was still challenging due to lag and having to use 2 screens.

However the battlefield model of tank fighting just isnt planetside.

I mean i will love that my outfit can pull and gun 80 tanks but its just gunna cause real issues in my opinion.

Sirisian

2011-09-25, 08:32 PM

I mean i will love that my outfit can pull and gun 80 tanks but its just gunna cause real issues in my opinion.
The game really rewards this teamwork. If you pull 80 tanks that's a lot of fire power. Same thing if an outfit pulls 80 Reavers. With 500 v 500 v 500 or more battles we're going to be seeing a lot of vehicles and infantry so 80 tanks isn't out the window. You might only need a few secondary gunners in that case.

// Edit also good luck getting 80 people to work together. The most I've ever been a part of was 40 people so we had 35 Reavers and some libs on Searhus (Wolfpack) and that was epic. 80 tanks would need AA support probably or they'll get bombed to death.

Mastachief

2011-09-25, 08:41 PM

80 is at the extreme as we are a tiny outfit with 86 members, but our co-ordination in that situation would be segmented and of course we would have columns with AA too. However my first outfit had 800 active players at release and was no where near the largest. With a strong command structure and respect large number co-ordination is pretty simple.

Think the devil dogs had 1000's

BorisBlade

2011-09-25, 08:55 PM

Quite Drastic, considering you dont know anything about the power of the Main gun yet.

Guys, just chill, hmkay?

Its the main gun so its the most powerful gun you will prob get in the game, atleast at launch since its on a main battle tank.

The prob isnt even just the firepower tho. Its the complete abandonment of yet another core Planetside element. Its the only game that got vehicles right. Pilots only pilot, gunners just gun, that was the core design in almost every vehicle, except a couple to let the solo'ers have vehicles too, but those were much weaker than those with teamwork.

The vehicles felt like vehicles, in BF and now PS2, they are just buffs. Just powerups for more solo action. And this in turn will mean they will have to be much weaker much like tanks in BF. So they become boring throw away buffs. Vehicles that allow you to specialize in your role, aka gunner/driver are MUCH more interactive, and really feel like you are driving a vehicle, not just gettin a firepower and armor buff. And it encourages you to worth with others.

I for one have zero interest in these new tanks, i dont wanna drive and gun at the same time, nor do i honestly wanna man a secondary gun for some half ass driver who is focused on killing too. If he aint focused on his role of driving he will just get me killed. If all the vehicles are goin this route I really see no reason to play PS over any other shooter other than the scale, since every other aspect of PS1 has been changed or removed completely. And honestly i wont play a game like that for just that reason. There are too many other FPS's out there nowadays to waste time on one where the devs are out of touch with what makes the game different and good.

It is still fixable tho, the magrider needs a redo, but the other tanks are fine since they are actually still tanks and have turrets. There are no enter/exit animations so just add a pilot only slot, main gunner slot, secondary gunner slot. This brings the manpower more in line with what an MBT should be with its high firepower and armor. It would avoid the "third man" issue the prowler had because its secondary gun would actually be worth using, near mandatory in fact. So the tanks could actually serve as tanks and have much more armor since it requires more people/teamwork. They wouldnt be throwaway buffs and would feel like an actual tank. Just carry this on over to other vehicles. You then add in your lightnings and solo attack craft with appropriate changes/balance because they are a solo vehicle. That would be the best option to keep PS having its epic and unique vehicle fights which NO OTHER fps has, zero. They all use the solo style of vehicles and even with many of em around it just doesnt feel epic in the least, really feels just like power ups, not vehicles.

So take note mr higby, focus on gameplay, not serving the quick fix or serving the quick buck. If you focus on gameplay and what somethin will do to overall gameplay, the money will come (just look at blizzard and valve). If you focus on the quick buck you end up with a half ass game and just more of the usual dribble SoE is known for. Time to change the opinions of everyone and get PS2 right.

Zulthus

2011-09-25, 09:07 PM

Its the main gun so its the most powerful gun you will prob get in the game, atleast at launch since its on a main battle tank.

The prob isnt even just the firepower tho. Its the complete abandonment of yet another core Planetside element. Its the only game that got vehicles right. Pilots only pilot, gunners just gun, that was the core design in almost every vehicle, except a couple to let the solo'ers have vehicles too, but those were much weaker than those with teamwork.

The vehicles felt like vehicles, in BF and now PS2, they are just buffs. Just powerups for more solo action. And this in turn will mean they will have to be much weaker much like tanks in BF. So they become boring throw away buffs. Vehicles that allow you to specialize in your role, aka gunner/driver are MUCH more interactive, and really feel like you are driving a vehicle, not just gettin a firepower and armor buff. And it encourages you to worth with others.

I for one have zero interest in these new tanks, i dont wanna drive and gun at the same time, nor do i honestly wanna man a secondary gun for some half ass driver who is focused on killing too. If he aint focused on his role of driving he will just get me killed. If all the vehicles are goin this route I really see no reason to play PS over any other shooter other than the scale, since every other aspect of PS1 has been changed or removed completely. And honestly i wont play a game like that for just that reason. There are too many other FPS's out there nowadays to waste time on one where the devs are out of touch with what makes the game different and good.

It is still fixable tho, the magrider needs a redo, but the other tanks are fine since they are actually still tanks and have turrets. There are no enter/exit animations so just add a pilot only slot, main gunner slot, secondary gunner slot. This brings the manpower more in line with what an MBT should be with its high firepower and armor. It would avoid the "third man" issue the prowler had because its secondary gun would actually be worth using, near mandatory in fact. So the tanks could actually serve as tanks and have much more armor since it requires more people/teamwork. They wouldnt be throwaway buffs and would feel like an actual tank. Just carry this on over to other vehicles. You then add in your lightnings and solo attack craft with appropriate changes/balance because they are a solo vehicle. That would be the best option to keep PS having its epic and unique vehicle fights which NO OTHER fps has, zero. They all use the solo style of vehicles and even with many of em around it just doesnt feel epic in the least, really feels just like power ups, not vehicles.

So take note mr higby, focus on gameplay, not serving the quick fix or serving the quick buck. If you focus on gameplay and what somethin will do to overall gameplay, the money will come (just look at blizzard and valve). If you focus on the quick buck you end up with a half ass game and just more of the usual dribble SoE is known for. Time to change the opinions of everyone and get PS2 right.

This post sums it up. PS is NOT Battlefield. It did vehicles right; drivers are meant to drive, and gunners are meant to gun. If you are one of the people that wants gunning and driving at the same time, hop in a lightning/reaver or go to Battlefield. Solo whoring in vehicles is NOT what Planetside needs to be. You made a really good point in saying that BF like vehicles where you drive/gun feels like buffs; it's just an exo-suit with much more armor and weaponry than your soldier. Doesn't require teamwork at all.

lobohotpants

2011-09-25, 11:56 PM

Why does it have to be one or the other?

The most annoying thing to me while I was playing ps1 was to have the vanguard cert and nobody to gun. If my friends weren't on then there were random pickups. When there weren't random pickups....well I was useless. Believe me, it happens. Especially when you're behind the push and get to a newly captured base late. You're trying to join the fight but everyone has already caught a ride. It happened to me quite a few times.

Give me the option to gun when I don't have a choice and give me the choice to pick up a friend and concentrate on driving. Good design is always about giving the player a choice. I shouldn't be forced to gun and I shouldn't be forced not to gun.

Zulthus

2011-09-26, 12:08 AM

Aractain

2011-09-26, 12:21 AM

Like aircraft, tanks have at least 2 spots, even if the driver guns one. (Which I like).

Sirisian

2011-09-26, 12:56 AM

Give me the option to gun when I don't have a choice and give me the choice to pick up a friend and concentrate on driving. Good design is always about giving the player a choice. I shouldn't be forced to gun and I shouldn't be forced not to gun.
Exactly. That's what I've been advocating by allowing the driver to release the main cannon to the secondary when the secondary needs to use the AV.

Select a solo oriented vehicle.
Sounds like you'd like a Galaxy more than a tank really. It's a lot more passive and you can concentrate on driving.

Zulthus

2011-09-26, 12:59 AM

Exactly. That's what I've been advocating by allowing the driver to release the main cannon to the secondary when the secondary needs to use the AV.

Sounds like you'd like a Galaxy more than a tank really. It's a lot more passive and you can concentrate on driving.

Slap some nice guns on that thing for my teammates and why not? I can't solo killwhore with it, so it's superior to controlling the main gun on a tank.

SniperSteve

2011-09-26, 01:01 AM

Two Points:

1) A MBT is a specialized item. It is not something that a rookie is going to pick up within the first hours of play. Since this is the case, I think we can discard the scenario where a new player gets the MBT and wants to own with it but can't and gets frustrated because he needs a gunner. (solo vehicles fill that role)

2) I think MBTs are a great way to build teamwork. If you can do almost everything yourself, why bother with your outfit/squad. Creating game mechanics that requires teamwork is a great way to strengthen the community and give you a 'place' in the game.

SniperSteve

2011-09-26, 01:13 AM

I also came across this comment in regard to the current PS2 model of Driver Gunner:

"So far it sounds like MBTs will be unshielded BFRs on wheels... do not want."

Azren

2011-09-26, 07:37 AM

Step back for a second. Think about all the properties of a tank that make it "strong" and what it's goal is. Is its goal to kill infantry? Not really. The main cannon is more directed toward armored targets. So how can this be reflected in the gameplay.

What if the tank round moved relatively slowly through the air. Not painfully slowly. Now when a player in a tank shoots at another tank it's a large target that they can lead a little ways. When a tank shoots at an infantry unit from 100 meters away suddenly you find yourself strafing or sprinting out of the way. This coupled with a long reload time for a single shell decrease the chance of it being used to kill infantry.

To further this when you lower the handling of the vehicle you make it less likely to be used for running into people.

This brings us to the magrider which can strafe out of the way of rounds, has a raycasted bullet essentially for sniping infantry, and has high maneuverability completely breaking the normal balance of a tank. I won't go into details, since I've done that before, but things need to be changed so that all the tanks fit into a role of fighting other armored vehicles. If it's caught by itself with an infantry unit it needs to set up so that the infantry unit has nothing to fear really from a single tank. Either it strafes around or gets too close to the tank so it can't make a good shot. I digress since as I said I've discussed these changed in depth in other threads.

You have got this backwards. Tanks have to be very deadly vs infantry, why else use them at all? Do you use snipers to kill snipers? Do you bring out infis to get rid of infis? Of course not, every class has its natural enemy. Infantry should be easily killed by tanks, tanks in turn should die to aircraft fast, ect.

If tanks can't kill infantry easily, they will just end up killed by AV weapons.

The devs really need to scrap this stupid idea and give us the PS1 tanks back.

How can they preach about their great community, how they want to please current players, how they take everything we say into consideriation, when they make decisions that only suit the newcommers? Do not change core gameplay, or call the game something else than PS2 altogether...

Kalbuth

2011-09-26, 08:37 AM

It's probably been proposed before in this thread, I've not read all the pages, why not make the control of main gun by the driver an optional kit available through a certification (if any change can be made at this point, ofc) ?
And this "driver gun control" kit would weaken the main gun power / vehicle armor by, say.... 20% ?
And you can up this through your skill, up to the point where a fully skilled tanker would be of the same power solo than a basic tanker would be with a gunner.
This way, you have both options, you reward teamwork without being too drastic on it

Talek Krell

2011-09-26, 02:38 PM

Things along those lines have been proposed, but the topic has split into enough threads that it's hard to keep track of. It's a matter of balance, but the penalties you've proposed would probably need to be steeper, and never cancelled. The idea is that 2 people in one tank should, at the very least, be as powerful as two people in two tanks. Personally I'd rather just have the lightning back for the solo crowd.

Sirisian

2011-09-26, 03:29 PM

The idea is that 2 people in one tank should, at the very least, be as powerful as two people in two tanks.
Why would one AV gun be better than 2? That's silly. If you and your friend are specialized in tanks and want to kill them faster then pull two tanks. You leave yourself open to air and infantry, but you can kill armored targets faster.

I doubt we'll be seeing a secondary gunner with AV ability, but we'll see.

NapalmEnima

2011-09-26, 04:06 PM

Why would one AV gun be better than 2? That's silly. If you and your friend are specialized in tanks and want to kill them faster then pull two tanks. You leave yourself open to air and infantry, but you can kill armored targets faster.

I doubt we'll be seeing a secondary gunner with AV ability, but we'll see.

I suspect we'll see a wide variety of different weapons to unlock... several different kinds of anti-infantry for example. Full-auto-grenade launcher, mutli-barrel MG (with a dual-or-quad version for TR, maybe an uber-shotgun for NC). AA might have options for missiles and flak, possibly beams for VS. How about a scaled up lasher for VS AI?

You might also see a PS1-striker type missile that can lock onto both air and vehicles. Maybe TR-specific, maybe not.

AV weapons could include dumb-fire rockets, kinetic kill weapons (little/no splash, high muzzle velocity, high accuracy), standard HE-AP. Heck, the NC might have a heavy phoenix launcher option, perhaps with different warheads..

Personally I'd rather just have the lightning back for the solo crowd.

I don't believe we ever lost it. That was someone pulling an argument out of the air earlier on in this thread, IIRC.

Talek Krell

2011-09-26, 05:39 PM

I don't believe we ever lost it. That was someone pulling an argument out of the air earlier on in this thread, IIRC.I realize it's been neither confirmed nor denied, but the driver/gunner setup seems like it would make it largely pointless. OTOH, perhaps modularity will breathe some new life into it.

Why would one AV gun be better than 2? That's silly.Mostly for the reasons listed in the dozens of other posts about the subject, such as that requiring multiple people to operate the most powerful weapons ensures that teamwork is strongly incentivized and allows the vehicles to be more powerful without being unbalanced. Also, to dismiss the idea that one AV gun be more powerful than 2 on the grounds of it being "silly" while simultaneously supporting the idea that something as complex as an MBT could be operated at even 90% capacity by a single person might be a teensy hypocritical.

NapalmEnima

2011-09-26, 06:24 PM

Also, to dismiss the idea that one AV gun be more powerful than 2 on the grounds of it being "silly" while simultaneously supporting the idea that something as complex as an MBT could be operated at even 90% capacity by a single person might be a teensy hypocritical.

I've noticed that in several of their arguments as well.

OTOH, two direct-fire AV guns on one tank probably would be inferior to two tanks with direct-fire AV that all did straight-up damage...

But what if one of the secondary AV weapon is absolute murder on vehicle shields (which is still conjecture at this point) and prevents recharge longer than normal? Or a straight up EMP beam? How about an indirect fire "missile flock" weapon that could fire on anything in range with a target-painting laser aimed at it?

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZKjkkVBjTqJSq5Cep28wSzDTVYCKi1 fYTMaPpoOBuPw1FWJl9lg

No reloads, but it can fire as fast as you can click. And solid range, capable of indirect fire support (given a painted target), or direct fire on enemy vehicles. Easily capable of out-DPS'ing the main gun, but apt to run out of ammo in a hurry. Give it a tertiary light MG so the gunner doesn't get bored after spewing all that death.

That'd be epic.

And probably severely OP if it could park next to a vehicle terminal and resupply at will.

Okay, scratch that. Make it a two or four tube launcher. Each missile packing the same punch as the main gun. Capable of reloading in the field, but the reload time is long enough that the main gun has a better overall DPS.

Get the idea yet? A second AV gun can be DIFFERENT. Different in a way that makes it more appealing than a second tank.

Talek Krell

2011-09-26, 07:20 PM

Get the idea yet? A second AV gun can be DIFFERENT. Different in a way that makes it more appealing than a second tank.Interesting line of thinking. An EM weapon or non-direct fire missile could both give a fully crewed vehicle the ability to outright dominate single-person tanks, but without necessarily just being hugely more powerful than the main gun (which would call into question the point of having a "main" gun). Higby did say something like the turrets provide a lot of "situational effectiveness", and the things you've suggested are weapons I could actually see mounted alongside a conventional cannon (as opposed to just a second conventional cannon). You might be on to something.

NapalmEnima

2011-09-26, 07:38 PM

You might be on to something.

Besides... a big honkin' missile rack on top of a tank would just flat out Look Cool.

https://my.qoop.com/store/Photogenic-Asia---Royalty-Free-Images-8074336117c08ce25854d0ba6882750f2bdef875/Missile-System-by-Shi-Yali-qpps_113147124644791.MD.jpg,290,195.75

I'm guessing the above missiles wouldn't hold up to a single hit. You'd probably want mech-esque closed racks:

http://ptn.home.xs4all.nl/images/sdf1_missile_battery.jpg

Draep

2011-09-26, 08:11 PM

You put me and my peoples up in a two person tank, we'll drive circles all day around 1 man battle tanks. With one man tanks I see people usually stopping to lay down accurate fire and in any case, it'll be much tougher for a one man tank to traverse the turret fast enough while maintaining excellent driving standards. With one man tanks, you sacrifice a lot of movement and maybe some accuracy. What's the point of having twice the firepower with half the hits and half the mobility?

You wouldn't have to give any sort of disadvantage in terms of rate of fire to single manned tanks, because they'll have a tough enough time getting around and surviving air attacks.

Talek Krell

2011-09-26, 08:39 PM

You put me and my peoples up in a two person tank, we'll drive circles all day around 1 man battle tanks.Not sure I understand you. The driver would have to work the main gun regardless of whether the tank is fully crewed, so...

Captain B

2011-09-26, 09:00 PM

I'm not particularly fond of the idea that ALL tanks will have access to the main weapon. Even the secondary weapon, if they are as powerful as the team is suggesting, would be too much. Maybe an add on weapon like a machine gun or something to clear out infantry from point A to point B would be nice, but the whole idea is to have people working together.

Baron

2011-09-26, 09:30 PM

BorisBlade

2011-09-26, 09:45 PM

As much as I'm very pro-gunner having control of the guns I think there might be a problem with that. Given that the driver controls the main gun and the gunner controls the secondary, tank weapons will most likely operate like the PS1 prowler.

Meaning, each gun can rotate independently of the other (they can shoot at different targets).

Now, give control of both of those to one person (the gunner) and you can see an issue. How can that person control two independent turrets? Say you "lock" them both forward and the gunner can switch between gun types like in PS1...however now you have lost some of the freedom to fire separate weapons at different targets. In a sense penalizing the tank who's gunner has control of both weapons.

Well thats because the best option is to just add a pilot only slot, then have a main gunner and a secondary gunner. You avoid the prowlers "2nd gunner" issue by just having a good gun for the secondary gunner. If they do it right, it will not only be worth it but nearly mandatory. Then you have the mainpower required to allow for the vehicle to be a real tank that can take some good damage and dish it out. If they keep the solo power idea then they will have to make em much weaker to compensate for them really just being powerups.

Peacemaker

2011-09-26, 10:12 PM

Sirisian

2011-09-26, 10:27 PM

MBTs should NOT have any powerful AA. Gunships > MBTs. Its how the world goes round. Wanna make them BETTER at AA? Ok, thats fine, but they shouldn't win in a equal skill 1 v 1. Dedicated AA vehicles are a must. These vehicles should be weak vs infantry and other ground vehicles. Tanks should be weak to Air but pwn infantry. Air is weak to AA vehicles. Infantry can out maneuver armor.
Well it would be a 2 person MBT. Nothing is stopping you from pulling two Reavers instead and just launching a barrage of rockets at the MBT. That would probably decimate it. That and I think they want the same level of difficulty for Reavers as there was in PS1. That is a Reaver vs a tank wasn't always an easy kill was it?

NapalmEnima

2011-09-27, 01:11 AM

Trying to think of other av-thats-not-just-direct-damage weapons that might make folks want to have a secondary AV...

Shield Transfer Ray. Add one point to your shield for every two drained from theirs perhaps.

Immobilizer. Locks up the enemy drive system (hits the breaks hard) for a second or two. Takes twice that to recharge/reload between shots. Yes, two of them could completely tie down one tank. Team work is awesome like that.

Hit a dive-bomber with it and enjoy as Hilarity Ensues (splat).

Talek Krell

2011-09-27, 02:49 AM

I think the immobilizer/EMP needs to be paired with something else to be balanced. You can't make it so potent that it will completely disable a tank or 1v1 fights will just be weird. But if you make it too much less effective then it starts to look less and less desireable. Maybe it could work as a tertiary weapon system, something kind of pricey and far down the cert tree...

You might consider putting this up in the ideas thread. See what people will come up with.

Azren

2011-09-27, 05:04 AM

2coolforu

2011-09-27, 05:17 AM

It looks to me that the simplest solution is to just switch control of the guns so that the driver gets his super-special certed secondary weapon and the gunner gets the proper main cannon + turret. I think Higby said they would experiment with this too so its all good, it doesn't require much modelling or changing either.

My favourite idea would be to have two cert trees, one which heads towards a weaker, faster, lighter one man tank similar to the lightning and another which heads towards a slower, stronger, heavier two man MBT which has a gunner and a driver (although this requires modelling, scripting and textures)

Captain B

2011-09-27, 06:12 AM

Also, as T-Ray said, beta comes first. And since a buncha' PSiders will be in it, I doubt that this will go through without changes or at least considerations.

Azren

2011-09-27, 07:00 AM

A failed beta might just be the end of PS2. How many do you think will stick around if they do not like what they get? Sure you can argue that it will be fixed by release, but these are Core gameplay issues we are talking here, not some minor detail, these will not be fixed.

TheRagingGerbil

2011-09-27, 10:38 AM

Posted this in the other thread too...

I have a feeling this issue is being blown way out of proportion. We do not even know if vehicles will be driven from first person or third. Now if a tank is driven from first, I suspect you will be forced to switch to a gunner view making driving very difficult.

My guess is the driver will have the ability to drive and gun at the same time, but unless this is taking place in an open dessert it will be very ineffective. I bet the option will be to have a gunner in the vehicle who can take control of the main gun or the secondary.

I am guessing that everyone is thinking tanks will be in third person with a reticle visible?

BlazingSun

2011-09-27, 11:04 AM

I didn't care to read the whole thread, but I'd like to leave my take on this subject here:

Should SOE chose to stick to this idea, they should do the following in my opinion: It is important to split the power. The drivers gun should not be that good against infantry. It should mainly be for AV purposes. A gunner would be required to increase the tanks chances against Infantry. Airdefense should be weak at best (unlockable).

This way it could work.

NapalmEnima

2011-09-27, 01:10 PM

There seams to be an ongoing line of thought about the secondary gunner having AV capabilites. If you think such a thing would justify using a gunner instead of two tanks, you are sadly mistaken. Lets see what we have here:

1 tank has an armor of 100 points, and has a main gun that deals 20 damage, and a secondary gun that deals 20 damage aswell (would probably be much lower, but just for the argument's sake, lets make it 20 too).

now then, two tanks have an armor of 200 points, main guns that deal 20 damage each (20+20=40).

So what you are proposing would mean that the damage output is the same, however the armor value isn't. In a 2v1 fight the 2 tanks would always win.

You're forgetting the scenario where one of the tanks flanks the solo 2 seater and gets shots at more vulnerable armor. Not a given, but quite possible.

BUT, by the same token, you're forgetting the scenario where the 2-seater blows right past the two 1-seaters, giving its turret a free shot at one of their back-sides. This just might be a 1-shot kill, we don't know yet. And while the remaining two tanks are turning towards each other, the AV turret will probably get at least one more free shot on the side armor.

Ass-u-me-tions:
All three tanks get two shots off before the 2-seater passes the two 1-seaters.
Side shots do double damage
rear shots do x5 (insta kill) damage.

When the 2-seater passes the 2 1-seaters, it will have taken 80 damage. 1 of the 1-seaters will also have taken 80 damage. Now the turret gun puts a kill shot into the rear of the undamaged tank, killing it.

While the other one-seater is turning around, the gunner gets another shot at the side armor of the remaining tank, killing it as well.

Now that's a lot of "if"s and "maybe"s. But it is theoretically possible to create scenarios with numbers just as made-up as yours where a 2-seater comes out on top in straight up AV damage.

So its not all cut and dried, and in general the 2 tanks will be more survivable given straight-up direct damage G2G AV weapons... which is precisely why I suspect turret AV weaponry to be DIFFERENT.

Lets see now about that other idea, about driving circles around one manned tanks and killing them with your gunner.
1 - if you drive around, you will not be able to shoot him, or be prepared to hit a tree or some small stone.
2 - your gunner will probably have much lower AV damage than the main gun does.

Which is it? Similar or much lower? Given Higby's "secondary guns are no joke" comment, I'd imagine that they'll be in the same ball park and perhaps even superior in specific circumstances. A beam weapon might beat out a cannon in DPS over the long haul because the cannon needs to reload while the beam doesn't. A rapid-fire missile weapon might be able to out-DPS a cannon in the short term but have lower DPS over time due to its long reload time.

Funky Weapons might open up strategic possibilities that simply aren't possible with the main guns. Shield leeches, immobilizers, blinders, indirect fire weapons.

Under the right circumstances a secondary weapon that was nothing but a targeting laser might be vastly superior to any single weapon a tank might carry, if only because there's several weapons of similar power at the ready waiting for a target.

3 - your enemy will have much greater firepower than you, because he will be using the main gun

So what this all adds up to is: you either fight him face on, and probably win, or you drive around, trusting your gunner and you lose. So if you will fight him face-on anyway, why bother with gunner? Just roll two solo tanks and the poor guy will have no chance.

"Your enemy will have much greater firepower?" Not a given.

Further, the ability to not charge in headlong means you have a better chance at dodging shots entirely. The downside being shots that do land might not hit your frontal armor (ouchy).

About that third idea, giving the driver the option to release the main gun to the gunner:
Just who in his right mind would give up more than 50% of the vehicle's firepower?

Someone with an enemy outside their normal firing arc. You put the main weapon in the turret, and your superior-in-some-undefined-way weapon has a 360 degree of fire. Tactical flexibility has value. Don't underestimate it.

Just think about it, a gunner will not be able to shoot more than one gun at a time anyway, so giving him two guns is pointless, if you can use it yourself.

There really is only one way to balance this and please everyone: Make two types of tanks. Make a one manned variant where the driver gets the main gun, but has 65% less armor than the normal tank. Make a normal tank where the driver has no guns, but the gunner gets to use the main canon and a secondary one (if he wishes to).

There are lots of ways to balance this.

If a "secondary" AV does twice as much AV damage as the main gun, then straight up slugging matches are even.

If they are superior in specific situations (front loaded damage, remove options from the enemy), then the smart players will work to create those situations and kick the crap out of the Derps in the 1-seaters.

You can make A2G accessible enough that 1-seater tanks are just wheat to be mowed, with a survival time of 10 seconds outside air cover.

Your "just pull two tanks" argument also rests on the ability of both players being able to pull two tanks. There's going to be lots of other stuff to spend time and resources on.

A specialized tanker might have a specialized engineer as a gunner. What if that engineer has a cert that lets them passively repair the vehicle they're in? Or boost its shields? AND boost its shields? Given some prep time and CE, the enemy's "quick charge to an exposed flank" turns into "a dead tank in the middle of a mine field".

Lots of balancing options. You either don't want to see them because you hate the idea of 1-seater MBT existing, or you're just not bright enough to figure it out. I'll be kind and assume you're emotional rather than stupid.

Or I'm wrong. It happens. :doh:

But not very often. :cool:

Malorn

2011-09-27, 01:52 PM

Your "just pull two tanks" argument also rests on the ability of both players being able to pull two tanks. There's going to be lots of other stuff to spend time and resources on.

Tanks without upgraded secondary weapons cost nothing. And we also know that on Day 1 anyone can drive a tank. Argument still quite valid. Thanks for playing.

NapalmEnima

2011-09-27, 04:03 PM

Tanks without upgraded secondary weapons cost nothing.

Some upgrades may have a large one-time cost to unlock while others need to be paid every time you install them. I suspect that the MBTs themselves will need to be unlocked with a fairly large resource price tag.

And we also know that on Day 1 anyone can drive a tank.

But we don't know that they're available in a freshly created character. I suspect not. Something one could earn with a couple hours dedicated to it, but there will be Many Other Things that are shiny and interesting too.

Argument still quite valid. Thanks for playing.

I disagree, and you're welcome. The only thing that'll settle this one way or the other is Word From On High (or beta, where we can see for ourselves).

We could ask TRay on Thursday's twitter chat. He might even tell us.

kaffis

2011-09-27, 05:48 PM

Yup, something that has a specific function and is not adequately good at it will simply not be used.

The question for tanks and other vehicles will thus be : what is their intended role in PS2 ? Will they do it well ?
From the descriptions they've given, my guess is that their intended role is to be the weapon system of choice for an individual when attacking open space objectives. And that's it.

They're not meant to be a unique gameplay experience that requires coordination with others to be even fundamentally effective, offering solid performance, stand-out power, and a rewarding experience when you do so, as they were in PS1.

It's just another set of equipment. A MAX on wheels, if you will.

Malorn

2011-09-27, 05:49 PM

Any sort of one-time cost, unless it is massive (takes more than a few days), will have little to no impact on the prevalence of vehicles we see. It will affect what you see on Day 1, but after a week or two zero impact.

If a 1-man tank is an effective killing machine then we will see a lot of them. If it isn't an effective killing machine then they'll be buffed until they are, otherwise you won't see many tanks at all.

Aractain

2011-09-27, 08:17 PM

You sound like you don't want 1 man vehicles to be effective? Which would mean reavers and mossies would be worthless and not used.

Malorn

2011-09-27, 08:34 PM

I want 2-man vehicles to reward teamwork and recognize the added risk and complexity in requiring 2 players to effectively run a vehicle. 1+1=3, that's the rough power translation. A 2 man vehicle should be 3x more effective at its role than a 1 man vehicle. Otherwise its more effective to just spam 1-man vehicles.

I am fine with 1 man vehicles, but you should get what you pay for. Lightning was a good balance with MBTs of PS1. Lighting was a 1-man tank, and if you knew how to drive it well you could do some great things. But it died pretty easily to a vanguard, mag, or prowler. That was the reward for teamwork.

If you want deathmatch Call of Duty is there for you. A great part of Planetsides epic feel and appeal is teamwork vehicles. Seeing those replaced by killwhore CoD/BF-style vehicles is not a good direction.

Azren

2011-09-28, 03:54 AM

You're forgetting the scenario where one of the tanks flanks the solo 2 seater and gets shots at more vulnerable armor. Not a given, but quite possible.

There are scenarios where I can take out 3 vanguards in my lightining. Not a given, but quiet possible.

Seriously, balancing based on very specific scenarios is impossible, these are things that you make tactics based off, not what to look at while setting up core gameplay.

BUT, by the same token, you're forgetting the scenario where the 2-seater blows right past the two 1-seaters, giving its turret a free shot at one of their back-sides.

Both of those driver only tanks will have rotatable turrets, and they will rotate and shoot you in the back just as you would them. Let's assume that your gunner has an AV weapon (if there will be such at all for a gunner), and let's assume that a tank dies from one hit in it's back. You would take out one of the solo tanks at best, but the other would kill you in return. That is in a 2v2 fight you and your gunner would die and only one of the enemy would die.

Which is it? Similar or much lower? Given Higby's "secondary guns are no joke" comment, I'd imagine that they'll be in the same ball park and perhaps even superior in specific circumstances.

They are no joke, true, and AA gun on a tank is no joke if you are in a reaver, but AV? Nope...

Don't try to defend this concept, it was spawned from the same mindsat as jatpacks. In an interview they said something along the lines of "everybody loves jatpacks, so we added them. Appearently PS players are the only breed who don't...".
Same thing here, "everybody loves running around with tanks and shooting it's BIG guns, so we made them solo vehicles. Apperently PS players are the only breed who don't..."

It is a failed concept stolen from other, short term FPS games like the CoD and BF series, not something to defend or support by any means (if you want this game to last long, like PS 1 did that is)