Poll on driver gunning

[CutterJohn]

Pick your preference.

Poll options:

Current PS2: Driver on primary turret, gunner(s) on secondaries. Gunner weapons roughly equivalent in power to primary.

PS1: Driver has no/weak guns. Gunner controls primary and secondary weapon.

BFRish: Gunner controls Primary, Driver controls weaker secondary.

Option D: Primary and Secondary weapon control can be swapped by the driver, the gunner, and a secondary gunner. Primary weapon more powerful, but has a limited forward firing arc when controlled by driver to make it more painful to use solo.

Edit: A couple have said this could be OP by allowing the driver access to, for instance, both the AV primary and AA secondary. This could be balanced by limiting driver access to certain turrets, or enacting a swap timer akin to holstering a gun and drawing a new one to prevent instant swapping when new threats show up. Or something else. The main goal with this is just giving the driver control over how the vehicle is operated.


For option D, weapon control would be set in a little gizmo on the hud or in the vehicle control screen if such exists, simple click to assign, that looks a bit like this:


|W1|W2
Driver |X |
Gunner1 | |X
Gunner2 | |

The driver would just click in the spots to change who controls what.

[Sirisian]

Option D seems the best.

Don't really need a fancy UI element. Gunners would see the option become available when a driver right clicks and released control of the main gun. The driver could take it back at any point by right clicking forcing the gunner back to their weapon.

[Bags]

I like PS1 but I frankly don't care. I don't use ground vehicles that much.

[Zulthus]

PS1 style. I know I'm the minority but I hate the idea of drivers being the only gunner they need.

[Sirisian]

PS1 style. I know I'm the minority but I hate the idea of drivers being the only gunner they need.
Imagine a Reaver flying down on a tank. How vulnerable do you think that tank is having just its main cannon? I'd say it's probably going to die.

[basti]

Option D is pretty good. It allows you to do stuff if you want to as a driver, but it also allows you to just drive and let others gun.
And thats important, especialy if you have ever tried to lead a tank collum. You cant just do everything at the same time...

[Majikk]

Not only do I like option D, but it makes sense out of having a crew of 3 in your tank. Let one person drive, one person use the main cannon, and one person use the secondary cannon, if you like.

[Talek Krell]

To no one's suprise I prefer the PS1 model.

Option D is also quite acceptable though. Especially with the limited firing arc, I like the idea of forcing a solo driver to use the vehicle like a tank destroyer.


Edit: I would like it noted that PS1 contained single person vehicles, it just wasn't them exclusively.

[Zulthus]

Imagine a Reaver flying down on a tank. How vulnerable do you think that tank is having just its main cannon? I'd say it's probably going to die.

Yes, a Reaver is designed to take down a tank. Your point?

[kaffis]

Other: As "B", but does not require any specific position be filled by the person with the vehicle's cert, so long as at least one position is.

In other words, I'm sympathetic to the plight of those who argue that the guy who puts the cert time in should get to gun, but don't believe that warrants combining seats to arrange this.

[CutterJohn]

Other: As "B", but does not require any specific position be filled by the person with the vehicle's cert, so long as at least one position is.

In other words, I'm sympathetic to the plight of those who argue that the guy who puts the cert time in should get to gun, but don't believe that warrants combining seats to arrange this.

So the person certed can gun and random person who is not certed can drive, so long as the certed person is present?

This wouldn't be bad.

[Brusi]

I'm thinking that Current PS2 style could be balanced to give the main gun a ROF buff if there is a 2ndary gunner, kinda like an assistant loader who controls the 2ndary gun as well (if you need the fluff).

[kaffis]

So the person certed can gun and random person who is not certed can drive, so long as the certed person is present?

This wouldn't be bad.
Correct. I'd probably make it so if the last certed person leaves a vehicle, it boots everybody else out. And no seats are open to uncerted people until an certed person climbs into any one of them.

[Talek Krell]

That might become a little awkward when making repairs. Usually it's the tanker that has engy, and then the gunner covers him with the vehicle weapon.

[Crator]

Not much of an assault vehicle driver myself but option D sounds really nice. Power to the player is always the best option imo.

[Sentrosi]

I could almost see Option D as having a loading option for different types of SABOT or HEAT rounds for example. The third driver could take care of repairing subsystems in the vehicle as well. Act sort of as a damage control engineer inside the tank.

I didn't vote. Just fleshing out an idea here.

[Sirisian]

The only problem I see with Option D is that I don't think the driver should ever be able to control the secondary gun without getting out and going to the other gunner spot.
Yes, a Reaver is designed to take down a tank. Your point?
I understand what you're saying. You prefer that a driver is dependent on a gunner. What I meant by my comment is that they are dependent. Without a secondary gunner to offset the primary gun's weakness the vehicle leaves itself open to player AV and air AV. Ideally it's a purely AV vehicle with the main cannon. The secondary guns offset the disadvantage against AI and AA. It's just a different way to think of tank gameplay and teamwork.

[Crator]

The only problem I see with Option D is that I don't think the driver should ever be able to control the secondary gun without getting out and going to the other gunner spot.

I do agree with this statement too if it is necessary to properly balance (control TTK) for vehicles.

[Zulthus]

I understand what you're saying. You prefer that a driver is dependent on a gunner. What I meant by my comment is that they are dependent. Without a secondary gunner to offset the primary gun's weakness the vehicle leaves itself open to player AV and air AV. Ideally it's a purely AV vehicle with the main cannon. The secondary guns offset the disadvantage against AI and AA. It's just a different way to think of tank gameplay and teamwork.

Yes, but if a tank is entirely self sufficient in just one role, be it AI, AA, or AV, then it can be used very effectively against that role with just one person. Which a MBT should not be able to do. They have too much armor to go around killwhoring with one person inside. It would probably be a while before a Reaver decides to pick you out from the hundreds of other one man tanks rolling around.

Now, if the armor of MBTs was more like the Lightning, then this shouldn't be too much of a problem. But I see them as being way too OP from the current info we have.

I know what I'm trying to say, but I can't seem to type it out in a logical way, lol.

[Sirisian]

I do agree with this statement too if it is necessary to properly balance (control TTK) for vehicles.
That and allowing the driver to only use the main cannon stops a vehicle from being used for its secondary guns. If the secondary guns are as powerful (or more powerful) then the primary AV cannon then it breaks gameplay to give them to the driver.

[Crator]

I'm sure you meant, "That and allowing the driver to only use the main cannon stops a vehicle from being used for its secondary guns and letting the driver maneuver and flee at the same time. If the secondary guns are as powerful (or more powerful) then the primary AV cannon then it breaks gameplay to give them to the driver.

[Raymac]

At first I scoffed when I saw this "Option D", but when I actually read it, I like it the best.

It should be easier for casual players to experience the joys of running an MBT without having to spend 15 minutes looking for a gunner. While at the same time, a vehicle should be much more effective and dangerous when you have dedicated gunners and a driver focusing on driving.

[Zulthus]

At first I scoffed when I saw this "Option D", but when I actually read it, I like it the best.

It should be easier for casual players to experience the joys of running an MBT without having to spend 15 minutes looking for a gunner. While at the same time, a vehicle should be much more effective and dangerous when you have dedicated gunners and a driver focusing on driving.

I'm thinking that getting a gunner won't be a problem when there are thousands fighting at once.

[Raymac]

I'm thinking that getting a gunner won't be a problem when there are thousands fighting at once.

You'd be surprised. I can remember a fair share of waiting.

[Graywolves]

I can't see difference between option D and PS2

[Firefly]

PS1 style. I know I'm the minority but I hate the idea of drivers being the only gunner they need.
I prefer PS1 style. Too many fucking changes, and a lot of them seem dumb, twitch-oriented, or just "HEY LOOK WHAT I CAN CHANGE!"

[CutterJohn]

I can't see difference between option D and PS2

ps2 makes driver gun main cannon, and gunner controls the secondary. D lets whoever use whatever, and allows for 1, 2, or 3 crew members.

[Accuser]

I prefer PS1 style. Too many fucking changes, and a lot of them seem dumb, twitch-oriented, or just "HEY LOOK WHAT I CAN CHANGE!"

I'll give them time to work it out in the Beta... but I know that (for example) Bad Company 2 tanks are very powerful because a driver controls the main gun. HOWEVER, the tanks go down with a few AV shots, they're limited to a max of 2 per side, AND they have a 1-2 min respawn time.

Since PS2 tanks obviously won't have the same restrictions, I get the impression that either the main gun will be laughably underpowered or the tanks will die VERY easily.

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

[sylphaen]

I voted for option D (ie. organize the vehicle like you want)

I like the PS1 system since it would be the most immersive system, downside being it's also the most restrictive.

PS2 style, meh.

Option D because if the driver has to end up with handling a gun anyways and play with a buddy, it might as well be made so the crew can choose who guns what, who drives, what upgrades, etc... irrespective of certs as long as one of the crewmembers has the cert that applies to the crew's vehicle and its upgrades.

For vehicles with a lot of people like the sunderer, improving the interface so that managing who is allowed to go where more could be nice. It was really basic in PS1...

I'm all for total player control of the vehicle ! But then if they do not last in fights and get downed by 2-3 shots of AV, it might not be worth the hassle. Or even better, allow us to save the settings as favorites !

I doubt will ever go that far though. We'll see soon enough what is in store. Free to play !
:cool:

[Traak]

My option: other

Tank certification gets you the commander role. You gun, some token flunky drives. Or you can drive, but no one can gun.

But no more "I have the tank cert, thus I drive, and someone else has the fun gunning." Nope.

[kaffis]

That might become a little awkward when making repairs. Usually it's the tanker that has engy, and then the gunner covers him with the vehicle weapon.
Fair enough. Perhaps you don't boot the other crew when the "commander" (last guy with the cert) leaves. After all, in PS1, it's not a problem to let the tank-certed guy jump out and let the uncerted gunner still gun.

Instead, just re-seal entry, so nobody uncerted can get in (or back in) until a commander does again. That still accomplishes the goal of preventing certed guys from pulling a tank for uncerted guys to fully crew by themselves.


My option: other

Tank certification gets you the commander role. You gun, some token flunky drives. Or you can drive, but no one can gun.

But no more "I have the tank cert, thus I drive, and someone else has the fun gunning." Nope.
Why not give the commander the option? Why tell the commander that he can drive, but NOBODY gets to gun if he does? Some people like driving (and, to be honest, I suspect that all these commanders who want to gun may not want to gun so bad when they discover how terrible unpracticed drivers make the gunning experience). Permit them to do it!

[Goku]

I prefer PS1, but if we severely limit the use like option D that is doable.

[2coolforu]

Wouldn't a cool way of doing it be to allow the driver to gun, but then say he is using an autoloader to keep the gun ready and therefore suffers a reload time that's twice as slow as a properly manned tank.

Therefore if you get a gunner you increase the DPS of your tank by two-fold and a properly manned tank will always defeat a solo-tank and manning it not only provides you a payback for using 2 people (e.g. 2 people = 2x the DPS) but you also gain the advantage of teamwork and having seperate gunner + driver. As a bonus the driver gets to use the special weapons that he paid to put on his tank, then he can't moan that his certs that he earned are being wasted.

[kaffis]

Wouldn't a cool way of doing it be to allow the driver to gun, but then say he is using an autoloader to keep the gun ready and therefore suffers a reload time that's twice as slow as a properly manned tank.

Therefore if you get a gunner you increase the DPS of your tank by two-fold and a properly manned tank will always defeat a solo-tank and manning it not only provides you a payback for using 2 people (e.g. 2 people = 2x the DPS) but you also gain the advantage of teamwork and having seperate gunner + driver. As a bonus the driver gets to use the special weapons that he paid to put on his tank, then he can't moan that his certs that he earned are being wasted.
Sure, 2 crew means 2x the DPS.

However, so does 2 tanks. So now, the 2 tanks equal the DPS of the 2-crew tank, and yet have twice the armor. The two solo-tanks still win.

This is still a problem we're worried about.

[basti]

Sure, 2 crew means 2x the DPS.

However, so does 2 tanks. So now, the 2 tanks equal the DPS of the 2-crew tank, and yet have twice the armor. The two solo-tanks still win.

This is still a problem we're worried about.

err, no, the two tanks wont win.

In fact, while the 2 manned tank will roll around, use cover effectivly, shoot stuff, drive around and stuff, the 2 single tanks will bump into each other and have a hard time hitting the enemy.


Srsly, if you ever played one of those games where you drive and gun a tank at the same time, you know how absoluty stupid it is. You just CANT drive and gun at the same time without screwing up. You rather snipe from far away (so you dont need to drive), or rush into and die without doing much.

[Talek Krell]

err, no, the two tanks wont win.

In fact, while the 2 manned tank will roll around, use cover effectivly, shoot stuff, drive around and stuff, the 2 single tanks will bump into each other and have a hard time hitting the enemy.


Srsly, if you ever played one of those games where you drive and gun a tank at the same time, you know how absoluty stupid it is. You just CANT drive and gun at the same time without screwing up. You rather snipe from far away (so you dont need to drive), or rush into and die without doing much.
Seriously? People aren't going to climb into a tank and suddenly become incapable of navigation. Driving and gunning is only difficult because you tend to run into things. Not only will the two 1 man tanks win that fight because they have equal firepower and twice the hitpoints, but they'll also be able to flank the fully crewed tank and score hits on the rear and side armor, multiplying their advantage further.

[Traak]

Fair enough. Perhaps you don't boot the other crew when the "commander" (last guy with the cert) leaves. After all, in PS1, it's not a problem to let the tank-certed guy jump out and let the uncerted gunner still gun.

Instead, just re-seal entry, so nobody uncerted can get in (or back in) until a commander does again. That still accomplishes the goal of preventing certed guys from pulling a tank for uncerted guys to fully crew by themselves.



Why not give the commander the option? Why tell the commander that he can drive, but NOBODY gets to gun if he does? Some people like driving (and, to be honest, I suspect that all these commanders who want to gun may not want to gun so bad when they discover how terrible unpracticed drivers make the gunning experience). Permit them to do it!

That idea has merit. However, I was wondering if it would lead to people who wanted to gun, but not drive, having a snit if they have to drive, whereas if they HAVE to have the Tank Commander cert to gun, they could actually use their time and certs to go GET it, intead of "social engineering" (whining and begging) to get the gunner's slot.

I figure if you make everyone who can gun a tank a driver also, by forcing them into that cert tree, then we will have more armor available.

So, that was my objection to that idea, because people will use whining and tantrums to get to gun instead of using cool logic of the cert tree instead.

Imagine if the way we got to pilot or have anything was "I wanna gun! I wanna gun! I wanna gun! I wanna gun! I wanna gun! I wanna gun! I wanna gun! I wanna gun! I wanna gun! " while crying and wetting our diapers at the air/ground/equipment terminals.

By making it a cert, you remove any attempts at browbeating, whining, or crying to get the gunner's seat yielded to you by the person who actually has the cert.

That's why I think it has merit that any tank gunner has to be a tank commander.

[nathanebht]

I prefer PS1 style. Too many fucking changes, and a lot of them seem dumb, twitch-oriented, or just "HEY LOOK WHAT I CAN CHANGE!"

Its not change for no reason. SOE is making PS2 faster with a lower TTK. They are aiming for no slowdowns, pure action. They are following the lead of modern FPS games like the BF series.

So it makes sense to get rid of the whole "I need a gunner" deal.

[2coolforu]

The thing about BF:BC2 is that it did alot of good stuff, it also had a lot of bad ideas. The balancing was some of the worst I've ever seen in a game, look up the kill stats from pre M60 patch and you'll see that about 50% of all the kills were made with that weapon.

I also think the vehicles were balanced poorly, I think they were balanced poorly in BF2. I'm sure someone else has said it but people treat the tanks in BF:BC2 like powerups and hop in them as an afterthought. If they want to have any level of survivability they hang back way out of the fight and just act like a form of indirect fire - in Planetside tanks were a hammer, used to spearhead the assault and soak up damage while infantry actually held the ground. The way tanks worked made them very good at their job, they could take enough damage to allow them to face down a large amount of fire for small amounts of time which allowed a screen for infantry to move up behind.

I feel that with only one person effectively having all the power of the tank they will be used as one-man killwhoring devices just like the reaver was. Although it was bearable with a reaver I don't see tanks being as bareable in the 'one man whoring vehicle' category.

[Traak]

I feel that with only one person effectively having all the power of the tank they will be used as one-man killwhoring devices just like the reaver was. Although it was bearable with a reaver I don't see tanks being as bearable in the 'one man whoring vehicle' category.

No, it wasn't bearable in the Reaver and was one of the things that ruined the game. I agree with you, one-man killwhoring, whether it's from cloakers to tanks is unacceptable. It isn't PS.

In PS, we want well-oiled teams to be dominant, one-man bands to be merely potentially effective. Not the other way around.

An aggressive anti-cheating policy will assist this.

[Aractain]

I do find it funny with the whole OMFG ONE MAN VEHICLES?!?! And then when asked about the mossy, reaver or Lib Gunship mode they say "oh thats fiinneeeee (because I use them)".

[Sirisian]

I do find it funny with the whole OMFG ONE MAN VEHICLES?!?! And then when asked about the mossy, reaver or Lib Gunship mode they say "oh thats fiinneeeee (because I use them)".
hehe. I don't drive tanks at all and probably won't in the new game. I only care about dropping bombs as the liberator driver. My initial mentality when I heard about F2P was "omfg sweet I can have both my laptops next to me and control two characters and bomb!" Then when I heard about the driver also dropping bombs it simplified how I was going to approach the game.

One thing that'll be nice is that on open terrain there are going to be a lot of tanks. Imagine like 100 people. Assuming they just need AV that's like 100 tanks. That's going to be fun to bomb those or watch Reavers drop in on them. These battles are going to look bigger now probably.

[Aractain]

Exactly, my view is that I want huge battles where teamwork is about covering each other with different roles.

Thus having one man tanks is going to mean bigger battles with, I HOPE, dedicated AA vehicles, buggys, aircraft swooping down to drop bombs or strafe lines of tanks. Strong infantry positions and artillery to dislodge those infantry.

Not the 3 tanks 4 reavers and 8 hot dropping mossys of PS1.

[FIREk]

Giving the driver control only over the secondary turret is the superior solution for many reasons. I wonder if the poll's results would have been different it the awful word "BFRish" wasn't used to describe it... ;)

[CutterJohn]

Giving the driver control only over the secondary turret is the superior solution for many reasons. I wonder if the poll's results would have been different it the awful word "BFRish" wasn't used to describe it... ;)

Yeah, I keep forgetting that many people around here violently loathe them.

At any rate it wouldn't be bad. All I personally hoped for was drivers getting to control a turret. My original idea was what if the driver could control the 15mm on the prowler, or get the 2nd gunner.

[sylphaen]

EDIT: I'm wasting way too much time on this. I'll stop posting and get back to wait&see mode. We'll know soon enough when beta comes out.

I think it will all revolve around balance and what devs have in mind.

Based on the new cert trees/BR structure, PS2 will require a lot of specialization to avoid having anyone becoming a one-man swiss knife army.

Assuming this principle, if you want to use a ground or air vehicle, you will have to specialize on them.

Here is where the first dev balance decision comes in:
A- should vehicles be powerful and exclusive ?
or
B- should vehicles be easy to get and plenty on the battlefield ?


With A, the reason you will choose to specialize in a vehicle cert will be for that power. You ought to be a god outside because you should get r*ped when you even think about trying to participate as a footsoldier for a base assault without the proper certs. With this choice, the difference between vehicle-side and infantry-side is clearly delineated and you are dedicated to one dimension of the game.
--> If PS2 takes this direction, some might argue that having the Drive&Gun approach with bonus firepower when a gunner joins is the right way to go: if I gimp myself in soldier fights, I better get something good in exchange. Since people have to choose a specialization, this might mean comparatively less-numerous but very significant vehicles.

With B, you could have a decently furnished soldier cert tree AND decent vehicle certs. The only sacrifice you make would be having less kit options for base fights but vehicle certs would also be accessible. Vehicles wouldnt be as powerful (otherwise everyone would have a vehicle when they move outside since they can D&G) but it's ok because most people could get one. The vehicle-phase would be a transition until the next base/tower fight and vehicles seen more as a utility.
--> I think we would see everyone heavily specialized in some infantry role and also have some utility by having a vehicle cert. A good aspect of this choice is that everyone can participate in all aspects of the game.


Since I tend to believe PS2 is meant to be more infantry centric, I think B has been chosen. Any casual player will be able to have fun inside and outside. Vehicles will not be very meaningful in order to give more breathing space for infantry fight.

People have repeated over the years that rifle-fighting in forests and foot-zerging was some of the very fun PS experiences they had so I would not be suprised if PS2 tried to provide that. And we havent seen a PS2 screenshot where 5-10 soldiers get obliterated by a vehicle-shot either.
:P


This highlights another development decision they have to make at some point:
A-For open-field fights, do we want vehicles to be heavily dominant in the fight composition ?
or
B-Do we prefer to allow strong infantry presence in those fights ?

Those questions are important because it will determine the balance between vehicle armor/power and infantry AV weapons availability/power.

If vehicles are to be the dominant weapon of choice outside, they will be powerful and with strong lasting armor.
If infantry is meant to have a spot in outisde fights, they will have efficient ways of dealing with vehicles.

In the first case, outside fights would weigh towards being ground vs. ground/air vs. ground fights where soldiers will get r*ped. The main threat to your vehicle would come from the air or another ground vehicle.

In the other case, soldiers would have doom-canons AV, short/long range jamming capacity, etc... Ground vehicles can be given big guns but they would as easily be dispatched by troops. In short: you will be given incentives NOT to bring a vehicle to a gun-fight or to get it close to that gun-fight.


By itself, this would also justify the existence of some kind of engineer class meant to tame vehicle usage near ground troops. The reason I say that is because I assume a guy would have to choose to do it and if he decided to dedicate himself to AV certs + forgo other useful infantry certs, he will need to get some nice return on his cert sacrifice to justify his choice; and this means your tank will blow up one way or another.


Just to rationalize a bit, in PS1, your vehicle did end up blowing up at some point or another and could get owned by a group of troopers so it's all about how many shots it will take to take out a tank.

I feel for the devs because they have quite a challenge in balancing all that stuff and making a great game that will keep everyone entertained; and it looks quite complicated with all the very high expectations we have.

In the end, everything will depend on their vision of what a vehicle fight or an open-field fight should be. I'd be interested in learning more about that rather than what is in the game because what they think justifies the choices they implement.

Anyways... Mainly just some thoughts...

That's going to be fun to bomb those or watch Reavers drop in on them. These battles are going to look bigger now probably.

If battles get bigger, it will not be due to D&G but just the 2000 players around.

Exactly, my view is that I want huge battles where teamwork is about covering each other with different roles.

Thus having one man tanks is going to mean bigger battles with, I HOPE, dedicated AA vehicles, buggys, aircraft swooping down to drop bombs or strafe lines of tanks. Strong infantry positions and artillery to dislodge those infantry.

Bigger battles will come from more players and this applied to PS1 too.

Do not forget that a fully-manned vehicle would still require 2-3 people to run at full power. With D&G, it just means there is a possiblity that drivers will not bother with getting a gunner and roll to battle asap since they are viable without needing a gunner. You may not see that many more vehicles though because people may still have to choose between certing soldier/ground/air.



Overall, I'm ok the notion of faster gameplay but do they really want to speed up ground vehicles gameplay ? It entails leaving a lot of things behind for little benefit imo.

Fast vehicle gameplay --> fast moving vehicles, low armor, no timer

Once you make low armor vehicles, you have to compensate with more speed and/or stronger weapons. If I remember BF2142, vehicles were OP 1-shot machines but blew up just as fast; so the power of their gun was balanced by how short it was active. And it forced the existence of the engineer kit which was only used for/against vehicles. The existence of one was justified by the existence of the other. If one becomes not used (maps without vehicles), the other disappears as well.

In PS1, if you wanted faaaaast vehicle gameplay, you would choose buggies. For slower action, you would pick tanks.

______________

I am a fan of strong and significant vehicles. They would not need to be balanced through the creation of a soldier class but by other vehicle fans in the opposing teams.

Having strong and significant vehicles makes them a significant target for vehicle hunters (i.e. reavers/libs) and an even bigger accomplishment when those hunters destroy their target.

From what I understand, reaver/mosquito aces loved Air-to-air fights and hated the wasps for disrupting that dynamic so easily.

Tank crews play in tanks not to farm footzerg all day long. They play to fight enemy tank crews. Take out the crews and what you get to choose is between infantry-kit or vehicle-kit. With D&G, vehicle-side risks feeling like infantry-side-on-wheels.

___________

OFF-TOPIC:

I am also concerned about how balance was being done in PS1.

In general, it seems like the trade-offs were seen as SPEED vs. ARMOR vs. POWER.

Buggies were speedy, powerful, not durable.
Tanks were not speedy, powerful, durable.
Furies were speedy, powerful, paper-armor.
etc...

BFRs were the ugly exception for a short time but eventually got nerfed to hell and became omg slow, omg durable, ok weapons. I still don't get why they were balanced to be destroyed by infantry who can't reach them while a magrider cant even scratch the shield.

However, this caused the transport cert balance in PS1 was horrible. It was never used as transport because their speed was nerfed to death because of their armor or guns. The sunderer became a slow and powerless pinata because it was exceptionally durable. The variants were used to fight or camp but rarely as transport because they were still too slow. A transport vehicle that is too slow will never get used if there are better other options. BR40 syndrom might have compounded this issue.



The BFR specter will come back but I am for vehicles that should be mobile/fast AND powerful AND strong. Vehicles should not be balanced vs. infantry but for vehicle vs. vehicle. Transport vehicle SHOULD provide mobility and 2 tank crews firing their canons at each other SHOULD be a sight to behold.

If a tank decides to obliterate infantry instead of being busy shooting at the other vehicle, it should cost them big time in the damage-lead the enemy vehicle will get. Infantry SHOULD sh*t their pants when they see tanks on the field and they SHOULD pray for aircav heroes to save their souls in the next 15 seconds. And however durable they are, vehicles SHOULD get smacked if they get near a spot where no one wants them to be (ie. too close to an infantry group or base facilities).

So what if vehicles are fast AND strong AND durable ? Well, first of all, vehicles are available to all empires so they should pull some too. Second, it would make aircav players feel important and their role critical too.

Overall, this can exist wether D&G is allowed or not so I am definitely off-topic. PS2 Devs have a huge complicated balance challenge and I do respect them a lot for that !

_________

Other final thought: if I specialize in vehicles, sacrifice my character's viability in other roles (ie. no base fight without getting murderer repeatedly because it's supressor vs. MCG kind of fights for me) and all of that in order to provide a big gun for someone else in a vehicle fight, shouldn't I feel shafted that I provide for others but don't get anything in return from other classes in the base fights ? Like a deployable HMG turret, for example ?

If we need extra people to make the vehicle cert specialization work at full power, can we have it powerful or very useful (i.e. get a utility item useful in infantry fights that no other class gets) ?

I'm not too worried though since I think they chose the B model with infantry-centric game where vehicles light infantry classes (let's assume medic, engies, scouts) will get to drive the vehicles and heavy infantry gets to gun for them. Vehicles are secondary to the core-infantry gameplay.

[Aractain]

Now THAT, is a wall of text. GG.

And now that I have read all of it:

Balance of tanks dosn't need to be complicated, combine locational damage with a non massive AOE splash mostly AV focused gun and have another weaker (BUGGYS!) vehicles handle the AI and another handle the AA and it should be fine. Probably about a 3:2:1 ratio between them (based on what people enjoy).

As for the size of battles you are forgetting that a lot of people that wanted to tank but couldn't for whatever reason.

[Traak]

Tanks could have a choice between AI and AV rounds. You know, like REAL tanks with APFSDS and HE rounds.

[FIREk]

Tanks could have a choice between AI and AV rounds. You know, like REAL tanks with APFSDS and HE rounds.

That would be complicating things a bit for the typical player, but could be overcome with a few tutorial tooltips, and would be ultra-awesome. :) Especially if it were indeed APFSDS-T (see what I did there?:p) rounds. They wouldn't explode, requiring precise aim, but would move faster than your typical tank rounds, and in a straighter line, allowing this precise aim.

Traak, do consider throwing this in the Idea Vault as a new thread, if no one posted it yet.

[Aractain]

It would be a nice thing to unlock, start off with a small AOE ok vs infantry and good vs vehicles as the basic shell and then be able to get a faster, straighter shell which has no AOE (a trade off) or maybe a slower, arcing mortor like round with better AOE and AI but less AV capability.

Not knowing what setup your enemy actually has will help keep the combat "chaotic".

[Azren]

I'm bumbing this topic, the poll is too important to be forgotten

[Sirisian]

I'm bumbing this topic, the poll is too important to be forgotten
I'm sure Higby saw it. They look at the threads. I also sent him a tweet if he reads all of those.
@mhigby Add a cert to release the main cannon to the gunner instead of a dedicated one.

[Azren]

@mhigby Add a cert to release the main cannon to the gunner instead of a dedicated one.

How would that work with the magrider's planned fixed turret? Besides, SOE's plan is (hopefully was) to add a secondary weapon to the gunner, allowing two weapons to be fired at the same time. If all we can do is give the main gun to the gunner, we will end up losing 1/3 - 1/2 of the vehicle's firepower.

Nah, tanks should be made "PS 1 style", that is one of the biggest pros to PS, why change it?

[Sirisian]

How would that work with the magrider's planned fixed turret?

Sorry I cut off the end of the tweet (http://twitter.com/#!/Sirisian2/status/116647985332498432). The full thing was:
@mhigby Add a cert to release the main cannon to the gunner instead of a dedicated one. Redesign the Mag with a turret like the NC and TR :)


Besides, SOE's plan is (hopefully was) to add a secondary weapon to the gunner, allowing two weapons to be fired at the same time. If all we can do is give the main gun to the gunner, we will end up losing 1/3 - 1/2 of the vehicle's firepower.
It's mostly when you're driving fast. Apparently people have problems driving and gunning at the same time. So giving up the main cannon to focus on driving and letting the gunner use the AV rounds to hit things is advantageous.

Nah, tanks should be made "PS 1 style", that is one of the biggest pros to PS, why change it?
Oh you're one of them. It was changed because players will now be specializing in vehicles and unlocking them. To give players an incentive to do that they're giving the drivers the main cannon and letting them unlock/upgrade tanks with secondary guns for their gunners. Another reason is because the old PS1 system was generally boring for drivers. Some players accept this and wish it was continued in PS2 sadly. :)

[Azren]

Oh you're one of them. It was changed because players will now be specializing in vehicles and unlocking them. To give players an incentive to do that they're giving the drivers the main cannon and letting them unlock/upgrade tanks with secondary guns for their gunners. Another reason is because the old PS1 system was generally boring for drivers. Some players accept this and wish it was continued in PS2 sadly. :)

The poll results show that about nobody wants the tank drivers to get the main guns, so being "one of them" means being one of the majority, that's a good thing in this case. To come clean, I do not find driving boring, and with the right upgrade tree it would be no problem. I think about upgrades for advanced radar, brakes, target painting, ect.

Why defend the "driver operated gun" concept, when you can see in PS 1 that it's a failed one? I would not mind if the drivers got a front facing AI gun like magrider has now, with a limited (~ 30°) rotation to make it more fun.

[moosepoop]

dear devs, its not that drivers dont want to gun at all, they dont want the MAIN guns.

the magrider model is fine.

[Azren]

dear devs, its not that drivers dont want to gun at all, they dont want the MAIN guns.

the magrider model is fine.

You mean the PS 1 magrider model?

[FastAndFree]

dear devs, its not that drivers dont want to gun at all, they dont want the MAIN guns.

the magrider model is fine.

A driver-controlled main gun will not work as well as a gunner-controlled turret, but a forward facing secondary weapon will be useless against anything not in fron of you, so it would fail as a support weapon.

(For example, turning the entire tank to protect yourself from aircav? In it's current incarnation at least, sitting still is the WORST thing you can do when assaulted by aircav)

[atone]

start off with opt. B and put opt. D down the cert tree

[NapalmEnima]

Another possibility would be to allow similarly powerful weapons in the turret as the "main forward gun", and let people swap out the main for something gimpier.

And require it if they go with the heavy turret weapon. You can rationalize it as "only so much generator power or ammo storage" or what have you.

You can pick a primary or secondary weapon for both spots, and if you pick a primary in one, you are required to pick a secondary in the other. If you go with secondaries for both, you should end up with some bonuses, either because your tank is lighter or because you made up with weight with additional armor.

Making both primaries would be a cert at the very end of the tree and should have some serious consequences (thinner armor & slower, gotta save weight somewhere, right?), to a point where it wouldn't be the automatic choice everyone makes once the option becomes available.

Everyone can spec out the tank they want.

[moosepoop]

You mean the PS 1 magrider model?

yes. also like the mg on the ww2 panzer tanks.

[Headrattle]

Well, I just lost hope for this game. Have a good time guys. They had some good ideas, but they seem intent on taking this in a direction that I don't like.

[Malorn]

Aside from the distraction with various options, it seems pretty clear from the PS1 to PS2 comparison that people prefer PS1 method over the PS2 method by a significant margin.

I'd like to see a poll where only those two options exist so we can get a larger sample size on just that topic.

[Trolltaxi]

Driving an MBT without the option of firing required a bit of sacrifice from the gunner. It encouraged teamplay but while the gunner invested a lot of cert points (2+1 for Armoured Assault 2 + at least 3 for engi) and he was the driver with the least fun in the veichle.

If the driver gets a weak secondary cannon (even wiht a small arc facing forward) he can at least fire at something, or mark a target. But assigning main cannon would make an awful experience to gun for anyone. Just imagine, you get a secondary cannon (AA seeems ok, unless you already have air superiority, or a mortar wiht its indirect fire, so you don't even see what you hit). So you are locked to the small cannon and the driver is having all the fun, untill he flees, fire backwards and tries to climb the Ultimate Enemy (aka. tree)...

D may be a lot of codework, BFR-ish seems ok for me.

[Trolltaxi]

Driving an MBT without the option of firing required a bit of sacrifice from the gunner. It encouraged teamplay but while the gunner invested a lot of cert points (2+1 for Armoured Assault 2 + at least 3 for engi) and he was the driver with the least fun in the veichle.

If the driver gets a weak secondary cannon (even wiht a small arc facing forward) he can at least fire at something, or mark a target. But assigning main cannon would make an awful experience to gun for anyone. Just imagine, you get a secondary cannon (AA seeems ok, unless you already have air superiority, or a mortar wiht its indirect fire, so you don't even see what you hit). So you are locked to the small cannon and the driver is having all the fun, untill he flees, fire backwards and tries to climb the Ultimate Enemy (aka. tree)...

D may be a lot of codework, BFR-ish seems ok for me.

And @Liberty: PS1 vets wont be able to power the game, it will need loads of players - players from other shooters, and in general I think they are way more trigger-happy than we are. You can't explain a 12 year old, that he will be doing all the work, and his gunner will get all the fun. They want (rather: WANT) POWA'!!!!444!!!4444fourfour...

[Malorn]

BFR-ish and the PS2 method are essentially the same thing except the driver has main gun options in the BFR design.

[NapalmEnima]

Another argument to throw into the ring for the whole 1-seat vs 2-seat MBTs:

Maybe their design goal isn't to balance two gunnerless tanks against a single tank with a gunner?

Planetside is all about Combined Arms. And an MBT with no gunner will have Significantly Reduce Options when some A2G or AV troops (with effective cover) show up.

So even if 2 1-seat MBTs really can clean the clock of a single MBT with a gunner, maybe that's OK.

1: SOE can design the secondary AV weapons to make it even or better than 2 1-seat MBTs (in general or in specific conditions).
2: SOE may choose not to for Perfectly Valid Reasons.

Tanks zipping around on their own are going to take a lot of hits to the sides from infantry AV (either dedicated AV class, or something like an under-slung rocklet launcher on an assault rifle) with no way to respond. Exposed troops might be easy meat, but a little prep time and some cover could turn the tables.

Tanks zipping around on their own are going to get Et Up by Reavers (and possibly liberators, though bombing a moving tank can be tough).

So if gunner-less MBTs become common, Reavers could become common for all those easy, high-value kills. It's potentially a self-balancing "ecosystem". Ditto for AV troops, particularly if its possible to one-shot kill a tank in the rear. Hide, let'em drive by, murder.

So either way, I'm not all that worried.

[Haro]

I personally think PS1 is the best way to go, though I can understand why they want to have a driver in control of the main gun. I found it difficult to find people willing to take me and others on as gunners. Still, I have fairly bad memories of tanks in BF2 being very powerful. Similar for the halo games, if you give a one man tank to someone who knows how to drive it, it becomes a problem.

That said, however, if PS1's style were to come back, I think the lightning or equivalent should get vastly buffed. It was nearly useless, in my personal experiences, because the vast majority of ground vehicles actually grossly outgunned it.

So maybe driver as gunner tanks will represent that role, and they put in an even heavier tank that has a separate main gunner.

One think I'm waiting to hear though is how tank damage is handled. If PS2 style control is put into PS1 health pools (unlikely) then it's a terrible decision, but if the vehicles are much easier to destroy, I think it could work. One thing I remember from BF games is that most people would not consistently go AT unless an enemy tank was a real threat, because most of the fighting was still infantry based. In planetside, however, I think AT will be more rewarding because you won't have just one or two tanks a team, but dozens or more.

So I'd say we should wait for Beta to make final judgements, and be aware that just because we have one tank that uses a main gun for the driver, that does not mean we can't have a tank that has a dedicated gunner.

[kaffis]

I have this queasy feeling that the impetus behind this design decision is to support the statements like "We think joining up with an armored company and seeing an armor column stretching out to your clipping plane" or whatever it was in PCMag, by halving the manpower required to make such events occur.

However, this seems like a terrible idea to me, because the reason that's "a gaming experience to tell your grandchildren about" or whatever, isn't because OMG THERE'S SO MANY TNAKS!!!!

It's because there's so many people involved in such a teamwork focused mode of play.

I still say, let the guy with the cert decide whether he wants to drive or gun, but don't let anybody, cert or no, do both in an MBT.

[NewSith]

/bump

Poll results only prove the point about driver gunning.
Teamplay > Unisoldier

[Sirisian]

/bump

Poll results only prove the point about driver gunning.
Teamplay > Unisoldier
Remember it's biased by veterans that have gotten used to the inferior system. This is a problem with change when people get used to something even if it isn't as good as a new proposed system. ;)

[dsi]

Remember it's biased by veterans that have gotten used to the inferior system. This is a problem with change when people get used to something even if it isn't as good as a new proposed system. ;)

Wait what, one man tanking wasn't in PS1...

Oh wait.... :rofl:

If this is a teamwork oriented game it will have team tanking, if it is a teamwork optional game it won't have team tanking, as simple as that.

[NewSith]

Remember it's biased by veterans that have gotten used to the inferior system. This is a problem with change when people get used to something even if it isn't as good as a new proposed system. ;)

IMHO that only works if you only play PlanetSide and no other games. But BF, (old) CoD, Crysis and a variety of some not-so-famous titles had shown me that this "change" is no good.

Wait what, one man tanking wasn't in PS1...

Oh wait.... :rofl:

If this is a teamwork oriented game it will have team tanking, if it is a teamwork optional game it won't have team tanking, as simple as that.

Quoting Higby:
"We're planning to make this game more teamwork based, that's why we've added classes and removed inventory system that allowed for universal soldiers."

[Zulthus]

Remember it's biased by veterans that have gotten used to the inferior system. This is a problem with change when people get used to something even if it isn't as good as a new proposed system. ;)

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQhyyH1cTpTUys9cP2cpc8_eJn4BpUzn Dvt9yNp2S5sUy5_4bjQFB9uL9Wm

Or please list several reasons as to why it has been proven (as a fact) to be inferior. It's getting way too old hearing that argument without having reasons as to why you think that way.

[SKYeXile]

Well, I just lost hope for this game. Have a good time guys. They had some good ideas, but they seem intent on taking this in a direction that I don't like.

The game is always going to take a direction one or many people dont like, people have to remember, while PS1 maybe the majority on these forums they will not be the majority of planetside 2 players, all going well I would expect us to be a minor few.

I dont really see the problem with a driver having control of the main AV gun, so somebody gets to have abit more fun in the tank instead of been some derp who paid 5 cert points for a tank and gets no kills. teamwork going on the window? 1 tank with a single AV gun on a slow turret traverse speed is a sitting duck, it will need infantry support, another tank supporting it or it will need a secondary gunner on AI to kill the hordes of infantry coming at it. *gasp teamwork* If BF3 is anything to go off, the secondary gunner wont be lacking kills.

[Sirisian]

If this is a teamwork oriented game it will have team tanking, if it is a teamwork optional game it won't have team tanking, as simple as that.
I take it you enjoyed forced teamwork to accomplish things? That part of Planetside was unnecessary in my opinion. You can have the fun of driving and the fun of shooting rolled into one with teamwork by allowing extra gunners. From a magrider perspective our tank was used primarily for sniping from a distance like across bridges. It was painfully boring a the driver since you just kind of strafed left and right while your gunner fired. The only time it really mattered to separate the two was when you were fleeing to get a few shots into the enemy that was chasing you which is why I'm so strongly for allowing a driver to release the main cannon to the gunner. This removes anything boring from the tank gameplay and still keeps the people that want to drive happy. (Driver should have AA/AI access since it skews with the main role of the tank).


Or please list several reasons as to why it has been proven (as a fact) to be inferior. It's getting way too old hearing that argument without having reasons as to why you think that way.
:lol: Objectively? That's not possible. Subjectively I can say driving is boring and if a system can be created where both the driver and gunner have weapons then it's a far superior system and will be more enjoyable. When I play an FPS I don't want to be just driving around. I want to be shooting also. That's a huge difference between my viewpoint and others who want a driving game with forced teamwork to have a vehicle do damage.

IMHO that only works if you only play PlanetSide and no other games. But BF, (old) CoD, Crysis and a variety of some not-so-famous titles had shown me that this "change" is no good.
Interesting. I don't actually own BF2/3 but from what I could tell driving the tank was very enjoyable when you had the main cannon. It was also enjoyable to jump into the top machine gun and fire. It felt like everyone in the vehicle had firepower.

I personally like the idea of a more rounded vehicle with 2 players. The idea that a vehicle can be customized with a ton of AV or some AI/AA defense gives players a lot of options. Pulling two tanks would only give you 2 AV with twice the armor. I think that extra armor concept has been brought up a few times, but it seems like a valid strategy. I like the idea of huge armies of tanks rolling around or huge amounts of air. In the PS1 system 30 people only looked like 15 tanks. With the new system we'll be seeing a lot more stuff on the battlefield which I'm for.

Also just like with infantry you have teamwork in numbers. That is you're working with those around you. The same concept applies to vehicles.

[QuantumMechanic]

For current PS2 style, if the secondary gunner's weapon is roughly equivalent in damage to the driver's weapon (first time I've heard this explicitly. I assumed the 2nd weapon would be weaker ala Battlefield series), then I'm all for the PS2 style.

This would allow for better flexibility. You need more tanks on the battlefield? Everybody pull one. You need more concentrated powerful firepower? Everybody buddy up.

I would like too see the proof that this second weapon is going to be as powerful as the driver's weapon. If this is not the case, I prefer good ol PS1 style.

[SKYeXile]

For current PS2 style, if the secondary gunner's weapon is roughly equivalent in damage to the driver's weapon (first time I've heard this explicitly. I assumed the 2nd weapon would be weaker ala Battlefield series), then I'm all for the PS2 style.

This would allow for better flexibility. You need more tanks on the battlefield? Everybody pull one. You need more concentrated powerful firepower? Everybody buddy up.

I would like too see the proof that this second weapon is going to be as powerful as the driver's weapon. If this is not the case, I prefer good ol PS1 style.

secondary gun in BF3 isniot really weaker than the primary, secondary is AI, primary is AV, sure its got splash so derps can kill shit, but the secondary is an effective and lethal killing machine. its like the skeeter vs reaver for AI...sure reaver can kill them, but the skeeter is a beast in the hands of a proper operator and can kill lots more per than a reaver ever can.

[Bojaxs]

For current PS2 style, if the secondary gunner's weapon is roughly equivalent in damage to the driver's weapon (first time I've heard this explicitly. I assumed the 2nd weapon would be weaker ala Battlefield series), then I'm all for the PS2 style.

This would allow for better flexibility. You need more tanks on the battlefield? Everybody pull one. You need more concentrated powerful firepower? Everybody buddy up.

I would like too see the proof that this second weapon is going to be as powerful as the driver's weapon. If this is not the case, I prefer good ol PS1 style.

Why should the secondary gunner be just as powerful as the main gunner? Tanks will be massively OP if they do that.

I'm indifferent towards either the original PS style or the current Battlefield style. I just hope they make it if the secondary gunner makes a kill the main gunner gets some kill assist points and vice versa if the main gunner gets a kill.

[Blackwolf]

"BFRish."

I like the idea of gunnerless tanks not being totally defenseless, and think the gunner should have access to a forward facing 180 degree arc weapon. However I think the primary weapon should be manned by the gunner. This is the weapon that will do 90% of the damage to targets regardless of the direction the tank is moving. It's just a better choice for both Driver and Gunner, why anyone would even consider another option is nuts.

For current PS2 style, if the secondary gunner's weapon is roughly equivalent in damage to the driver's weapon (first time I've heard this explicitly. I assumed the 2nd weapon would be weaker ala Battlefield series), then I'm all for the PS2 style.

This would allow for better flexibility. You need more tanks on the battlefield? Everybody pull one. You need more concentrated powerful firepower? Everybody buddy up.

I would like too see the proof that this second weapon is going to be as powerful as the driver's weapon. If this is not the case, I prefer good ol PS1 style.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is mathematically impossible for 1 tank with 2 crewmembers (with 2 guns that are of equal power) to be better then 2 tanks. Any situation in which that 1 tank with 2 crewmembers can do, the 2 tanks can do better. Because you have 2 effing tanks for the enemy to chew through for victory, as opposed to 1. Still think there is "flexibility" there? The only way to resolve that mathematical issue, is to make the secondary gun more powerful then the primary, thus the gunner has the bigger gun and the driver the smaller one. Wow you just reverted it right back to PS1 Magriders.

I'll also point out that, unless the Magrider's strafe and reverse speed is as fast as it's forward speed. The Magrider will have a serious disadvantage in tank vs tank combat with this feature.

A lot of stuff, mostly self centered

Sirisian. I drove every tank in PS1 willingly. Any Mag driver who stayed back and let his gunner snipe was a coward in my opinion. If you utilized that gun you could take on Vannies head on, out maneuver them and force them into a retreat and you've got them dead to rights. Frankly it sounds like you sucked as a driver. Good drivers were never bored because they ALWAYS had to maneuver for better positioning and better advantage for the gunner.

I'm not as interested in making it require teamwork, if you don't want to drive the damn tank then don't drive the damn tank. I care more about the tactical issues, the balance of the battlefield, and how this set up will impact both those aspects. I don't think about personal enjoyment because frankly, if I'm out doors I plan on either being in a Scythe or on foot sniping. In short I'm more interested in this game keeping it's player base and not turning into tankside. You might like huge numbers of one thing, I'd rather see a more diverse battlefield.

[SKYeXile]

"BFRish."



I'll also point out that, unless the Magrider's strafe and reverse speed is as fast as it's forward speed. The Magrider will have a serious disadvantage in tank vs tank combat with this feature.

yea, been saying that for awhile.

[Blackwolf]

yea, been saying that for awhile.

I know. The more people that say it though, the better it sinks in.

[Rivenshield]

I'd like to make two points that I don't think have been properly discussed yet:

1) Two tanks have twice the hit points, can deliver fire from their main guns twice as fast, and -- most importantly -- each offer HALF THE XP of a fully crewed tank. Whenever you incentivize something in a game by offering more XP for it, gamers will flow towards it like iron filings to a magnet. The reverse is likewise true. Dis-incentivizing teamwork by taking away the phat XP lollipop is not what we want to do here.

2) Other first person shooters offer one-man tanks because ramming around and screeching *WE NEED A GUNNER* is an exercise in futility when there's 24 or 32 people on your side, tops; and they're all spread over the map. In a game with the economy of scale of even old PS1, that's no longer a problem. Teamspeak was a rarity in the old days. So were outfits that stayed together for longer than a month. It should be way, way easier to find a friend to gun for you now, even if it's just for the duration of a free ride to another hot spot.

One man tanks are nothing more than tracked BFR's. They are an artifact of low-population-density conventional wargames. Introducing them to PS2 is a structural defect that takes the 'multiple' out of MMO and the 'person' out of FPS.

[dsi]

I'd like to make two points that I don't think have been properly discussed yet:

1) Two tanks have twice the hit points, can deliver fire from their main guns twice as fast, and -- most importantly -- each offer HALF THE XP of a fully crewed tank. Whenever you incentivize something in a game by offering more XP for it, gamers will flow towards it like iron filings to a magnet. The reverse is likewise true. Dis-incentivizing teamwork by taking away the phat XP lollipop is not what we want to do here.

2) Other first person shooters offer one-man tanks because ramming around and screeching *WE NEED A GUNNER* is an exercise in futility when there's 24 or 32 people on your side, tops; and they're all spread over the map. In a game with the economy of scale of even old PS1, that's no longer a problem. Teamspeak was a rarity in the old days. So were outfits that stayed together for longer than a month. It should be way, way easier to find a friend to gun for you now, even if it's just for the duration of a free ride to another hot spot.

One man tanks are nothing more than tracked BFR's. They are an artifact of low-population-density conventional wargames. Introducing them to PS2 is a structural defect that takes the 'multiple' out of MMO and the 'person' out of FPS.
I like this post.

Planetside 2 needs to stick to driver and gunner MBTs, and bring in weaker pilot (and armed passenger) tanks for those who miss BFRs.

People who can't work with other people can just take the proto-BFR.

[Zulthus]

Exactly what he said... driver AND gunner both having guns IS JUST LIKE A BFR, what you have all been SO AGAINST. It's just in a smaller vehicle. The BFR driver got their driver AV/AI/AA guns, and the gunner got their AV/AI guns.

[Traak]

Heck, if the driver controlled the AA weapon, that would rule. No, wait, then planes might be inclined to going back to raping cloakers and AMS/Galaxies.

[Sirisian]

Sirisian. I drove every tank in PS1 willingly. Any Mag driver who stayed back and let his gunner snipe was a coward in my opinion. If you utilized that gun you could take on Vannies head on, out maneuver them and force them into a retreat and you've got them dead to rights. Frankly it sounds like you sucked as a driver. Good drivers were never bored because they ALWAYS had to maneuver for better positioning and better advantage for the gunner.
I'm not going bash you for not knowing the Magrider's weaknesses, but driving into a Vanguard will get you killed. It only takes 8 shots according to the Syndicate wiki for a vanguard to kill a Magrider. Making sure you were outside of the range of the vanguard/prowler and just put your shots into the tank from afar was the best strategy. You have a sniper cannon on top. Why would you ever need to get close. :doh:

I don't think about personal enjoyment because frankly, if I'm out doors I plan on either being in a Scythe or on foot sniping. In short I'm more interested in this game keeping it's player base and not turning into tankside. You might like huge numbers of one thing, I'd rather see a more diverse battlefield.
You don't think about personal enjoyment and yet you want to keep player counts high? Your whole argument doesn't make any sense and is a rambling. You'll get a diverse battlefield by giving players choices. No one suggested making the tank better than a plane which apparently you're imagining. Unless the AV on the magrider is still the same power then I will be shooting planes out of the air. :lol:

Exactly what he said... driver AND gunner both having guns IS JUST LIKE A BFR, what you have all been SO AGAINST. It's just in a smaller vehicle. The BFR driver got their driver AV/AI/AA guns, and the gunner got their AV/AI guns.
This might be why I liked this even more. The BFR's design was my favorite. It's pretty much all I used when it came out because it offered the most fun rolled into a vehicle without the downtime of the Magrider. That's actually one reason I used the Magrider since I had the certification when I waited for the cooldown to use the more enjoyable vehicle.

Heck, if the driver controlled the AA weapon, that would rule. No, wait, then planes might be inclined to going back to raping cloakers and AMS/Galaxies.
Wouldn't work. Giving the driver anything other than the main AV re-purposes the vehicle for roles outside of being a tank.

[Coreldan]

I don't think BFRs and MBTs can be compared even with this change. Tanks wont just suddenly fly into the air and to the nearest mountain when things get hairy. Also, I can't recall any MBT being even as close as durable as the BFRs were.

When things get hairy with an MBT, you can try driving away, but most likely that's the end of that story.

The mobility wasnt just about getting away either, when we see MBTs jumping over to the base walls raping people, then I'll truely be concerned :D

[Graywolves]

My concern is efficiency.

I'd expect better results from a tank with a dedicated gunner and a dedicated driver than an individual multi-tasking.


To make a one man tank effective you need to make it slower, have more armor, and take a heavy pounding to be effective. Otherwise you have a massive skill curve between people who can drive without looking ahead of their tank and shoot, and people who can't.


Or the battlefield will just be dominated by Magriders which 1man would easily outmeneuver and outgun a 1man tank of any other empire.

[Blackwolf]

I'm not going bash you for not knowing the Magrider's weaknesses, but driving into a Vanguard will get you killed. It only takes 8 shots according to the Syndicate wiki for a vanguard to kill a Magrider. Making sure you were outside of the range of the vanguard/prowler and just put your shots into the tank from afar was the best strategy. You have a sniper cannon on top. Why would you ever need to get close. :doh:


Again, it sounds to me like you were just a bad driver. I've never had issues with enemy tanks so long as there wasn't any outside interference (mines). It's not "the best strategy", it's a strategy. A slow and, as you said, boring strategy.


You don't think about personal enjoyment and yet you want to keep player counts high? Your whole argument doesn't make any sense and is a rambling. You'll get a diverse battlefield by giving players choices. No one suggested making the tank better than a plane which apparently you're imagining. Unless the AV on the magrider is still the same power then I will be shooting planes out of the air. :lol:


I don't consider personal enjoyment no. This is because what I enjoy is different from what others enjoy. This is the point you constantly fail to grasp. I think about the battlefield and how it will look and feel because I think we can all agree that we want to feel like we are in an actual battle rather then a tank game.

If you can't see the obvious, then I'm done arguing with you. You have been proven wrong reasonably and mathematically. The only reason you continue to post now is to win.


This might be why I liked this even more. The BFR's design was my favorite. It's pretty much all I used when it came out because it offered the most fun rolled into a vehicle without the downtime of the Magrider. That's actually one reason I used the Magrider since I had the certification when I waited for the cooldown to use the more enjoyable vehicle.


This explains a lot about you. BFRs ruined the game because it packed too much firepower and versatility into one vehicle (often with just a pilot), and you enjoyed it..

I don't think BFRs and MBTs can be compared even with this change. Tanks wont just suddenly fly into the air and to the nearest mountain when things get hairy. Also, I can't recall any MBT being even as close as durable as the BFRs were.

When things get hairy with an MBT, you can try driving away, but most likely that's the end of that story.

The mobility wasnt just about getting away either, when we see MBTs jumping over to the base walls raping people, then I'll truely be concerned :D

I've mentioned the flight variant once. Otherwise any mention of the BFRs has been directed more at the single pilot versions and the gunner versions. All things considered, you are using the BFR system, the exact thing that made the BFRs horrible additions to the game, and applying it to MBTs. Something that won't require 75 unique kills in a cave + time spent floating in a giant laser beam to be able to pilot.

What balanced MBTs? The fact that they weren't suitable for every situation, and that their firepower required a platoon of 30 to be cut down to 15 in order to field a convoy of tanks. 15 was enough to run over any opposition, 15 tanks with an organized group managing them was enough to take down 15+ enemy tanks. It took a lot of players, a lot of coordination, and a lot of time to field those tanks. It was worth it.

This new system means you can field a full platoon of 30 tanks. They might be half as efficient at their jobs, but who's going to argue with 30 tanks? Hell this system means seeing armor columns of 80 tanks will be common. Can't challenge it with aircraft, vehicles, or infantry so why bother going against it?

People aren't going to follow their own paths and make choices in order to have fun if one play style over rules all others hands down. They will instead play the FoTM in order to try and have fun. SWG showed us this exact thing. FoTMs ran rampant and the DEVs were constantly trying to "fix" things to bring them in line with each other. BFRs were the exact same way, the DEVs spent over a year trying to tweak the things in order to bring them in line with the rest of the game, and never fully succeeded.

[CutterJohn]

My concern is efficiency.

I'd expect better results from a tank with a dedicated gunner and a dedicated driver than an individual multi-tasking.

Indeed, specialization leads to more efficiency. But it doesn't necessarily equate to more fun. I don't mind other gunning options that lead to the 'traditional' role of driver driving and gunner gunning, but it is not in any way clearly superior. It depends on personal preference, and I would not agree with mechanics that make it a superior choice.


To make a one man tank effective you need to make it slower, have more armor, and take a heavy pounding to be effective. Otherwise you have a massive skill curve between people who can drive without looking ahead of their tank and shoot, and people who can't.

Whats wrong with skill curves? Skill is to be applauded, not tossed away.

[Tasorin]

I voted PS1 style.

Keeps Tanks from being a one person option.

[Graywolves]

Indeed, specialization leads to more efficiency. But it doesn't necessarily equate to more fun. I don't mind other gunning options that lead to the 'traditional' role of driver driving and gunner gunning, but it is not in any way clearly superior. It depends on personal preference, and I would not agree with mechanics that make it a superior choice.




Whats wrong with skill curves? Skill is to be applauded, not tossed away.

There's no reason to put one preference over another if you're looking for getting people to have fun driving a tank. No one is forced to drive the vehicles so might as well make it the most efficient.

[Tasorin]

Bump

[Figment]

I would say a small 15mm-like front mounted machine gun (Bassilisk aiming style) should be tops for a driver of a heavy ground unit. Its gunner should control the turret and main firepower.

The whole point of a multicrew vehicle is to split up roles in order to make each more effective and efficient, yet without the other making them very vulnerable and inefficient. ie. splitting up jobs enhances and encourages teamwork best and reduces the frequent over the top I-myself-and-me mentality you saw amongst Mossy/Reaver users. Unfortunately it seems aircav is single crew again. Had hoped air units with the air to ground power of a PS1 Reaver would finally be dual crew units to get them in line with ground vehicles, rather than the other way around.

[Tasorin]

Bump to keep on first page...

[Blackwolf]

I would say a small 15mm-like front mounted machine gun (Bassilisk aiming style) should be tops for a driver of a heavy ground unit. Its gunner should control the turret and main firepower.

The whole point of a multicrew vehicle is to split up roles in order to make each more effective and efficient, yet without the other making them very vulnerable and inefficient. ie. splitting up jobs enhances and encourages teamwork best and reduces the frequent over the top I-myself-and-me mentality you saw amongst Mossy/Reaver users. Unfortunately it seems aircav is single crew again. Had hoped air units with the air to ground power of a PS1 Reaver would finally be dual crew units to get them in line with ground vehicles, rather than the other way around.

Air cav isn't as bad as MBTs though, and never was. Air units are easier to destroy with even one AA platform on your side. I think they should have balanced the AA platforms better with each other, seeing as Flak was the ultimate AA weapon while the lock ons were annoying, they were less effective. MAX suits were by far the best source of AA fire, but the only way for the NC and VS to access Flak was either as infantry or through a vehicle.

And the Liberator is being remade into a gunship, there's your dedicated anti-ground multi-crewed heavy aircraft :D -happy panda- I think by comparison the ES fighters are going to be less capable of tank hunting and more capable of versatility as jacks-of-all-trades.

[Shogun]

my opinion:

ps1 driver/gunner system was great!

if you really have to change it, make it so that the driver can choose the driver/gunner setup but only as an option when drawing the tank. so this particular tank will stay at this setup until a new tank is drawn. this way there is no overpower issue and the drivers can use the system they like the most!
maybe even give 3 options!
driver has maingun
driver has secondary guncontrol
driver only, gunner has switchable controls over all guns

after all if you have the cert for a vehicle or invested time into a loadout, it´s fair that you can choose if you wanna gun, or how much control you give to your gunner.
i assume that still everybody can hop in as gunner, without certs. no certs needed but you have to take what the driver gives to you. just like it was with biffers!

[Figment]

Air cav isn't as bad as MBTs though, and never was. Air units are easier to destroy with even one AA platform on your side. I think they should have balanced the AA platforms better with each other, seeing as Flak was the ultimate AA weapon while the lock ons were annoying, they were less effective. MAX suits were by far the best source of AA fire, but the only way for the NC and VS to access Flak was either as infantry or through a vehicle.

As a Thunderer and Fury driver, I must disagree. With both I can easily handle any MBT, but even with a Deliverer aircraft (especially post-Reaver buff) cannot be dealt with properly.

While most AA platforms simply got overrun by aircraft due their numbers or - Flaklet - sheer lack of punch. I cannot recall a single time an AA MAX held off a resec team from a base. Either they simply spam it with Reavers or they bail on it and kill it, either way resulting in immediate air superiority. Now, I'm sure that'll be less prevalent in PS2 due to the amount of customization possible with any vehicle, but I still would have liked to see teamwork units over single player units. Also consider that AV was available everywhere and you always could hit it with EMPs, in contrast to the Aircav which you could not even reliably hit with your AV - especially as NC - let alone with EMP. On top of that, a camping vehicle can be jacked by a cloaker, camping aircraft can not. Aircav was way overpowered in contrast to ground vehicles, hence why you hardly even saw ground vehicles at some points in the game (until they finally got buffed again, only to be negated by the ridiculous Reaver armour buff).

And the Liberator is being remade into a gunship, there's your dedicated anti-ground multi-crewed heavy aircraft :D -happy panda- I think by comparison the ES fighters are going to be less capable of tank hunting and more capable of versatility as jacks-of-all-trades.

I don't consider Gunships a good thing. Liberators were fine because you could fight them. Galaxy Gunships ruined outdoor vehicle driving due to their sheer firepower with short TTK and hitpoints. As a Thunderer or Deliverer driver, you simply would die within 4 seconds with no hope of fighting back, not even hurting or escape. A Liberator you could duel and come out on top by sheer skill.

The ES fighters will likely be jack of all trades, but that was the Reaver as well and it did not get compensated in terms of firepower reduction. Quite the contrary. So no, I don't think being a jack of all trades is an incredibly good thing with the history of usualy implemented as being superior to dedicated platforms.

[acosmo]

I don't think BFRs and MBTs can be compared even with this change. Tanks wont just suddenly fly into the air and to the nearest mountain when things get hairy. Also, I can't recall any MBT being even as close as durable as the BFRs were.

yeah i guess. but before BFRs, MBTs were the most powerful unit on the field. you couldn't take out a squadron of prowlers without a squadron of magriders or vanguards. after BFRs were implemented, the most powerful unit on the field only required one pilot to be effective. then the army of solo kiddies prevailed over the playerbase that relied on teamwork for victory.

the game lost most of its mmo social aspect because it was no longer practical to use vehicles that required a gunner/driver. One manned alternatives were almost always superior. one of the beautiful things about the old planetside was that the better the bond between driver and gunner, the more effective the tank was. no experience anywhere else rivals being a prowler driver in my outfit pre-bfr. 3 fully manned prowlers and 11 or so people in teamspeak (the other two as airsupport/mobile resupply). we would provide the heavy support where it was needed most and due to our coordination we would rarely ever lose tanks over the course of a couple hours. incoming air cav were called out and the 3 AA gunners would concentrate fire while drivers would maneuver evasively. enemy tanks were dealt with similarly. call me silly but the most exciting experience ever for me was being a prowler driver.

i worry when lone wolves prevail over coordinated teams.

[Figment]

This topic was just touched on PS forums and Brewko replied to it twice.

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps/posts/list.m?topic_id=88000028342

Tbh the marketing propaganda answer that it's a new game and we should just wait for beta does not instill faith for me, as it sounds a lot like the response we got when the 12mm Phantasm was about to be launched without any playtesting.

To me at least, these answers do not portray a vision of how gameplay mechanics should function in relation to others and thorough knowledge of how players choose, abuse and combine their equipment when given a choice. It's as if these things are designed without considering scenarios where you would have the option to use other things instead of that gunner position.

Which is basically true for every single minute in a game like PS (2).

Instead of manning an AA secondary weapon on a tank, I would get me a dedicated AA platform like a customized Lightning: more hitpoints, two targets, cover fire from a distance, flanking options, ambush options, better overview, dedicated weapons. ONLY if the secondary gun is so much more effective than a Lightning main AA weapon, would I ever consider manning the mbt's secondary gun for the secondary gun. But by then it sounds imbalanced and making the LIGHTNING almost redundant and that doesn't sound appealing either. :/ Either way, people will probably opt more often to use solo aircav instead of either Lightning or gunner position anyway.

I would really like to see a clear vision from the devs on this matter to be able to judge better, but I don't need to playtest to be able to make some predictions.



Devs: If people have the choice between full control and independency versus being a side-kick, especially in combinations with other advantages, they will always opt for this option after they realise it is the better use of manpower. The 15 mm seats on Prowler and Raider were not empty for no reason. The Raider failed hard under this concept of secondary and tertiary guns where solo options are far more flexible and stronger in terms of hitpoints, multi-targets, speed, etc and it made the TR extremely weak near water. Why repeat this mistake again and again?

[LongBow]

mhmm from the drivers POV yeh sure being your own gunner may have an appeal, but there is a teamwork to depending on someone else. Defending the tank is the drivers role as he controls position(and potentially a second weapon) while the gunner adds the offensive firepower.

I'm happy to let it see beta but I think its one of the changes that SOE are going to have to ensure they can implement.

[Traak]

Make the driver-gunned weapon the AA. And take away hover. Hover for planes adds nothing to the game, and takes a lot away.

Unless you add the ability to fly around like a plane to all the infantry, you know, for balance.

Planes that can stand still, ad infinitum, in the sky is ridiculous.

[Canaris]

ummm isn't PS2 & BFR is the same vote, driver/primary gun & gunner on auxillary?

[Death2All]

I prefer the PS1 style myself. The devs seem to have the inkling that all of us are in favor of letting Driver drive AND shoot, when in fact it's the complete opposite. I don't really see the point in letting the driver control the vehicle and the main gun...Of what point is it for you to have a gunner then?

[Aractain]

The number of non planetside players will probably outnumber the planetside players 10 to 1...

[Canaris]

well I do remember from Forumside, one of the biggest complaints from drivers was there inability to use any weapons on their vehicles and that they spent cert points getting the best stuff but then ending up as glorified taxi drivers.

I'm all for giving PS2 option a whirl, that's what Alpha and Beta testing is for ;)

[Senyu]

Option D please

[Figment]

The number of non planetside players will probably outnumber the planetside players 10 to 1...

And that means what? I don't even know if it's an argument. Either way it means nothing. Nothing at all. There is no such thing as a uniform "PlanetSide player opinion", let alone a "non-PlanetSide player opinion". Hence changing for the sake of the undefined latter would be ridiculous.

There is only good and bad gameplay mechanics within its game context.

This sort of "we have to change this for the rest of the world audience" argument is something Hollywood came up with and it cost us a great deal of quality in movies already. Don't think we need this sort of argumentation for games too.

This level of argument is about here: "Oh my, there's a lot of Microsoft Patience players in the world, therefore, from now on we should deal cards to determine the outcome of a FPS game."

Game developers should do what is best in the context of THEIR game, not look at what Battlefield, Halo or Tribes does and simply copy that, because those games have their own contexts.

[CutterJohn]

Game developers should do what is best in the context of THEIR game, not look at what Battlefield, Halo or Tribes does and simply copy that, because those games have their own contexts.

PS2, being not PS1, should not look at what PS1 did either, by that logic, and hence they are perfectly fine making the new game how they want.


Its utter folly to not try to incorporate good ideas from other games. You merely disagree with whats a good idea. Which is normal. No release will please everyone. They could rerelease PS1 exactly and no small number of people would be pissed for not taking the chance to fix some of the various issues that plagued it.

[Xyntech]

You merely disagree with whats a good idea.

I feel like this is one of the biggest mistakes people make in discussions about differences between PS1 and PS2.

There are certainly some things that objectively worked well in Planetside 1, but it is not at all objective to say that no other system would work. That's entirely opinion.

We're all excited for the game (more or less) and we all want to be able to enjoy it, but what made Planetside special will vary from one person to another.

I hope the devs are smarter than to just lift an idea because it's popular without making sure it works in the context of the game, but everything solid and finished that we have seen in detail indicates to me that the dev team is extremely competent. Competent enough for me to want to give their new systems a try, even if I don't personally think they are always the best changes on the outset.

I like to try and think of PS2 as what Planetside would have been, had it been made today. Planetside 1 was very much a game of it's time. Not all changes to the FPS genre have been for the best, but the fact that PS2 seems to be cherry picking a lot of the better directions that the genre has gone in (regeneration only on shields, not health, for example) keeps me hopeful.

I have no doubt that Planetside 2 will get some stuff wrong. I mean objectively wrong. Those things will have to be fixed in patches. I don't think you can have such a genre redefining game as Planetside 2 without needing some revision. Hopefully that shit gets sorted out in beta.

I also have no doubt that PS2 will disappoint a lot of Planetside 1 players. Hopefully the number will be small and hopefully most of them won't be so disappointed that they can't still enjoy the game. Disappointed PS1 players will provide absolutely no indication of the quality of the game though, only the quality of their own expectations. The game could still be objectively better crafted and balanced than the first game, but the fact that it's different will turn some people off.

On the plus side, no matter if all the PS1 players play PS2, or only a handful, the majority of the players will be totally new, having never played the first game. With no expectations to disappoint, the game will be a success or failure on it's own merits.

I want the game to be good (obviously I hope it will suit my own standards of what is good), but I plan to try really hard to evaluate the game based on it's own merits, not in comparison to the first game.

[acosmo]

i would like to know if option d is compatible with the progression model brewko is using as a justification for the driver as gunner. in my opinion option d is the perfect solution.

In the vehicle customization screen, the driver can allocate one weapon to themselves, or both weapons to their gunner.

this gives players a choice between using the original or the planned driver/gunner model at no forseable cost or change to the planned design. usually in these kinds of debates theres no win-win resolution but option d is looking very much like one.

[LongBow]

the advantage of placing the main gun on the gunners seat is that the players of same faction have to work together ... When you give them a choice you take that away.

When the gunners seat has the secondary weapon, gunners rarely want to hop along for the ride, after all the only reason you trust your vanguard driver to not crash into a rock is the 120mm reward ...

Honestly the problem with the PS1 mechanic is not "drivers don't have guns" it is that "driving is boring!"

[Aractain]

Thats not something they can fix with out making them aircraft, which have driver weapons...

So yeah, doing the right thing with this imo.

[LongBow]

Thats not something they can fix with out making them aircraft, which have driver weapons...

So yeah, doing the right thing with this imo.

there are other, less radical solutions; which, have far more effective results than they would appear to on first glance.

Improve the weight of the tank - making a tank feel heavy and big and powerful help to counter the feeling of wasting cert points on a weapon someone else gets to use.

Improve the sound assets - everything from the engines roar to the crushing of the ground beneath it should should add to the feeling of power.

driver control of the secondary weapon - it gives him/her the engagement of shooting and feeling like an integral part of the fight. (as an aside I wonder how many of the complaining tank drivers were Vanu).

My opinion however is that:
who has control of the MBT's main gun is going to be a focus of beta testing and a point that could swing either way.
SOE have not shown themselves to be armatures, and I'm sure internal test data currently indicates the driver controlling the main gun is giving the best game play experience.

[CutterJohn]

the advantage of placing the main gun on the gunners seat is that the players of same faction have to work together ... When you give them a choice you take that away.

When the gunners seat has the secondary weapon, gunners rarely want to hop along for the ride, after all the only reason you trust your vanguard driver to not crash into a rock is the 120mm reward ...

Honestly the problem with the PS1 mechanic is not "drivers don't have guns" it is that "driving is boring!"

They have said, repeatedly, that it is not a 'secondary weapon'. They are roughly half the firepower of the tanks. Its not like the peashooter the other guy gets in the BF games.

Improve the weight of the tank - making a tank feel heavy and big and powerful help to counter the feeling of wasting cert points on a weapon someone else gets to use.

Improve the sound assets - everything from the engines roar to the crushing of the ground beneath it should should add to the feeling of power.

Seriously? The first one would make driving even more boring. The vehicles that are fun to drive are the zippy ones that take a high degree of skill to not ram into things and die. The second would really change nothing.

driver control of the secondary weapon - it gives him/her the engagement of shooting and feeling like an integral part of the fight. (as an aside I wonder how many of the complaining tank drivers were Vanu).

The PPC was a horrible driver weapon. The mag was just squirrelly in side to side motion, and it had a high rof, which meant it just wasn't very useful since you had to stay pointing at them. Plus the thing just maneuvered too slow to have a driver weapon mounted like that.

My opinion however is that:
who has control of the MBT's main gun is going to be a focus of beta testing and a point that could swing either way.

The guns will be a focus, for balance. Who has control is a decided issue for them. The only way it would change is if its a spectacular failure, which of course it won't be. It, at worst, will make solo tanks have a somewhat higher population.

[CutterJohn]

woops

[Figment]

See, just because something is changed from PS1 doesn't mean it's a good idea or an improvement over PS1. But that's even irrelevant considering the question is what will it do in the context of PS2. And I honestly don't think a lot of the changes made compared to PS1 will ultimately benefit or fit the context and gameplay of PS2.

Yes they can change what they want, they can implement player cottages and everything if they so desire for all I care, thing is we're all FPS players and we know damn well what we do with provided certifications and units and that's ensuring we get the fastest, most efficient TTK. And we, as a playerbase in general, are not going to be sidekicks in doing that because epeen is far too important for FPS players. If it is possible for the individual to be in control and have advantages, they will.

Why do you think there wasn't a single Raider outfit on ANY of the TR empires, but every single outfit on every single server had a LOT of one person aircraft? Because it was most effective and efficient. The suggested driver-gunner dynamic is neither and only benefits drivers and makes potential gunners want to get another role. If you disagree with that I don't know where you've been the last 8 years of PlanetSide, but you surely have not been paying attention to what was being pulled while standing around the vehicle pad!


In fact the biggest mistake people can make is not critique in advance and wait till a system is in place that "cannot be changed anymore". (read: takes too much time to change and would take away time from other fixes, etc). Thus you better provide this critique as early as possible. A worse mistake maybe is writing off other people's critique as being mere nostalgia sentiment (which somehow is always a bad thing too if it suits the "innovators"). Innovation is great and was needed in many things PlanetSide, but the last thing that needed innovation was driver gunnery!

In the context of PS2, which is still a lot closer to PS1 than Halo, BF or CoD, CS or whatever other FPS you can think of, this mechanic will imply be a very bad idea. Not as bad as BR40 was for PS1's context, but it'll definitely take a big chunk pf the team out of teamwork.

So if you could go back, I have provided extensive argumentation why it is a bad idea using the context of PS2 customizable Lightnings and examplifying this by refering to comparable PS1 situations (Prowler + Raider and in fact even the Marauder, the three worst designed units in the game in terms of manpower efficiency). By removing even the big gun from the control of the gunner, you're simply aggravating this situation even more and even less people will want to gun for someone else. Especially if they miss out on 'driver skill improvement experience points'.

To just ignore this argument and shove it on "people blabla PS1" is rather shortsighted, tbh.

And sorry Cutterjohn, but your opinion seems biased in the sense that you have absolute trust in devs. I honestly can't recall a single person who wanted a driver weapon for a tank, saying people wanted it would be a blatant lie. In fact, ALL people I've asked over Steam today (about 15) raised their eyebrow at the prospect and agreed they'd most probably use a secondary unit instead due to the same reasoning I provided.


The only reason one would still gun, was if that secondary gun was at least better in dot + armour loss compared to the alternative of using a secondary unit with a comparable or complementary weapon. The thing is, that the moment this secondary gun is THAT powerful, you have an overpowered weapon and a weapon platform that has too many roles. These agreeing people are some of the top brass from outfits like Mercenarys, Delta Triad, TRx, Risk and other respectable outfits that know how to optimize their firepower, endurance and TTK.


I'm not saying the system can't work, I'm simply saying it'll be a social failure, a huge missed opportunity and a hell of a big problem to balance fairly compared to other units, next to it becoming completely impossible to add more dedicated platforms, because their semi-niche roles will have already been filled by two ground units.

Which is going to make driving boring because you're only going to encounter the same units.


For the record, I've driven Thunderers, Sunderers and Furies for 7 years. I've never felt bored and I can't think of any other drivers who were bored, because you functioned as a team and we always took on major challenges. Pulling them off was always down to the whole team and everyone knew that. I feel that sentiment is going to change drastically towards even more individualism and that is going to be a big loss for the game.


Just because increasing individualism and social isolationism is a trend in society and gaming, doesn't mean you should follow or encourage that (for instance by creating on man jacks of all trade vehicles, or BR40 one man suiss knife armies). It might sometimes mean you should encourage the exact opposite. And that's what TEAM vehicles do.

The class system and splitting up of weaponry types can for instance be a very good alternative to create a social interdependency context similar to BR20. As long as you can't change to each and every class each death or at every equip term, but still need some certs for instance. I wouldn't enjoy the idea of everyone in a base simultaneously deciding to grab a MAX unit, for instance. Role overlap creates both overpowered and imbalanced situations, as well as reduces the uniqueness of a player. And uniqueness, specialisms, that is what makes players appreciated.

As such I'm also going to be VERY critical about the cert / class system of PS2. If it leads to a BR40 situation, I'll heavily protest its implementation. Not just because it was in PS1, but because it will be extremely bad for general gameplay.

[Zulthus]

See, just because something is changed from PS1 doesn't mean it's a good idea or an improvement over PS1. But that's even irrelevant considering the question is what will it do in the context of PS2. And I honestly don't think a lot of the changes made compared to PS1 will ultimately benefit or fit the context and gameplay of PS2.

Yes they can change what they want, they can implement player cottages and everything if they so desire for all I care, thing is we're all FPS players and we know damn well what we do with provided certifications and units and that's ensuring we get the fastest, most efficient TTK. And we, as a playerbase in general, are not going to be sidekicks in doing that because epeen is far too important for FPS players. If it is possible for the individual to be in control and have advantages, they will.

Why do you think there wasn't a single Raider outfit on ANY of the TR empires, but every single outfit on every single server had a LOT of one person aircraft? Because it was most effective and efficient. The suggested driver-gunner dynamic is neither and only benefits drivers and makes potential gunners want to get another role. If you disagree with that I don't know where you've been the last 8 years of PlanetSide, but you surely have not been paying attention to what was being pulled while standing around the vehicle pad!


In fact the biggest mistake people can make is not critique in advance and wait till a system is in place that "cannot be changed anymore". (read: takes too much time to change and would take away time from other fixes, etc). Thus you better provide this critique as early as possible. A worse mistake maybe is writing off other people's critique as being mere nostalgia sentiment (which somehow is always a bad thing too if it suits the "innovators"). Innovation is great and was needed in many things PlanetSide, but the last thing that needed innovation was driver gunnery!

In the context of PS2, which is still a lot closer to PS1 than Halo, BF or CoD, CS or whatever other FPS you can think of, this mechanic will imply be a very bad idea. Not as bad as BR40 was for PS1's context, but it'll definitely take a big chunk pf the team out of teamwork.

So if you could go back, I have provided extensive argumentation why it is a bad idea using the context of PS2 customizable Lightnings and examplifying this by refering to comparable PS1 situations (Prowler + Raider and in fact even the Marauder, the three worst designed units in the game in terms of manpower efficiency). By removing even the big gun from the control of the gunner, you're simply aggravating this situation even more and even less people will want to gun for someone else. Especially if they miss out on 'driver skill improvement experience points'.

To just ignore this argument and shove it on "people blabla PS1" is rather shortsighted, tbh.

And sorry Cutterjohn, but your opinion seems biased in the sense that you have absolute trust in devs. I honestly can't recall a single person who wanted a driver weapon for a tank, saying people wanted it would be a blatant lie. In fact, ALL people I've asked over Steam today (about 15) raised their eyebrow at the prospect and agreed they'd most probably use a secondary unit instead due to the same reasoning I provided.


The only reason one would still gun, was if that secondary gun was at least better in dot + armour loss compared to the alternative of using a secondary unit with a comparable or complementary weapon. The thing is, that the moment this secondary gun is THAT powerful, you have an overpowered weapon and a weapon platform that has too many roles. These agreeing people are some of the top brass from outfits like Mercenarys, Delta Triad, TRx, Risk and other respectable outfits that know how to optimize their firepower, endurance and TTK.


I'm not saying the system can't work, I'm simply saying it'll be a social failure, a huge missed opportunity and a hell of a big problem to balance fairly compared to other units, next to it becoming completely impossible to add more dedicated platforms, because their semi-niche roles will have already been filled by two ground units.

Which is going to make driving boring because you're only going to encounter the same units.


For the record, I've driven Thunderers, Sunderers and Furies for 7 years. I've never felt bored and I can't think of any other drivers who were bored, because you functioned as a team and we always took on major challenges. Pulling them off was always down to the whole team and everyone knew that. I feel that sentiment is going to change drastically towards even more individualism and that is going to be a big loss for the game.


Just because increasing individualism and social isolationism is a trend in society and gaming, doesn't mean you should follow or encourage that (for instance by creating on man jacks of all trade vehicles, or BR40 one man suiss knife armies). It might sometimes mean you should encourage the exact opposite. And that's what TEAM vehicles do.

The class system and splitting up of weaponry types can for instance be a very good alternative to create a social interdependency context similar to BR20. As long as you can't change to each and every class each death or at every equip term, but still need some certs for instance. I wouldn't enjoy the idea of everyone in a base simultaneously deciding to grab a MAX unit, for instance. Role overlap creates both overpowered and imbalanced situations, as well as reduces the uniqueness of a player. And uniqueness, specialisms, that is what makes players appreciated.

As such I'm also going to be VERY critical about the cert / class system of PS2. If it leads to a BR40 situation, I'll heavily protest its implementation. Not just because it was in PS1, but because it will be extremely bad for general gameplay.

Very wise words. I especially agree with the bolded part. Planetside is a unique game, and just because COD and BF have certain "improved" FPS features, does not mean at all that this game should follow them. "Teamplay" in BF3 is throwing ammo/med boxes and reviving people. "Teamplay" in Planetside is much more, and from the sound of it, it seems they are definitely going for a more individualistic approach. This isn't because I'm afraid of change, this is because I'm afraid this game will just be a massive Battlefield 3. I know, I know, "wait for beta" and all that, but I stand firm on my view as of now.

[acosmo]

Just because increasing individualism and social isolationism is a trend in society and gaming, doesn't mean you should follow or encourage that (for instance by creating on man jacks of all trade vehicles, or BR40 one man suiss knife armies). It might sometimes mean you should encourage the exact opposite. And that's what TEAM vehicles do.
http://i40.tinypic.com/2ntz30l.gif
Oh SOE, please consider

[Raymac]

I can't believe you people sometimes. Since when did a tank cannon become "jack of all trades"?

I flew a reaver alot in PS1, which is a vehicle where the driver controls the main gun. You know what is more powerful than a reaver? (besides an AA Max) 2 Reavers. Teamplay always trumps the rambos.

Plus, all you people keep ignoring the fact that the tanks have a second gunner spot. Then they are making the Sunderer passengers use their own guns. Nevermind the fact that they are giving outfit benefits which do a crap ton more to encourage team play than forcing someone to be your chauffeur.

Oh, but you expect me to believe the devs are destroying the very fabric of teamplay? C'mon, let's get back to reality here. You guys are waaaayyy over stating the impact of losing the designated driver while ignoring the addition of things like outfit benefits.

[Zulthus]

We are not talking about outfit benefits, we are talking about the driver/gunner situation. There is a big difference between a vehicle with a dedicated driver/gunner compared to two different vehicles with dedicated drivers. Some people prefer the former, and some people prefer the latter. That's why reavers, furies, lightings, etc. existed. They catered to both styles of gameplay in PS1. From what I'm hearing, the driver will be the main gunner in all vehicles as of now. I'm sure myself and many others prefer the gunner taking control as I can concentrate on avoiding enemy fire and giving them a good shot. Simply, it is more fun and more effective.

Also, just because the gunner gets a second seat doesn't change the issue here. While on this subject, I'd like to say that Tanks should not have any form of dedicated AA. They are meant to fight against infantry and other tanks, not aircraft. It should be rock-paper-scissors gameplay. I'm not sure I like the direction they're taking by removing the dedicated vehicles and making tanks the jack of all trades. I loved seeing diversity on the battlefield in PS1, with Skyguards meant for AA, MBTs for AV/AI, and jeeps/buggies mainly for AI. As of now it sounds like there are no Skyguards or buggies, just tanks that can have whatever they'd like on them.

[Figment]

I can't believe you people sometimes. Since when did a tank cannon become "jack of all trades"?

Since they can outfit themselves with whatever weapon system they want, or combinations there of.

I flew a reaver alot in PS1, which is a vehicle where the driver controls the main gun. You know what is more powerful than a reaver? (besides an AA Max) 2 Reavers. Teamplay always trumps the rambos.

That's exactly the problem. What's better than one tank with two crew? The same tank, but two, with one crew, OR the same tank plus another unit that fulfils the role of the secondary gun.

Two driver tanks WILL beat one driver/gunner tank!

1 + 1 > 2!

Teamwork is as such redefined as teamwork being better between units than teamwork within units. That is going to be a major issue. If you can't see it, try doing some maths.

Plus, all you people keep ignoring the fact that the tanks have a second gunner spot. Then they are making the Sunderer passengers use their own guns. Nevermind the fact that they are giving outfit benefits which do a crap ton more to encourage team play than forcing someone to be your chauffeur.

You are ignoring that we have a very strong argument that states the second gunner spot is completely redundant in the new system. MATHS, learn it.

Oh, but you expect me to believe the devs are destroying the very fabric of teamplay? C'mon, let's get back to reality here. You guys are waaaayyy over stating the impact of losing the designated driver while ignoring the addition of things like outfit benefits.

Teamwork and interdependency within a unit will definitely largely be replaced by lone wolves who might now and then work together, because they can, rather than have to. This reduces social bonds between driver and gunner, because the driver will not see the need to at all times have a gunner and the gunner will feel there are more efficient ways to utilise his manpower.

To use your example of two Reavers: two Reavers will split up to go off on their own on a regular basis, bringing their firepower to different locations, even if they swarm now and then to attack the same target. Mainly because in this case there are no two men aircraft with significant benefits over two Reavers (PS1 MBT over two PS1 Lightnings, or two PS1 MBTs without either gunners or drivers). Having two in the same aircraft would be a far more social situation as you'd be forced to move together AND NEED EACHOTHER at all times to win an engagement. In every situation, you'd be completely dependent on eachother directly, there is no way you can come out on top on your own. Not just in situations where you need an extra Reaver, also in situations where you would have been able to cope alone. By giving the driver this gun, you create a situation where you CAN come out on top alone, thus lowering the need for a gunner. Which is further reduced because a gunner can now never be as effective as or more effective than a driver of a solo vehicle, in any circumstance.

Being dependent on one another is what defines a teamwork vehicle and the way gunners are reduced to optional extra accessories does not define teamwork and complete interdependency, at all. Quite the contrary.

You also don't seem to get that if you have a jack of all trades vehicle, (ie. customizable for any type of situation, even if it can only deal with one at a time), will remove any need for niche vehicles: dedicated weapon platforms. Or have you not noticed that the solo vehicle Lightning AA variant and the AA gunner option on MBTs has already completely removed the need for the addition of a teamvehicle like the two crew Skyguard? So again, two players in one AA vehicle become two players in seperate AA vehicles.

Understand the argument please before you reply. The two situations are very, very different. Unfortunately since you are a lone wolf, being a long time Reaver user, you may lack the understanding of a concept of intra-unit teamwork.

[Raymac]

Since they can outfit themselves with whatever weapon system they want, or combinations there of.


Right, but you need the 2nd person for that, so it's not a "ONE MAN jack of all trades". And 1 tank can't have a set up that matches up against everything all at once.

Two driver tanks WILL beat one driver/gunner tank!


First of all this is an assumption since we don't know the balance, but lets go with it for the sake of debate. Those 2 tank drivers will still need to coordinate in order to beat the 1 driver/gunner tank. Otherwise the driver/gunner tank will easily pick them off one at a time. Coordination = teamwork. Learn thesaurus. Don't give me that "learn math" bullshit.

And don't even try to sell me the garbage that the gunner seat will be useless and therefore totally unused. That is such a huge strawman fallacy that I don't even know where to begin.

the AA gunner option on MBTs has already completely removed the need for the addition of a teamvehicle like the two crew Skyguard

Perhaps you don't understand, but the AA for MBTs is for the secondary gunner, not the main gun. So you will need a 2nd person for that. Unless you want to just park and switch seats, which I've seen Skyguards do.

Unfortunately since you are a lone wolf, being a long time Reaver user, you may lack the understanding of a concept of intra-unit teamwork.

I'm going to try to ignore how douchey this personal attack is and just say that being a Reaver pilot doesn't make someone a lone wolf. Flying in organized squadrons or close air support or rapid response takes a considerable amount of coordination. It's not that I don't understand the concept of squad-based teamwork, as I'm sure you do. I just don't believe that removing the chauffeur is going to destroy the concept of teamwork, chicken little.

Now, if they took out squads, or platoons, or outfits, or chat, or the ability to use 3rd party or in-game voice chat, then yes I'd agree that the devs are hurting teamwork. However, removing the outdated mechanic of not just encouraging (which is what they are doing in PS2) but FORCING someone to drive somebody else around with their expensive tank cert is not going to destroy teamwork. That's an extremely alarmist point of view. God forbid you let the person who spent the cert points for the tank actually get to shoot the damn gun.

[Aractain]

This is starting to resembel the 'debate' about Guild Wars 2 and the removal of the forced dependancy of the holy trinity vs the idea of free form group builds. The wow classic lovers argue that because you don't need a dedicated healer and tank the increased responsibility of the other players results in less skillfull gameplay and less teamwork. Thats false.

I know that I had no 'social bonds' with the idiots in my gun when I drove MBTs alone. I do remember that flying with other people on voice was SO fun and had so much teamwork trying to take pressure off each other or baiting an enemy pilot so you could down him between you. Coordinated attacks on AA maxs etc, even just sharing intel about the threats and targets in the area.

The idea that two people in different tanks reduces teamwork is straight up bullshit. The idea that one player has to focus on a no fun role (subjective) so another player can have fun in the name of "teamwork" is just silly.

[Captain1nsaneo]

http://i41.tinypic.com/9a6y5t.jpg

[CutterJohn]

And sorry Cutterjohn, but your opinion seems biased in the sense that you have absolute trust in devs. I honestly can't recall a single person who wanted a driver weapon for a tank, saying people wanted it would be a blatant lie. In fact, ALL people I've asked over Steam today (about 15) raised their eyebrow at the prospect and agreed they'd most probably use a secondary unit instead due to the same reasoning I provided.

I don't have absolute trust in the devs. I just have a lot more trust in them than random people on a forum. When you can convince someone with millions of dollars to fund your ideas, I'll trust you too.

This change is not my preference. I wanted the driver to have optional control of a weaker secondary turret, that he could control, or let a secondary gunner control. Picture a prowler where the driver could control that top turret, or grab a secondary gunner. His choice.

Since its not whats happening, I choose not to rail against the inevitable, and since I have yet to convince someone with millions of dollars that my ideas are superior, I will have to accept what I'm given.

The only reason one would still gun, was if that secondary gun was at least better in dot + armour loss compared to the alternative of using a secondary unit with a comparable or complementary weapon. The thing is, that the moment this secondary gun is THAT powerful, you have an overpowered weapon and a weapon platform that has too many roles. These agreeing people are some of the top brass from outfits like Mercenarys, Delta Triad, TRx, Risk and other respectable outfits that know how to optimize their firepower, endurance and TTK.

Only 1 reason? I'm disappointed.

-Better situational awareness. Extra eyes free from watching the road.
-Faster repairs. Cover while repairing.
-Ability for the driver to switch to concentrate fully on driving when in dire peril, while still having a gunner maintain fire.
-Ability to bring AA and AI weapons to the field. The driver weapon is poor at both.
-1 tank is cheaper than 2 tanks(You forgot about resources?)
-The tanker will just plain have a better tank than the grunt who did the minimum spec to get one.
-Because friends want to play together in the same vehicle.
-Because someone hates driving, didn't have time to grab a tank, happened to be around.

Its incredibly interesting, because you name drop a bunch of names I could care less about, and talk about maximizing power, yet you claim to have driven raiders and sunderers around for years... If you were interested in maximizing power, you picked the wrong vehicles. So. It seems, if 2 gunners will suck as much as you think, you'll do it anyway, because if you're willing to drive raiders and sunderers around, you care nothing for effectiveness.

I'm not saying the system can't work, I'm simply saying it'll be a social failure, a huge missed opportunity and a hell of a big problem to balance fairly compared to other units, next to it becoming completely impossible to add more dedicated platforms, because their semi-niche roles will have already been filled by two ground units.

The driver/gunner combo was not there to promote teamwork. It was a balance mechanism, limiting the power of the unit by requiring 2 people.

The class system and splitting up of weaponry types can for instance be a very good alternative to create a social interdependency context similar to BR20. As long as you can't change to each and every class each death or at every equip term, but still need some certs for instance. I wouldn't enjoy the idea of everyone in a base simultaneously deciding to grab a MAX unit, for instance. Role overlap creates both overpowered and imbalanced situations, as well as reduces the uniqueness of a player. And uniqueness, specialisms, that is what makes players appreciated.

Today just isn't your day. You can switch classes at terminals and on death.

As such I'm also going to be VERY critical about the cert / class system of PS2. If it leads to a BR40 situation, I'll heavily protest its implementation. Not just because it was in PS1, but because it will be extremely bad for general gameplay.

Irrelevant at this point. Its free to play. If they restrict what a character can do people will simply make alts, as higby has already stated the battlerank leveling time will be far shorter than training times.

Whats really going to bake your noodle is when you realize what that means for that 1 empire per server nonsense everyone spouts... :rofl:

Good luck changing their business plan though.

[Figment]

I didn't drive Raiders, I drove Thunderers. You know, the APC with the power to kill Magriders. Something a fully manned Raider could barely pull off but need two more people for?


Manpower efficiency. Learn to appreciate it. Making units akin to the Raider is completely wasted development time. Making MBTs where the gunner is more powerful than the driver is not. Hence why I've already said before a small forward mounted AI weapon akin to a machine gun for the driver would be fine, as it would provide incentive to get into the gun to make sure the unit has firepower. But when doubling firepower is at all times better done by obtaining a second unit you can bet everyone will obtain a second unit instead when they can.

As for your arguments:

- Extra set of eyes is even more true for two seperate units since you look at things from another angle.
- Faster repairs and covering can be done with two units as well, since you'll take LESS damage with two units as the enemy cannot concentrate fire on both of you at once (try running one deli or three delis in PlanetSide and see how much damage you take when you split up the enemy's concentration and move in groups).
- The ability to half your firepower in danger is not really a good thing and not an advantage over two tanks, since they can do that too, but with more endurance.
- Resources can't be THAT limited that 500 players will have to make due with ONE tank.
- Speccing won't ever be an issue if you have dedicated players. You should know that by now. Cr5s were not intended to be 60 to 75% of the playerbase, they were after a couple years. Don't base balance on day one, base balance on day one to 5 years into the game or you are just ignorant.
- Friends - as some others noted above - will have no issue playing with two units as that can be VERY effective and fun too, while they ALSO get to go at it alone.
- Happening to be around doesn't happen when you plan on things, so basically you just came up with one reason: pick up randoms in the field. Great teamwork...



I'm rather confused why you claim you accept a decision already (already admit defeat) yet make this thread. If you want to make a change, you'll have to fight for it, garner support and make it noticed (see support from your poll for PS1 gunning). Assuming nothing can change especially prior to beta will provide no incentives for devs to change things.


"This just isn't your day" is an incredibly stupid thing to say, as I know about their plans and that's why I am warning for them now and provide constructive critique on how they can prevent that sort of bull from happening and also WHY they should prevent that from happening. If you don't but just accept it in advance, you'll have a VERY hard time combatting poor balance later.

Like the overkill of MAXes and aircav campers we had in PS at certain points in the game, until they changed some things or provided new tools to fix that at least to some extend (Flaklet for instance, powerless as it was in many cases). THAT is what feedback is for and can do.

[CutterJohn]

I didn't drive Raiders, I drove Thunderers. You know, the APC with the power to kill Magriders. Something a fully manned Raider could barely pull off but need two more people for?

Still doesn't explain the sunderer. :lol:


- Extra set of eyes is even more true for two seperate units since you look at things from another angle.

But you can't look behind you very good. You think those turrets are going to track like the lightnings did?

- Faster repairs and covering can be done with two units as well, since you'll take LESS damage with two units as the enemy cannot concentrate fire on both of you at once (try running one deli or three delis in PlanetSide and see how much damage you take when you split up the enemy's concentration and move in groups).

Fair point, except if you have AA on the tank.

- The ability to half your firepower in danger is not really a good thing and not an advantage over two tanks, since they can do that too, but with more endurance.

Its better than your solo tanks ability to do zero damage when running from danger. Ever chased a lightning? :rofl:

- Resources can't be THAT limited that 500 players will have to make due with ONE tank.

Sure. But it doesn't mean they'll want to waste money on it either. And I doubt the resources will be so meaningless that you can pull anything you want at all times.

- Speccing won't ever be an issue if you have dedicated players. You should know that by now. Cr5s were not intended to be 60 to 75% of the playerbase, they were after a couple years. Don't base balance on day one, base balance on day one to 5 years into the game or you are just ignorant.

They waved around figures as high as 'over a year' for maxing out a single skill tree. I'm not going to complain about people being BR40ish after 5 or 10 years anyway. I would prefer no BRs or training at all, to be perfectly honest. Such things don't belong in FPSs. I'll deal.

- Friends - as some others noted above - will have no issue playing with two units as that can be VERY effective and fun too, while they ALSO get to go at it alone.

Right. So? Now they can do it with two tanks, or one. Both will be effective, but at different things. 2 may have an edge in certain cases at pure AV work. 1 will obviously be more effective at AI and AA.

- Happening to be around doesn't happen when you plan on things, so basically you just came up with one reason: pick up randoms in the field. Great teamwork...

Guess how a large percentage of ps1 played, and how all people played when nobody else was around.


I'm rather confused why you claim you accept a decision already (already admit defeat) yet make this thread. If you want to make a change, you'll have to fight for it, garner support and make it noticed (see support from your poll for PS1 gunning). Assuming nothing can change especially prior to beta will provide no incentives for devs to change things.

I made a thread so they could see peoples preferences. I expected absolutely nothing to come of it, but what else are we supposed to do on the forum of a game thats not released yet except argue?

[Figment]

@Raymac: It was not an insult, you simply "grew up" in PlanetSide as a living example of what I'm talking about will probably happen with these units: you prefer a single man, jack of all trades, superior advantages (flight firepower etc) vehicle with complete personal control, which can ALSO be used in teams, rather than HAVING to be used in teams.

However, I was wrong to say you couldn't understand, because you should have been thoroughly aware of why you picked that over a two seater, beyond the flight advantages. You are not a Liberator pilot, as you well know you can single handedly take those down and three Reaver pilots are far more effective than one Liberator crew and can do the same things and then some with less risk to yourself as they may target someone else first. Unfortunately though, you are not very aware of the reasoning behind the choices you made. I certainly hope you realise you had more reason to cert Reaver specificaly than "I wanted to be a fighter pilot because it was cool" in comparison to both the Mosquito and Liberator.



And yes, AA on such a tank as secondary GUNNER is pointless if you could have brought a seperate AA dedicated vehicle. I never said the driver handled anything but the primary gun in this new system, I did say I'd prefer it if it handled a tertiary limited use front mounted gun, rather than either the primary or secondary gun INSTEAD. The driver should stay away from the turret completely IMO. So please read more careful.


@Cutterjohn: The Sunderer (old one) was a really under appreciated vehicle. It had a much lower profile than Galaxies, had mine sweeping capacity (we used suicide Sunderers to clear a path for a second Sunderer full of troops or used it as a mobile shield when crossing bridges - which of course became a fastly superior and more commonly employed tactic with the EMP blast). With the old Sunderer, you could already kill a MBT mathematically (killed 6 Magriders, 4 Prowlers and one stolen Vanguard in such direct confrontations, simply through superior driving and making them think they could exploit the 75 mms dead angle, while I knew how to keep those trained on them: drive sideways on hills). Especially when you had no tech, a Sunderer was a decent alternative to a Thunderer and Deliverer when both were on a timer.

Post-buff, we took out aircraft such as Reavers with its new 20mm guns, used it as mobile turrets, hunted BFRs, blew up minefields, gen drops and took on and out a lot more tanks and enemy positions than before.

In fact, you probably don't know that a Sunderer at full speed (especially after movin down hill) can move half a grid under water before it comes to a full stop? Meaning you can actualy get to the other side of certain rivers without taking damage due to the water shield. So yeah, we employed it as submarine transports too at times.

So let me ask you why you never considered using the Sunderer with 10 men including just two gunners? Prefered to use five to ten vehicles instead per chance? ;)



You say it's better than two solo tanks fleeing. I disagree: If you split up and circle back you can create an encirclement situation where the hunter becomes the hunted and gets pounded from two directions while - assuming it is the same vehicle for train of thought - that unit only has half health. So when his single unit dies, both guns stop firing. If one of you dies, the other lives on to either continue the fight or to get back to safety. Two single man tanks using the same equipment as one two crew tank will take approximately 2/3s damage at most due to DoT + Endurance.

I'm going to disagree again because of the added effect of endurance, two units with each a half of the firepower will always be superior to one unit. Perhaps we have to agree to disagree, but I would recommend you to look up calculations regarding the Raider (5 crew) vs two Delivers (2 + 3 crew) discussion on the old forums and why it makes Raiders have no niche of its own at all.

Picking up randoms as gunners made them about 15% as effective as gunners you play with on a daily basis. They don't communicate effectively, they give away your position early, they have bad targeting priorities, they don't understand your goals and they brought the wrong equipment and thus can't help with repairs. These randoms are usualy lower ranked troops, often beginners too, since most every veteran has his own unit and own group of players to work with on a daily basis. I would never recommend picking up token gunners because too often it doesn't work out and they're far more effective when playing in their own vehicles. Still often underperforming, but at least they work according to a plan within their own vehicle. I'm however talking about appropriate and efficient use of manpower in this discussion and regarding regular (daily basis) teams. Those teams will soon realise they're better of specialising in their own units than to gun for others.

The time to max out a tree is not very interesting as it will happen for multiple trees over time and people will always have an optimum vehicle and weapon for themselves (likely a better choice over gunning). As such it is a temporary limit at best.



Although this is another discussion enirely, jack of all trades is about what you can use at any one point in time, particularly when you change gear. A lot of people often argument that you can't use everything in one lifetime, but that is a shortsighted argument since people respawn. It'd be great and they might have a point if there wasn't such a thing as respawning and that a fight does not end after a single engagement. These people think in single encounters. Think of it as thinking in a single battle instead of a war, as such it is terribly shortsighted. Being always able to bring the rock to the scissor fight yourself after you realise paper is not going to work, is not going to make you be as dependent on others as a lot of players would want (BR20 situation). For instance, you can bring paper and string to the fight or the fight aftermath after you beat scissors with rock.


You don't use all options on a suiss knife at once either, do you? That'd be silly. Still doesn't mean a suiss army knife is not far superior in long term survival than each of its options being available separately!


I'm sure though that since classes can't use all certs at once in PS2 (iirc) then you'll at least not get people who have the option to at all times have inherent skills such as expert/data corruption hacker, or other combinations such as advanced medic + assault/fort engineer + HA + uniMAX + CE + Mossie/Reaver + tanks immediately, but IMO they should not always have access to anything else 2 minutes later either just because they could switch to any class without limitations. The people who argue that you only have one thing at all times forget that you can optimize your weaponry for the coming fight and aftermath at all times and thus never need to be in a dependent position for long.


A very good example in PS1 of why it was bad was that if you have expert hacking as an inherent skill because you could always afford it or got it free. You used to be unlikely to have full assault force and needed to work with some others to take a CC during BR20 - people needed YOU low powered, fast hacking, to secure the facility while they covered you because you reseced faster than them. If they could open a term and get adv. hack there and then, they'd not need you, they'd do it themselves: teamwork requirement reduced severely. You are now better off doing full assault as well and see about who is first to grab a REK later. Very different from protecting your specific guy with that skill to get to that CC in time. The new situation is rather "we could care less who does it or dies, because we pretty much all can fix the situation".

If you died, it meant a hack or resecure would take a minute and the enemy could respawn once or twice to try and prevent it from happening. Now? You can't kill just the advanced hacker user to get that time, since everyone is expert hacker (even faster) and they resecure or hack so fast that you can't even spawn before the hack has gone through and they moved from CC to spawn area. The flow and duration of gameplay changed completely through one single thing people coud now do as well. On top of that, you got to face radar virals every base, instead say every 1 in 50 battles because others could not afford it. Such situations shoud be avoided in PS2, because one of the main gameplay elements is holding a control point and fighting over it back and forth till there is a winner - not just one push and it's over.

I honestly can't believe certain people still wouldn't get that. :/

[acosmo]

i believe i speak for everyone who is against the planned model when i say that i just want a game where social interaction and teamwork are just as powerful and important as pure skill in the effectiveness of a unit.

if this can be achieved then it doesn't really matter who has to fire the big gun.

[Raymac]

@Raymac: It was not an insult, you simply "grew up" in PlanetSide as a living example of what I'm talking about will probably happen with these units: you prefer a single man, jack of all trades, superior advantages (flight firepower etc) vehicle with complete personal control, which can ALSO be used in teams, rather than HAVING to be used in teams.

However, I was wrong to say you couldn't understand, because you should have been thoroughly aware of why you picked that over a two seater, beyond the flight advantages. You are not a Liberator pilot, as you well know you can single handedly take those down and three Reaver pilots are far more effective than one Liberator crew and can do the same things and then some with less risk to yourself as they may target someone else first. Unfortunately though, you are not very aware of the reasoning behind the choices you made. I certainly hope you realise you had more reason to cert Reaver specificaly than "I wanted to be a fighter pilot because it was cool" in comparison to both the Mosquito and Liberator.



And yes, AA on such a tank as secondary GUNNER is pointless if you could have brought a seperate AA dedicated vehicle. I never said the driver handled anything but the primary gun in this new system, I did say I'd prefer it if it handled a tertiary limited use front mounted gun, rather than either the primary or secondary gun INSTEAD. The driver should stay away from the turret completely IMO. So please read more careful.


I'm sorry, are you suggesting you know the reasons why I chose to fly a reaver better than I do? Damn, anybody ever tell you what a massive ego you have?

Besides, your point about liberators kind of destroy your own original arguement. If 3 Reavers are more powerful than 1 Liberator, than by your rationale of solo tanks making driver/gunners obsolete, we would never ever see Liberators in PS1. Well, every time I've logged on, I've seen plenty of Libs, so that's a pretty good sign that you don't need to worry about driver/gunner tanks being extinct. Thanks for single handedly destroying your arguement for me.

And for the love of Tebow, can you stop with the "learn to read" and "learn math" childish bullshit? Your myth of having the option to attach a secondary AA gun on a tank would be pointless with a dedicated AA vehicle is just plain false. 1 quick situation is self survival for the tank against air. Plus, what is this mythical 1-man AA vehicle you are referring to? An AA Max? Or are you trying to say that another 2 man skyguard w/ a dedicated chauffeur would render 1 AA gunner in a tank pointless? Because even with my (according to you) retarded math skills, I can see a flaw with that theory.

Deeper customization of weapons and vehicles is a really cool improvement on Planetside 1. I can understand not liking any changes to the original Planetside. If it ain't broke in your opinion, then don't fix it. That's understandable. What's over the top is trying to argue that this minor change will be the death of teamwork.

Personally, I'd prefer to have an option to allow players to be a dedicated driver if they so choose, and I can't really see why that shouldn't be implented, but it hasn't been yet so I'm clearly missing something. Maybe it's balance, maybe it's an issue with the engine. I just don't know but there must be a reason other than "the devs want to kill teamwork and only have solo rambo killwhores".

[acosmo]

Personally, I'd prefer to have an option to allow players to be a dedicated driver if they so choose, and I can't really see why that shouldn't be implented, but it hasn't been yet so I'm clearly missing something. Maybe it's balance, maybe it's an issue with the engine.

beyond all the griping i think this something we all agree on.

I just don't know but there must be a reason other than "the devs want to kill teamwork and only have solo rambo killwhores".

what scares me is that we haven't received any rationale other than that today's gamers are too individualistic and socially inept to deal with the original driver gunner paradigm (hence outmoded).

[Figment]

I'm sorry, are you suggesting you know the reasons why I chose to fly a reaver better than I do? Damn, anybody ever tell you what a massive ego you have?

Yes on both accounts. ;)

Besides, your point about liberators kind of destroy your own original arguement. If 3 Reavers are more powerful than 1 Liberator, than by your rationale of solo tanks making driver/gunners obsolete, we would never ever see Liberators in PS1. Well, every time I've logged on, I've seen plenty of Libs, so that's a pretty good sign that you don't need to worry about driver/gunner tanks being extinct. Thanks for single handedly destroying your arguement for me.

Not at all.

Are you argueing that there are as many Liberators as there are Reavers and Mosquitos? Or would you agree that Liberators are more for the hobbyist and often end up as two men teams (pilot + bomber)? Per chance with a one aircav escort?

Have you also noticed how many of those Liberators have just a pilot and use the massive armour of the Liberator for solo play?

Oh snap.

And for the love of Tebow, can you stop with the "learn to read" and "learn math" childish bullshit? Your myth of having the option to attach a secondary AA gun on a tank would be pointless with a dedicated AA vehicle is just plain false. 1 quick situation is self survival for the tank against air. Plus, what is this mythical 1-man AA vehicle you are referring to? An AA Max? Or are you trying to say that another 2 man skyguard w/ a dedicated chauffeur would render 1 AA gunner in a tank pointless? Because even with my (according to you) retarded math skills, I can see a flaw with that theory.

PlanetSide 2 will have Lightnings that fulfill the Skyguard role as they can be equiped with AA weapons, AI weapons OR AV weapons. They are thus one man dedicated AA platforms when equiped with AA guns, much as a heavy tank would equip his gunner slot with AA. They would fulfill the same role and then the question is which do you get? Since both have the same role, require one man, but the Lightning has its own hitpoints, its own maneuvring seperate from the main tank to get in an optimal position and some other advantages, there is no reason to pick the tank gunner position over the Lightning.

Similarly, why would one pick an Enforcer if you can get two Reavers? Or a Marauder if you can pick three? Acquisition rules are the only thing that stops you from getting a Reaver and as such Enforcers were rarely seen at all. Doesn't mean there are none, just that they won't be in use as much as intended as players have better ways to get TTK.

That's basically wasting development time on underused and rather inefficient features simply because one does not understand player mentality. And with all due respect for their enthusiasm, they don't seem to.

Deeper customization of weapons and vehicles is a really cool improvement on Planetside 1. I can understand not liking any changes to the original Planetside. If it ain't broke in your opinion, then don't fix it. That's understandable. What's over the top is trying to argue that this minor change will be the death of teamwork.

It's not at all about it being changed from PS1, it's about it being changed for the worse in comparison to PS1. 'Cool' as it may be, 'cool' does not balance things out. it reduces if not outright removes the need for dedicated units because you can make any unit into a dedicated unit and will probably be able to change it at the touch of a button at some sort of console, just like a BFR at a Repair Pad.

Personally, I'd prefer to have an option to allow players to be a dedicated driver if they so choose, and I can't really see why that shouldn't be implented, but it hasn't been yet so I'm clearly missing something. Maybe it's balance, maybe it's an issue with the engine. I just don't know but there must be a reason other than "the devs want to kill teamwork and only have solo rambo killwhores".

No, the devs want to give drivers something to do other than drive because they apparently feel there was a need for that. It's a simple design decision that can be changed at ANY POINT IN TIME, because it only requests some input from somewhere. I personally don't and never will see the need for a driver to control a turret if someone else has to sit in the back as a token player.

Btw, I never said they want to kill teamwork, just that they're not aware that they are by creating very big incentives to NOT use teamvehicles to full potential as they create other more attractive alternatives. These alternatives happen to be solo oriented.

When I saw the new Reaver for the first time, I was delighted to see what I thought was a two seater that reminded of an Apache. I was very disappointed to learn it was just another ground unit farming vehicle that could be fully modified to attack whatever you want. ie. another jack of all trades, again. I had hope the devs had learned from the huge outrage about Br40, but everything suggests they have not and since they are taking specific solo-attitude features from other games they are are contributing to the overall trends in gaming and society I described earlier.

Whether or not they realise that.

[xSlideShow]

Have you also noticed how many of those Liberators have just a pilot and use the massive armour of the Liberator for solo play?


Well to be fair, it's still not a good vehicle even on it's own.

They would fulfill the same role and then the question is which do you get? Since both have the same role, require one man, but the Lightning has its own hitpoints, its own maneuvring seperate from the main tank to get in an optimal position and some other advantages, there is no reason to pick the tank gunner position over the Lightning.

Other than if since the lightning dies so quickly that the extra armor from the tank proves better in, big group situations. And in some small group situations. I bet a liberator can slay a lightning this time around. Also for those who really like teamplay there is still the lib. It's going to be a lot better and good at kill ground.

Maybe that's kinda the team play tank. Just your in the air. Still a tank.

[Raymac]

Not at all.

Are you argueing that there are as many Liberators as there are Reavers and Mosquitos? Or would you agree that Liberators are more for the hobbyist and often end up as two men teams (pilot + bomber)? Per chance with a one aircav escort?

Have you also noticed how many of those Liberators have just a pilot and use the massive armour of the Liberator for solo play?

Oh snap.


Actually, I only saw a large increase in 1 and 2 man Libs after the population size had gone to shit. And every one of them were an easy target for any reaver or mossie, so leaving without a tailgunner was a fools errand that seems to mainly be done due to the lack of players available.

Plus, Libs to Reavers are not a fair 1 to 1 comparison anyways. That would be like you trying to say that the solo tank would be much faster and more manueverable than the driver/gunner tank, but they will be essentially equal which makes your concerns of driver/gunner combos being obsolete even less likely.

As for the Lightnings, you got me there. I guess I missed that they would be able to customize their weapon, which is silly on my part. I should have figured that out considering what we know about the other vehicles so far.

However, that still doesn't make the AA gun on a tank pointless. It could still be used as a stand alone AA unit, only with much more armor and a big ass cannon. Or like I said before, it could be used as self survival of that tank against air units. In fact, it's been argued by others on this forum that the AA gun will in fact be the "default" loadout for tanks because it makes the most sense to them. So, I think you are wrong that it will be "pointless".

I think your worries that "dedicated role" vehicles are gone is incorrect. If you customize your vehicle for a certain role, then it's dedicated to that role. A rose by any other name is still a rose. I'm pretty sure you won't be able to change your weapons on the fly in the field, so even if you have to go back to a base to change the weapons, that is no different than going back to a base to pick up a different vehicle. Hell, in PS1, you spend alot of time going back to the base just to reload.

Finally, the problem with BR40 isn't that people can do everything, it's that they can do everything at the same time. Basically, the default mossie pilot with HA/AV/Eng/Med loadout. Creating classes has effectively destroyed that problem. For example I don't think there is anything wrong with every single person being able to switch to a max suit for a gigantic max crash if you are a good enough cat herder to pull that off. But that's getting a bit off topic.

[Figment]

Hmm. Do you remember the event where specific vehicle types were removed? It gave you a very good indication which units required counters, but it also made players more... imaginative (not always in a good way) with units.

That was one of the first and only times I ever saw Galaxies being used for tower camping for instance. But when Reavers were removed, all the flyboys took up Liberators to solo.

They are not really suited to the task due to being rather sluggish, but given the opportunity (typically lack of opposition of certain kind), players immediately will exploit such armour/firepower benefits. :/


Anyway, regarding the jack-of-all-trades discussion, perhaps we should make a seperate topic for that since it is only slightly on topic?

[Raymac]

Hmm. Do you remember the event where specific vehicle types were removed? It gave you a very good indication which units required counters, but it also made players more... imaginative (not always in a good way) with units.

That was one of the first and only times I ever saw Galaxies being used for tower camping for instance. But when Reavers were removed, all the flyboys took up Liberators to solo.

They are not really suited to the task due to being rather sluggish, but given the opportunity (typically lack of opposition of certain kind), players immediately will exploit such armour/firepower benefits. :/


Anyway, regarding the jack-of-all-trades discussion, perhaps we should make a seperate topic for that since it is only slightly on topic?

I think increased customization will breed even more creativity with the vehicles, but that's just my humble opinion.

As for the BR40 jack of all trades debate, I'm sure you can dig up some thread here since that's been hashed out a number of times already. I've already said my piece on it though. You may not agree with it, and that's fine. The bottom line for me is that you can't do everything all at once anymore, so that's why I won't debate it.

[Figment]

With one vehicle certainly, but it will not be visible to other players that much and that will make it visually rather boring always seeing the same tanks.

[Raymac]

Dude, did you see the custom camo on the magriders pic? That's just a small glimpse of the visual customization they are doing. The last thing we need to worry about is this game being visually boring.

[Figment]

...

Oh yeah a camo is a really different unit to fight. Just like a TR Magrider was something really different to fight from a VS Magrider and involved really different tactics.

Come on, you know what I mean. Compare it to the diversity in tanks of world of tanks. They don't just act a tiny bit different, they look different, they hav different weaknesses, etc. In PS2 unit variety will be vary low because all roles are shared by a very few platforms. Variety within units will be relatively high.

[Raymac]

Different secondary weapons.

Then you say, planetside 1 had more dedicated vehicles.

Than I say, weapon customization does same thing.

Then you say, they look the same.

Then I say, look at the visuals.

Then you say, there's a hole in the bucket.

Then I say, then fix it dear henry.

[xSlideShow]

Nothing about balance from PS1 applies to this game.

[Raymac]

Come on, you know what I mean. Compare it to the diversity in tanks of world of tanks. They don't just act a tiny bit different, they look different, they hav different weaknesses, etc. In PS2 unit variety will be vary low because all roles are shared by a very few platforms. Variety within units will be relatively high.

Well sure, at launch there will be fewer primary vehicles, but each one will be customizable as far as speed, armor, weapons, etc. That's quite a bit of variety which will require different tactics. So what if you can't tell it's specific strengths and weaknesses at first glance from a distance. I had to deal with that as a pilot all the time trying to figure out if that reaver was a friendly or not.

Plus isn't it safe to assume they will add content after launch?

[Figment]

Plus isn't it safe to assume they will add content after launch?

Question is what content would have to be added that isn't covered already by something else?

The more variation you add, the less you can vary in vehicles because all niches are filled...

[Xyntech]

That was one of the first and only times I ever saw Galaxies being used for tower camping for instance. But when Reavers were removed, all the flyboys took up Liberators to solo.

They are not really suited to the task due to being rather sluggish, but given the opportunity (typically lack of opposition of certain kind), players immediately will exploit such armour/firepower benefits. :/

This may be a reason why soloable MBT's will actually be balanced. If they balance them right, it could be that lightning > solo MBT in a fight.

Lightning was certainly not useless in PS1, but I always felt that it was slightly underpowered. Certainly you could have a swarm of them come in and dominate, but that's true for most things. Superior numbers and tactics can make even a suboptimal vehicle be effective.

Reavers certainly had more than their share of being overpowered, but I think that their dynamic against Liberators are an interesting one. A multi-man Liberator could decimate things in ways that a Reaver could only dream about. A solo Liberator was pretty dangerous as well, except for the fact that it was so vulnerable to enemy aircraft.

If they manage to make Lightnings be the superior solo tank, with solo MBT's being an option, but often a bad one, balance may still be achieved. Of course, balancing aircraft is a lot different than balancing tanks, but tweaking things like vehicle turn speed and main gun turn speed could be viable options.

Maybe Lightnings will be one of the major new tank hunters. Using superior speed, turn rate and turret rotation speed, they may be able to lay waste to a solo MBT's vulnerable rear end.

Of course that only addresses making solo MBT's less appealing. Obviously you also want to make 2 man MBT's be worth their while and avoid turning the game into Lightningside, but still, I think that the Liberator offers some interesting insight into ways that the new MBT's could remain balanced.

Question is what content would have to be added that isn't covered already by something else?

The more variation you add, the less you can vary in vehicles because all niches are filled...

Yet an MBT or a Sunderer will never be able to travel very fast, no matter how much you upgrade their speed. A Lightning will never be able to carry passengers.

Adding something like an ES buggy that maybe has a few extra passenger slots to make it like a cross between a buggy and a Deliverer could still add a healthy new dynamic to the battlefield.

It's not just about being able to fill a niche, it's also about how many niches you can fill at once or in what combination.

Things like different combinations of turn rates, acceleration, top speed, armor, locational armor, firepower, abilities, passenger slots, targets (AA, AI, AV), resistances (AA, AI, AV), etc., all make for varied uses.

You could have every role that absolutely must be filled be already filled when the game launches, but still have room for valuable new additions. Look at PS1. The game didn't launch with a dedicated bomber, but it got the Liberator shortly after launch. The game wasn't hurt by it's absence, but it was certainly a valuable contribution to the game.

The just have to make sure that there are no glaring gaps when the game launches, and make sure that any new additions are valuable new parts of the game.

I hope they spend what time they need to make sure that buggies are more useful than they were in the first game. They were a lot of fun in PS1 and had their uses (especially the Skyguard), but I want to see them a lot more on par with the usefulness of ES fighters, or ES MBT's, or anything else in the game.

I don't want to see a lot of underpowered crap in the game. Maybe a token weapon or two, so that we can laugh when we kill someone with it, but for the most part I'd like everything to get a lot of use.

[Captain1nsaneo]

Reavers certainly had more than their share of being overpowered, but I think that their dynamic against Liberators are an interesting one. A multi-man Liberator could decimate things in ways that a Reaver could only dream about. A solo Liberator was pretty dangerous as well, except for the fact that it was so vulnerable to enemy aircraft.

*Diatribe on why I love libs and why libs are awesome and why you're wrong*

Interested to see how they're going to change things as it's no longer a bomber and no longer a 3 man vehicle. This may be to turn the lib more into the Vulture's anti-armor role and give the anti-infantry role to ES fighters. If this is the intent it lines up with their removing of the bombs as trying to hit a vehicle that was moving with a bomb was harder than killing someone with the radiator. Hope to learn more about my favorite vehicle soon. (it's tied with galaxy for favorite, I can't pick just one)

I don't see why there is so much fuss over effective 1 man MBTs, yes it will change the dynamic but they are capable of being balanced and fun. Will it hurt teamplay? Yes, but ES fighters will hurt teamplay far more just like they did in Planetside. This whole topic is just talking into a hole until we have our hands on them during beta at which time arguments will be able to draw from more things than philosophy and speculation.

In the end it doesn't matter if it helps teamplay or is effective but if it is fun.
E.g. Thresher, 19 times out of 20 a Mag would have been better for the fight but gosh darn it, it was fun!

[xSlideShow]

*Diatribe on why I love libs and why libs are awesome and why you're wrong*

Interested to see how they're going to change things as it's no longer a bomber and no longer a 3 man vehicle.

Link me where the took the 3 man away. That's upsetting :\

[CutterJohn]

Question is what content would have to be added that isn't covered already by something else?

The more variation you add, the less you can vary in vehicles because all niches are filled...

Lodestar type vehicle.

Buggies, though to really differentiate them and give them a valid purpose(that they never had in PS1) you'll have to make them even faster. I'd say they should all hover, tbh, and perform like the tanks in the battlezone games. Could get some wicked air with them, and were incredibly fun to drive.

artillery units

A heavy tank with 5 gunner seats would be sweet.

attack helo style air units, with the gunner controlling a nose turret. Unless the lib has that.. *crosses fingers*

Oh, and then of course they could add water maps and an entire range of naval units, and space maps with a range of space units, etc, creating widely divergent playstyles depending on what map you were on rather than trying to shoehorn new niches into existing gameplay.

[Figment]

Lodestar type vehicle.

Buggies, though to really differentiate them and give them a valid purpose(that they never had in PS1) you'll have to make them even faster. I'd say they should all hover, tbh, and perform like the tanks in the battlezone games. Could get some wicked air with them, and were incredibly fun to drive.

artillery units

A heavy tank with 5 gunner seats would be sweet.

attack helo style air units, with the gunner controlling a nose turret. Unless the lib has that.. *crosses fingers*

Oh, and then of course they could add water maps and an entire range of naval units, and space maps with a range of space units, etc, creating widely divergent playstyles depending on what map you were on rather than trying to shoehorn new niches into existing gameplay.

That's not a lot.

[CutterJohn]

That's not a lot.

How many do you expect there to be?

MOAR VEHICLES! will not make a bad game better.

[Captain1nsaneo]

Link me where the took the 3 man away. That's upsetting :

Well it doesn't seem to be in the UK gaming article which isn't in the media archive that also included our first look at the prowler.:


I've got a quick scan here (1 (http://s643.photobucket.com/albums/uu157/cardiffgreens/PC%20Gamer/?action=view&current=PS2_pcgamer001.jpg) | 2 (http://s643.photobucket.com/albums/uu157/cardiffgreens/PC%20Gamer/?action=view&current=PS2_pcgamer002.jpg) | 3 (http://s643.photobucket.com/albums/uu157/cardiffgreens/PC%20Gamer/?action=view&current=PS2_pcgamer003.jpg) | 4 (http://s643.photobucket.com/albums/uu157/cardiffgreens/PC%20Gamer/?action=view&current=PS2_pcgamer004.jpg) | 5 (http://s643.photobucket.com/albums/uu157/cardiffgreens/PC%20Gamer/?action=view&current=PS2_pcgamer005.jpg) | 6 (http://s643.photobucket.com/albums/uu157/cardiffgreens/PC%20Gamer/?action=view&current=PS2_pcgamer006.jpg)) - I'll type some key points up when I return from my evening stroll (since I know some of the text is cropped from the edges of the pages =( ).

If the links don't work (highly likely, due to my stupid fingers - the album is here (http://s643.photobucket.com/albums/uu157/cardiffgreens/PC%20Gamer/)) hopefully no one will have my balls in a vice for such blatent copyright infringement =P


But I'm not the only one who remembers it according to google.

BUT APPARENTLY I'M WRONG!
https://twitter.com/#!/brewkops/status/130065679658397696
WOOT! Still a 3-man!

[CutterJohn]

Thats sad. Lib should be 2 man. That back gunner seat was *boooooooooooooooring*. Almost impossible to find people for it.

Unless its more like the GG, and each gunner just covers a side arc or something.. that would be nifty.

[Zulthus]

Thats sad. Lib should be 2 man. That back gunner seat was *boooooooooooooooring*. Almost impossible to find people for it.

Unless its more like the GG, and each gunner just covers a side arc or something.. that would be nifty.

The tailgunner was still pretty necessary if you wanted to stay in the air for an extended amount of time. Sadly it seemed no one knew how to aim it effectively.

[Xyntech]

I have to say I'm actually somewhat surprised that it is still 3 man. Everything else seems to be going towards 2 man, passenger slots aside.

[Khellendros]

The tailgunner was still pretty necessary if you wanted to stay in the air for an extended amount of time. Sadly it seemed no one knew how to aim it effectively.

When I couldn't get to friendlies for help, I often turned to dogfight my attacker with my lib. Won a good deal of those dogfights, heh. The thing about the tailgunner was that it was a challenge for the pilot to keep the enemy air in view of it, since it couldn't aim up from the long axis of the lib.

I really wanna see/hear more about the lib as I'm still not sure if I'm gonna fly it in PS2. I want to, because it was my second skin in PS1.

[Figment]

How many do you expect there to be?

MOAR VEHICLES! will not make a bad game better.

I expect there to be more roles that are not shared among vehicle platforms to make it more interesting and varied gameplay. Rather than sharing all roles among all vehicle platforms because it cuts down on development time.

And not defining vehicle roles and niches properly will lead to confusion, disregard and improper use, not to mention generalised playstyles.

Defining the function of a unit is very important as is making it recognizable for others. It makes all the difference to how you can handle or approach such a unit. If everything looks the same from a distance, it is going to be very annoying and very boring over time because these situations cannot vary a lot. Even with some tweaked stats, they will still handle and be handled approximately the same, where as if you have more platforms you have room for alternative combinations of vehicles to create more strategies and combine different advantages and disadvantages. Some overlap is fine, but I'd rather they are distinct vehicles, that can be tweaked than jacks of all trades platforms which you you customize for the situation each fight at the touch of a button. Handy for the user, but IMO that will become rather annoying gameplay wise as someone you just had the advantage over as a paper (AV vs air) platform, suddenly has changed at a vehicle term to a scissors platform (AA vs air) during your second pass. How easy it will be to switch remains to be seen of course, but such situations will probably occur a lot around base fights.


Still, there can already be huge differences between just light, medium and heavy tanks and they can differ even greater depending on the armour plating thickness and angles you provide them, their turret, viewing systems etc. Two unit platforms to cover ALL OF THESE roles on top of roles that are not traditional tanking roles is very little. If you only use one basic platform, your options are becoming very limited, regardless on whether you can get a small armour buff or change the colour of the headlights. I presume they will be using multiple hitboxes on the new vehicles to dedicate weakspots, which will mean you'll be aiming at the same weakspots over and over even against tanks of different roles. That's a bit boring as it is predictable, not?

Compare with World of Tanks where every tank has completely different hitboxes, engine locations, plating setup, periscopes or not, big or small turrets, heavily reinforced or light turrets and hulls, big weight and low weight to engine ratios, etc. Those units each behave in their own unique way and each is modified with modules making each behave different with different loadouts. Basically we will only get a couple of those whereas there you got dozens of tanks that each play differently and play even more differently when you load different modules. Each unit has different weakspots you can make use of and here they'll be pretty much the same every time (if there is such a thing as vehicle hitboxes at all).

In PS you don't need as many platforms as in WoT, but I find it annoying that a one crew vehicle like the Lightning already removed the Skyguard niche and a dual crew vehicle at that.

[Raymac]

Does World of Tanks have light and heavy infantry? Max units? Fighter jets? Air transports? Air gunships?

Sure they have a wide variety of tanks, but the name of the damn game is "World of Tanks", so of course they do.

Fact is, Planetside 2 will have a good variety of units at launch and will likely add more units over time. Then when you factor in the level of customization not only in loadouts but visually, well hell the game is going to have waayyy more variety than the original.

You seem to be stuck on this idea that we are only going to see 1 or 2 "default" units in the game, but that just sounds really unlikely to me.

[Figment]

Why would they add more units? They covered everything already with variants of two. The variety of units at launch will be far less than in PS1 because they started mixing roles into jack of all trades vehicles and that made the need to add more later a redundancy thing.


Ask yourself why the Skyguard existed: because NO GROUND VEHICLE had an AA role. Now we already have two.

Why did the Harasser exist? AI.

Was it used? No. Why not? Other units were better at AI.

So why add an AI buggy now?

[Raymac]

So you think they arn't going to add any more units after launch? OK, guy. Sure. :rolleyes:

[Figment]

So you think they arn't going to add any more units after launch? OK, guy. Sure. :rolleyes:

You have this weird tendency to not really understand an argument, don't you? Where did I say none? I said I don't see a lot of niches that haven't been covered multiple times already including all variations there of through customization of basic specs (speed/armour/firepower), thus there is not a lot of room for more, is there? As such I said I see little reason to add more. No way does that equal none at all.

[CutterJohn]

I expect there to be more roles that are not shared among vehicle platforms to make it more interesting and varied gameplay. Rather than sharing all roles among all vehicle platforms because it cuts down on development time.

K. We can do that. I vote infantry gives up AV capability. Can't have everyone able to do everything, now can we!

[Raymac]

Why would they add more units? They covered everything already with variants of two.

Yeah, I wonder where would I get the idea that you said they wouldn't add more units?

Do you have issues with short term memory? :lol:

[Figment]

My word the two of you are really starting to look foolish now. :/

For the record, here are some vehicle designs they might have actually based some of these ideas of since I posted them (for PS1) on PS Idealabs.

Note how I made these such that they do not have the exact same roles or benefits as other vehicles and require gunners to use to compensate for their power. My implementation is obviously different from these devs as I leave plenty of room for other niche vehicles, be they lighter or heavier, by giving them specific weaknesses you can't remove by changing the setup of the tank.

Of course these are designed within the PS1 context.

Taken from this thread: http://comms.planetsidesyndicate.com/showthread.php?t=4290

Warpath - Heavy Tank:

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Planetside%20Vehicle%20Concepts/WarpathTank.jpg

Vehicle Role: Heavy Assault Tank

Armor: 1.5-1.8x a Vanguard.

Crew and weaponry:
• Driver: none
• Gunner 1: Dual 100mm Cannons
• Gunner 2: Defensive Short/Medium Range Flak(let) cannon
• Gunner 3: 15 mm Frontmounted Machinegun

Top Speed: 55

Handling: Mediocre to Poor

Trunk Capacity: 19x 11

PSU note: compared to other tanks bigger crew req. to have all guns, but increased armour makes it interesting none the less. Has many disadvantages due to weakspots and agility issues. Complete teamvehicle with supportive role, rather than solo-pwnage role. It is designed to push, hence the forward aimed 15 mm, that can't be used to defend the sides, thus requiring cover from other units.

Porcupine - AA Tank:

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Planetside%20Vehicle%20Concepts/Porcupine.jpg

PSU note: Gunner has just a line of sight, high angle machine gun AA Turret: does not infringe on normal tank, not effective against infantry and does not have flak advantage like Skyguard.

Crocodile - Amphibious Tank:

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Planetside%20Vehicle%20Concepts/CrocNC.jpg

PSU note: has completely different balance from Thunderer and Deliverer (decent armour + weak gun vs medium armour and powerful guns)

Messenger - Amphibious Light Vehicle Transport

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Planetside%20Vehicle%20Concepts/MessengerNC.jpg

PSU Note: does not infringe on roles of Sunderer variants or Lodestar

Parasite - Personal Aerial Transport

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Planetside%20Vehicle%20Concepts/Parasite.jpg

Pondering on giving the Parasite a Laze Pointer for scouting purposes.

PSU note: Was intended to split up scout and solo transport role from fighter role from Mosquito (Mosquito pilot would have been reduced to standard suit only and lost ground radar).

Cavalier tank - Medium Common Pool Battle Tank
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Planetside%20Vehicle%20Concepts/CavalierTank.jpg

PSU note: this is a tank with more jack of all trade ability, but is far less powerful than a normal ES mbt and an inbetween between mbt and Lightning. At all times requires gunner, flak does not have same range or clipsize as Skyguard flak. It therefore is a choice to make between solo and two for getting power and it is there to support other tanks and give you more chance in no tech setting. MBT would be choice with tech. Lightning without second crew member available and Skyguard would still be the better AA defense.

Vanquish - ES or CP tank destroyer

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Planetside%20Vehicle%20Concepts/VanquishTankDestroyer.jpg

PSU note: Trade off with MBT is that it lacks a turret, but has a more powerful gun. Extremely weak against agile units. Designed to take out heavy tanks and BFRs. Very specific role similar to Fury, but very different gameplay.

[Kouza]

.

[Raymac]

Different secondary weapons.

Then you say, planetside 1 had more dedicated vehicles.

Than I say, weapon customization does same thing.

Then you say, they look the same.

Then I say, look at the visuals.

Then you say, there's a hole in the bucket.

Then I say, then fix it dear henry.

I told you this would happen. We can go round and round forever. I'll let you have the last word though to make you feel better, but I'm out.

[Figment]

Considering you don't seem to want to see the difference between a different vehicle platform and a different vehicle variant, yeah...

[CutterJohn]

But you don't want to see how different platforms can perform better at different niches.

So they have 2 multifunction ground vehicles. Cool. They can add a third, fourth, fifth, etc. Sure they can all do AA, AV, AI, etc, but that doesn't mean they will be equivalent. The weapons they can fit will have different characteristics, and the vehicles themselves will have characteristics that lend themselves to one situation better than another.

Maybe the lightning AA is best vs aircav, while the APCs AA is best vs libs, and the buggies is a solid mix of the two but has a crappier range, and the medium tank AA pulls double duty as an AV/AA weapon but excels at neither, which is completely opposite of the heavy tanks AA which can't even be aimed level with the ground making it crap vs vehicles.

No? Its all going to suck because its ok for nearly every single vehicle to shoot at vehicles, but if they can shoot at air its broken?

[Aractain]

I always found it funny how... elite? the flyboys are. As if thier special little flyflys have to be protected like endagered animals. :P

Also long as the AA is not dumb (lock on lock on lock on beep beep beep FAIL! I want interesting, skill based AA this time guys, no really.) aircraft and tanks should be pretty close a match up otherwise you just get boring air > everything again.

[Figment]

But you don't want to see how different platforms can perform better at different niches.

Uhm... If you say this, you've not understood one bit of the argument. :/ The whole point is that different platforms SHOULD be better at different niches than one specific platform that can be customized because otherwise there is no need for multiple platforms!

So how can you possibly come to the conclusion I don't "want to see this"?! It's exactly what I WANT to see!

So they have 2 multifunction ground vehicles. Cool. They can add a third, fourth, fifth, etc. Sure they can all do AA, AV, AI, etc, but that doesn't mean they will be equivalent. The weapons they can fit will have different characteristics, and the vehicles themselves will have characteristics that lend themselves to one situation better than another.

And again you are way behind in the discussion because we been there, discussed this and explained you the advantages of the one in comparison to the other and what these characteristics would have to be to make the gunner interesting.

Maybe the lightning AA is best vs aircav, while the APCs AA is best vs libs, and the buggies is a solid mix of the two but has a crappier range, and the medium tank AA pulls double duty as an AV/AA weapon but excels at neither, which is completely opposite of the heavy tanks AA which can't even be aimed level with the ground making it crap vs vehicles.

Terribly unlikely to divide the roles up like that and doesn't sound like that from the way Higby described them either. They make them omniversal and "no joke" to actually make them more limited while their goal was to make them more independent? Ehr... no. It seems you have an awfully hard time understanding the core of the discussion tbh. :/ Do you even know what the discussion regarding advantages and disadvantages and using separate units is about?

Have you ever participated in a mathematical Raider analysis discussion? As in, damage over time discussions, multiple scenarios, TTK differences, etc.?

No? Its all going to suck because its ok for nearly every single vehicle to shoot at vehicles, but if they can shoot at air its broken?

This is just a facepalm moment. You completely failed to see the whole point of the core of the debate, no wonder you continuously disagree.

To make you understand I'd probably have to go back to the beginning and start from scratch, because you don't seem to even understand the very basics of the manpower efficiency discussion, which is what this is about. Vehicle roles becoming obsolete is directly related to THAT, not just because a unit may have multiple roles. The best way to handle this though is by splitting up niches and allow only minor overlap, where non dedicated platforms should never be as powerful as another, because then they make them obsolete. But very well, here we go again:


Considering the MBT gunner's AA/AI/AV weapon is going to have be very powerful in relation to the Lightning AA/AI/AV to be a viable alternative is what makes this role overlap a problem: either the gunner will have to be pointless, or the tank will have to be overpowered.


Do you understand WHY a MBT gunner would have to be very powerful in relation a Lightning unit? And do you understand WHY this situation either makes the gunner OR the Lightning AA pointless in such a case? If not, therein lies the problem of our disagreement because you simply don't recognise the problem due to lack of experience with unit balancing.

A problem, which would not exist if the gunner had access to BOTH weapons, because then the AA gunner would not HAVE to be as powerful as the Lightning AA to become interesting: he'd have the powerful AV gun too to use and the manpower requirement of two would compensate for the overall power of the gunner/driver combo.

Do you understand that part of the discussion? If so, we can move on. If not and you don't recognise the problem, we have nothing more to discuss. Try to think of WHY I am saying these things though. Make some combinations of units, add up hypothetical but likely hitpoints, strategic options and other benefits and then see when you'd actually choose the gunner position as the best alternative. It won't be very often when you have one or more much more interesting choices to increase your team's TTK over the gunner situation and I hope you come to the conclusion fully customizable solo platforms where the driver is the gunner provide just that better alternative to anything due to firepower/hitpoints/other benefits per player.

[CutterJohn]

Terribly unlikely to divide the roles up like that and doesn't sound like that from the way Higby described them either. They make them omniversal and "no joke" to actually make them more limited while their goal was to make them more independent? Ehr... no. It seems you have an awfully hard time understanding the core of the discussion tbh. :/ Do you even know what the discussion regarding advantages and disadvantages and using separate units is about?

Umm.. Thats how they did AV weapon balance. Simple example. The magriders rail beam. No joke. The vanguards 150mm. Also no joke. One was pinpoint accurate, and had a crazy effective range, but didn't do much damage. The other had a very wide splash, and did crazy damage, but was not so useful at long range. Two AV weapons. Both were not a joke at all. Both had their own particular niche.

Btw, you know whats less likely than this? Them abandoning their ideas for customization.


either the gunner will have to be pointless, or the tank will have to be overpowered.

Hmm.. The tank seems to be useless. I will bump the damage up by 1 point. Still useless. 1 more point of damage. Nope. 1 more? OH MY GOD ITS OVERPOWERED! NOTHING ELSE WILL EVER BE USED AGAIN!!! OH THE HUMANITY!!11!!1!!!1!

Amazing how it is completely impossible to make things balanced. A single point of damage represents the difference between hopelessly incompetent, and completely, game-breakingly overpowered.

You're right. The only viable solution is to make each vehicle have a gun that is capable of shooting only one type of target. Specialization ftw!


It won't be very often when you have one or more much more interesting choices to increase your team's TTK over the gunner situation and I hope you come to the conclusion fully customizable solo platforms where the driver is the gunner provide just that better alternative to anything due to firepower/hitpoints/other benefits per player.

So your contention is that the liberator will never be used?

[Figment]

Are you just trolling?

[Hamma]

Are you just trolling?

Looks like he is debating you.. :)

Rather than posting that, why not rebut his comment.

[Zulthus]

Although I don't say it much, I'm with CutterJohn on this one. Figment, you're not a bad dude, but 70% of your posts are telling people that they obviously don't understand the point of the discussion.

[Figment]

Looks like he is debating you.. :)

Rather than posting that, why not rebut his comment.

Rebute what? I see him debate something entirely different and irrelevant again and pretending I said or want something entirely different and irrelevant than is the case and has been expressed over the past pages.

@Zulthus: Unfortunately, it's true. I did not deny the use of Liberators now and then, quite the opposite, I pointed out the way they were used. Cutterjohn turned this into "I saw one flying, so I'm right and you are wrong". Something he did a few pages back as well: completely failing to comprehend the argument made. Indeed I spoke of Liberator, Prowler, Raider and Marauder, but not in terms of never being used, but in terms of one of their seats not being interesting to use. Spending full manpower in comparison to alternatives is not interesting enough and even if these seats are used at times, you will see other choices (alternative vehicles with more power to the individual) being much more common.

Which is what happened on a daily basis in PS: it being VERY HARD to get someone interested in specific gunner seats, because there are better alternatives to spend that manpower per player. Which is particularly true when certain roles overlap, because then you have more easily comparable alternatives.

That some people live in denial of this, nor seem to understand this argument after 12 pages of discussion, means I can't ever call such people out on not understanding the point being made when an argument that wasn't even made but based on something someone wrongly interpreted is being "rebuted" with false arguments? Unfortunately it happens a lot, but 70% of my posts is a bit much as it is only two or three people who repeatedly fail to understand.

I mean, first he said I said or meant the whole Liberator was not ever being used. Which is absolutely false and completely misses the point. He argues something regarding customization having to be removed according to me, which again is false: I'm talking about removing the gunner role from the driver to make balancing easier and reduce the manpower efficiency problem. In doing so it keeps the game more social and less lone wolf as it forces players to work together, rather than giving them the option to solo or work together. Because if you CAN solo, you will ALWAYS play more solo than if you don't have that option - such as aircav do: solo or team-solo as they don't always need to team up if they are the only people of their outfit online. Something also not understood by someone else, mind you. Some solo play is always more and thus less social than not ever playing solo. Regardless if you CAN work with a friend as a solo vehicle user, giving examples of multi-unit teamwork is therefore irrelevant since that is exactly why we say the two crew vehicle will be used for soloing... Proving us right by giving such examples and then claiming to have countered our argument regarding teamwork doesn't exactly mean you understand the core of the debate, does it?

Then he goes on to say that if you add a point of damage or what not to a weapon, it suddenly would become OP according to us. Though that can happen in balancing, that again misses the point entirely: when something is a dedicated one man gunner weapon, it has to be made at least as powerful as a dedicated one man AA platform to be interesting enough to use. That would however mean that the two crew vehicle would be a MUCH better option than the dedicated AA platform as it would have a lot more endurance + firepower that equals the AA dedicated platform. At that point one would start to question the use of that dedicated AA platform. And at that point you are infringing through customization on other dedicated platforms. The inverse is true if that dedicated gunner is weaker than the dedicated AA, because then the gunner spot is useless in terms of manpower spending as you get less firepower for the same dedicated AA player.

Basically, he is unable to differentiate with the significance of the difference between a side-arm and a main weapon. He is unable to understand why a side-arm is allowed to be less powerful if you also have control of the main weapon, but not if it is a main weapon for a player on its own. You can say what you want, but he simply doesn't get the point.

And what's worse, Cutterjohn somehow made this a supposed argument against using AA on a vehicle in general. Which is odd, considering I posted an AA tank concept, a medium tank with a gunner with Flaklet as secondary weapon and an amphibous tank with a possible Flaklet a page earlier (!). So how he comes to that conclusion is beyond me, unless he really just misses the point of the debate. Which he does.

Sorry, but it is my opinion that if someone doesn't understand the point he is argueing, he should be called out on it. One should try to first see if he misinterpreted something and then come back to the debate.

[CutterJohn]

Then he goes on to say that if you add a point of damage or what not to a weapon, it suddenly would become OP according to us. Though that can happen in balancing, that again misses the point entirely: when something is a dedicated one man gunner weapon, it has to be made at least as powerful as a dedicated one man AA platform to be interesting enough to use. That would however mean that the two crew vehicle would be a MUCH better option than the dedicated AA platform as it would have a lot more endurance + firepower that equals the AA dedicated platform. At that point one would start to question the use of that dedicated AA platform. And at that point you are infringing through customization on other dedicated platforms. The inverse is true if that dedicated gunner is weaker than the dedicated AA, because then the gunner spot is useless in terms of manpower spending as you get less firepower for the same dedicated AA player.

Your claim was that only one of two conditions could possibly exist. Far too useful, or completely useless. Period. Absolutely nothing else. You were quite clear on this subject.

Here, lets refresh your memory.

either the gunner will have to be pointless, or the tank will have to be overpowered.

My little thought experiment with 1 damage was to show the absurdity of such a claim, and I feel it does so quite well.

Your assertion that one or the other is true is precisely your issue. You cannot, or refuse to(my vote, since you disregarded it last time I mentioned it), fathom a situation where each has pros and cons, and there is no clear 'best'. You are imagining the weapons to be precisely identical in all respects, differing only in damage potential. So long as you continue believing that, you will think there can only be one clear best.

Even if they are identical, both will still be used, since they have different pros and cons. A guy gunning tank AA will be more effective at AA than driving a lightning since he can focus, but if both players are in lightnings, they will be more effective overall, due to having 2 people with eyes towards the sky.



As for AA, I bring it up because thats the only thing that could possibly bring this argument on. Every single combat vehicle in PS was capable of engaging ground vehicles and infantry. Every last one. They did this in wildly different fashions, as I illustrated with the Railgun and 150mm examples, but of course there were plenty more, such as the Threshers firehose, the ground pounder, the reaver rockets, the enforcer rockets, the 30mm, the bombs, the flail arty, the.. well, everything, pretty much.

Now. We've established that virtually every combat unit is capable of engaging in AV and AI work, and we've established that they do so by using different methods, with different quirks, behaviors, and capabilities of the vehicle. All of this is fine, and normal, and raises no eyebrows.

Add AA to the mix, and suddenly niches become a HUGE deal. In fact, I not you've never once worried that the comparable av or ai capabilities. Interesting, that. Not a single worry about how lightning AV compares to tank AV, or AI.


Also you fail to understand the point about the liberator(which, humorously, you seem fine with as a vehicle), and indeed proceed to talk, in the very next sentence, about removing the driver gun from tanks to promote teamwork. I find this extremely humorous, since the Liberator's pilot will control a very potent cannon, despite being a 3 man vehicle, as they did in PS1.

I now follow Raymacs fine example and wash my hands of this affair. I look forward to having fun in beta. I fear you'll have worked yourself up over nothing.

[Raymac]

In doing so it keeps the game more social and less lone wolf as it forces players to work together, rather than giving them the option to solo or work together.

OK, I lied. I wanted to chime in just 1 more time because I think the line that I quoted is really the root of the debate and the point in which we can agree to disagree.

I can understand the viewpoint of wanting to "force" players to work together. I, however, disagree with that philosophy. I'd rather not have the game "force" teamwork, but rather "encourage" teamwork. Will that result in more solo play? I'm sure it will, but it won't destroy teamwork for others.

It is my humble opinion that if you don't "force" your will of a certain style of gameplay, then you open up the game to a larger number of players (i.e. casual players with shorter play sessions), and I feel that having a larger number of players for Planetside 2 is a goal that trumps most others. I can understand somebody not wanting a certain "type" of player in "their" game, but Planetside 2 needs a larger population more than any other game ever made.

So, Figment, I offer up a peace branch that on this point, we can agree to disagree and move on.

[Azren]

No damnit, keep going!

All of you had interesting points and all three of you were right.

But who's the 'rightest'! :eek:

Does it really matter? The dice are cast. Drivers get the guns, end of debate.

[Figment]

OK, I lied. I wanted to chime in just 1 more time because I think the line that I quoted is really the root of the debate and the point in which we can agree to disagree.

I can understand the viewpoint of wanting to "force" players to work together. I, however, disagree with that philosophy. I'd rather not have the game "force" teamwork, but rather "encourage" teamwork. Will that result in more solo play? I'm sure it will, but it won't destroy teamwork for others.

It is my humble opinion that if you don't "force" your will of a certain style of gameplay, then you open up the game to a larger number of players (i.e. casual players with shorter play sessions), and I feel that having a larger number of players for Planetside 2 is a goal that trumps most others. I can understand somebody not wanting a certain "type" of player in "their" game, but Planetside 2 needs a larger population more than any other game ever made.

So, Figment, I offer up a peace branch that on this point, we can agree to disagree and move on.

That's fair enough. I don't think it would chase anyone away though, but that's your perogative.

[Figment]

Your claim was that only one of two conditions could possibly exist. Far too useful, or completely useless. Period. Absolutely nothing else. You were quite clear on this subject.

Here, lets refresh your memory.

[...]

My little thought experiment with 1 damage was to show the absurdity of such a claim, and I feel it does so quite well.

Glad I was and I maintain that pov. because we're talking about significant differences in endurance here between a main battle tank and a light tank frame and 50% manpower.

Your assertion that one or the other is true is precisely your issue. You cannot, or refuse to(my vote, since you disregarded it last time I mentioned it), fathom a situation where each has pros and cons, and there is no clear 'best'. You are imagining the weapons to be precisely identical in all respects, differing only in damage potential. So long as you continue believing that, you will think there can only be one clear best.

Actually I'm merely stating there cannot be an equilibrium between the two reached.

Even if they are identical, both will still be used, since they have different pros and cons. A guy gunning tank AA will be more effective at AA than driving a lightning since he can focus, but if both players are in lightnings, they will be more effective overall, due to having 2 people with eyes towards the sky.

The problem lies not with two Lightnings, it lies in a Lightning and a MBT with just the driver (as primary AV gunner). The problem situation is about how to do AV and AA, or AV and AV or AV and AI, where two people are available. At least one person will use a MBT, the question is whether the second user will opt to gun, given the alternatives of two MBTs or one MBT and another unit. The use of two Lightnings is irrelevant to the debate whether a driver of a two crew vehicle should be able to gun.


I would like to stress that if the driver would have the secondary gun or an even lesser gun in comparison to its gunner, the problem we're talking about would not exist. The problem exists on the basis of the driver controlling the primary firepower of the tank with at least 50% of the damage output.

As for AA, I bring it up because thats the only thing that could possibly bring this argument on. Every single combat vehicle in PS was capable of engaging ground vehicles and infantry. Every last one. They did this in wildly different fashions, as I illustrated with the Railgun and 150mm examples, but of course there were plenty more, such as the Threshers firehose, the ground pounder, the reaver rockets, the enforcer rockets, the 30mm, the bombs, the flail arty, the.. well, everything, pretty much.

Agreed. The sole reason I have been concentrating AA as the main example is because it is the most likely type with truly added value. This is because its role is completely different from the AV main gun (infantry is much easier to hit and kill, even with a weak AV gun than aircraft is, AV is clearly better done by two tanks).

Now. We've established that virtually every combat unit is capable of engaging in AV and AI work, and we've established that they do so by using different methods, with different quirks, behaviors, and capabilities of the vehicle. All of this is fine, and normal, and raises no eyebrows.

Here we disagree significantly, because there are plenty of examples of vehicles in PlanetSide that lost their niche role or the niche role of spots within their tank to other vehicles. Harasser, Raider, Marauder, Prowler and Liberator are the best examples of this. The Sunderer's transport role was infringed upon heavily as well.

This is what we fear will happen once more. To see such a thing happen to each ES MBT would be rather sad.

Add AA to the mix, and suddenly niches become a HUGE deal. In fact, I not you've never once worried that the comparable av or ai capabilities. Interesting, that. Not a single worry about how lightning AV compares to tank AV, or AI.

HOLD IT! That is an outright lie! Go back to the first posts I made here, read the thread on the official PlanetSide forums and notice just how wrong you are here! See above why AA is singled out. For both AV and AV we said you'd get two MBTs instead of one when you have two people. For AI, we ALSO said you'd get two MBTs instead of one when you have two people, because one AI gun can NEVER compensate for the armour and main gun of two MBTs with regards to damage over time.

Also you fail to understand the point about the liberator(which, humorously, you seem fine with as a vehicle), and indeed proceed to talk, in the very next sentence, about removing the driver gun from tanks to promote teamwork. I find this extremely humorous, since the Liberator's pilot will control a very potent cannon, despite being a 3 man vehicle, as they did in PS1.

I've not made any value judgements about the PS2 Liberator at all in this thread. I did state in another thread that I'm very weary about Gunships in general, whereas the role of the PS1 Liberator had a much better defined own niche: attacking slow moving and stationary targets and clusters of infantry. However, the Liberator over time became largely obsolete.

Please also note that in air-to-ground use the second seat (bomber) is very interesting to man as the 35 mm can not be used against ground targets at all from high altitudes, which other aircraft can not in some situations either. This gives it its own niche. Similarly its nose gun, agility and armour are not enough to take on heavy vehicles such as tanks or BFRs alone, but if piloted right the bomber can. Neither is good at anti-fast vehicle, which is more the Reaver's role. This means it 'forces' (or 'encourages') the pilot to make sure the bomber gets in the right position aka teamwork. And it's a great mechanic. The gun of the Lib pilot is therefore a secondary weapon mostly used in aerial combat in defense or pursuit of other heavy aircraft, it not being agile enough to dogfight against good pilots. So despite being pilot controlled - as you may have read above, that is fine with me due to the disadvantages and context - it is not attractive for soloing, whereas a MBT main gun will always be. The third seat is the one that has least advantages and is most situational. Therefore despite being a 35 mm as well, it is the first seat to be 'dropped' in favour of other units. I hope this makes the argument more clear to you, rather than funny.

A few years back balance was much more in its favour, pre-BFR AA, pre-Wasp, Wall Turret AA, Gal Gunship and pre-Reaver buff. The aforementioned changes in gameplay made three players in a Liberator poor use of manpower. But I guess you need more explanation: the rear gunner could not cope with the Wasp range and heavier Reaver, thus you could better use another solo aircav as rear cover. The increase in lock on and long distance flak AA made Liberators near flight ceiling coffins of doom. The number of Liberator users has since dropped significantly in favour of aircav and crews were typically reduced in number as well.

I now follow Raymacs fine example and wash my hands of this affair. I look forward to having fun in beta. I fear you'll have worked yourself up over nothing.

Suit yourself. Better to have worked up over nothing than to await impending doom thinking nothing bad ever makes it to beta that could have been avoided. Or thinking that if it turns out to require a fix, it'll still get fixed. Remember that nothing is as permanent as temporary and beta's usualy are for most its content.

[xSlideShow]

So this whole discussion is based on information we don't know yet? I don't think we could possibly know what guns were good for AI just yet. For all we know the AV main gun rounds do not explode and you need a direct hit to deal damage. Pretty sure AI that explodes or with a much faster travel time would be better.

[acosmo]

yeaaaaah. We will need to wait and see how it all works first. My bets are that ps2's "MBT's" will be stuffed animals compared to tanks in PS1.