Magrider Fixed Gun

[Sirisian]

Not much of a discussion unless people really feel strongly, but how do you guys feel about the Magrider having a fixed turret rather than a conventional swivel turret?

Personally I wanted the Magrider to be more like a regular tank. (I'm not a fan of ES tanks really). Just give it an energy shell and put it on par with the other tanks regarding handling. The whole walk over water thing irked me also since it was so different than the other tanks. I'd prefer the hover system work more like the other tanks. Meaning it rotates slower and only has fast acceleration going forward.

I think this is a good time to list your support/complaints so the devs see them.

[basti]

FFs, would you stop making pointless threats? There already is one about this topic, heck you even POSTED IN IT!

[Sirisian]

Woah you're fast. Took me a few seconds to make a poll. Also yeah not much a discussion. Just curious.

I wish forum systems allowed you to add polls to already made discussions. It would make things so much easier.

[Zulthus]

FFs, would you stop making pointless threats? There already is one about this topic, heck you even POSTED IN IT!

If threads are so pointless why do you even care to post in them

[CutterJohn]

Woo Battlezone tanks!

Though they better fix that squirrelyness hover vehicles had in ps1, where it had no dampening and you'd just keep spinning with hands off the controls. Made aiming the ppc a bitch.

But its seriously going to be a bitch to balance.

[Bags]

Wait, what's the evidence for this?

[Sirisian]

Wait, what's the evidence for this?
T-Ray confirmed our suspicions via twitter. (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showpost.php?p=593171&postcount=36) The conversation is mostly in that thread. I was just curious what people thought via a poll mostly because I feel rather strongly about this. Magrider doesn't really feel like a tank for me anymore. Feels more like a specialized laser vehicle. I actually wasn't sure until T-Ray made his post. I thought maybe each empire was getting some kind of fixed forward weapon thing.

[klu]

the hover tank from bf2142 worked fine this way. im not sure if i was driving and using the main gun i would want it to swivel. if they come to their senses and make ps1 style tank crews then obviously a fixed turret wouldnt work.

[Brusi]

I have to change my settings to be able to hit anything when using the pilot gun in the current magrider.

I don't care at all, as long as it isn't stupidly difficult to aim/fire. In theory, it should be easier!

[Raymac]

EDIT: Delete. Realized I was dumb.

[Malorn]

Siri, this is a dumb thread.

The reason the gun is fixed is because they gave the driver the main gun. Just like PS1, only a more powerful gun and probably a better angle.

Every other tank has turn only, so the swivel on the turret is natural. Mag has turn & strafe, rendering it not needed.

As someone else pointed out they did the same thing for BF2142 because of the same issue - when the can can both turn and strafe (like a player) they have to lock the turret just as a player's gun is locked. They could add another set of turn keys specifically for the magrider but ultimately that would just make it more difficult to drive and aim than the other tanks and you'd end up with sub-par performance overall.

Turn + strafe + swivel is 3 degrees of movement. You only need 2 in order to have an effective tank, and more than 2 makes it hard to use.

Hover tank worked great in BF2142 like this, and it was exactly the way the driver gun in PS1 operated so no real change here other than that gun is now PEEEEEEW------PEEEEEEEEW------PEEEEEEEEW instead of pew-pew-pew-pew-pew-pew.

[Graywolves]

Swivel top like the original magrider.

[Azren]

Well if they make it driver operated main gun, I will have to quit playing VS afterall. I do not like this one bit.

Still holding out _some_ hope for the thresher, but not much

[Azren]

Siri, this is a dumb thread.

The reason the gun is fixed is because they gave the driver the main gun. Just like PS1, only a more powerful gun and probably a better angle.

Every other tank has turn only, so the swivel on the turret is natural. Mag has turn & strafe, rendering it not needed.

As someone else pointed out they did the same thing for BF2142 because of the same issue - when the can can both turn and strafe (like a player) they have to lock the turret just as a player's gun is locked. They could add another set of turn keys specifically for the magrider but ultimately that would just make it more difficult to drive and aim than the other tanks and you'd end up with sub-par performance overall.

Turn + strafe + swivel is 3 degrees of movement. You only need 2 in order to have an effective tank, and more than 2 makes it hard to use.

Hover tank worked great in BF2142 like this, and it was exactly the way the driver gun in PS1 operated so no real change here other than that gun is now PEEEEEEW------PEEEEEEEEW------PEEEEEEEEW instead of pew-pew-pew-pew-pew-pew.

Why do you compare PS tank to BF tanks? In any game where the driver got to use the main gun, the gunner position was only there for show - nobody every got in. Do you want a game where everyone runs around as one man war machine, or a game where you have to coordinate and plan your moves? Drivers should only get a small AI gun at best, leave the gunners do the rest.

[FastAndFree]

Well if they make it driver operated main gun, I will have to quit playing VS afterall. I do not like this one bit.

Still holding out _some_ hope for the thresher, but not much

You are not paying attention, they want to make all tank main guns driver-operated

[Hamma]

I agree with Malorn on this.

In my opinion the original Mag Rider had no real weakness. It had all the benefits of other tanks AND it could move sideways, and over water. Not even mentioning the lack of a firing arc. Making the gun fixed makes sense to me from a balance perspective - that way it has at least one small weakness.

[NapalmEnima]

I agree with Malorn on this.

In my opinion the original Mag Rider had no real weakness. It had all the benefits of other tanks AND it could move sideways, and over water.

Err... no. The other two MBTs could one-shot infantry with their splash (particularly the vanguard, yow). The other two could stop on a dime if they saw mines.

I always thought the driver's gun was more a trap than anything else. "You're armed! You don't really need a gunner. Go on, you'll be fine... >dies<". The only thing it was really good for was letting the gunner know there was something to shoot at in front of the tank.

Now what the magrider had going for it was good stuff, don't get me wrong. VERY accurate main gun, even at 100+ meters when aiming at other tanks. Hovering over water during bridge battles was HUGE, but it only mattered during those battles. Other than that, it just shortened trips on some continents (which came in handy for the odd LLU run, lemme tell ya).

I was also part of an NC outfit for a long time. Came to love that big 150mm main gun on the Vanguard. And I knew to switch to the 20mm cannons when a Magrider was over water... lower DPS beats the hell out of zero DPS.





So if the mag rider in PS2 has a fixed main gun, that's actually kind of a limitation. The speed the barrel can traverse will be limited to the tank's turning speed (which I suspect will be relatively slow, though perhaps faster than the other empires' MBTs, if only because the main gun is fixed). It'll make it that much easier to get out of its line of fire.

The strategy will be: get close, run in circles, blast the stuffing out of it.

And THAT is when you'll want a secondary gunner. No secondary will mean no weapon with a 360 field of fire, which means infantry will eat you alive... particularly if they do locational damage such that attacks from the rear hurt more (and I believe that's the plan).

Ditto for air. A fixed ground weapon is all but useless against aircraft. A secondary gunner means the first reaver that comes along doesn't get a free tank kill.

I'm starting to think the gunner seat will be pretty important. And I like it.

[Malorn]

Damage and the effectiveness of the secondary guns are irrelevant to the topic of fixed position of the driver's gun. BF2142 had a fixed main gun, tank worked great. PS1 also had a fixed driver gun that worked fine also.

Whether it has effective secondary guns or the damage of the main gun are completely orthogonal discussions.

[Sirisian]

Every other tank has turn only, so the swivel on the turret is natural. Mag has turn & strafe, rendering it not needed.

Turn + strafe + swivel is 3 degrees of movement. You only need 2 in order to have an effective tank, and more than 2 makes it hard to use.
Agreed. The strafe needs to go away if a turret is added. Less keys to worry about also and it brings in more inline with the other tanks.

In my opinion the original Mag Rider had no real weakness. It had all the benefits of other tanks AND it could move sideways, and over water. Not even mentioning the lack of a firing arc. Making the gun fixed makes sense to me from a balance perspective - that way it has at least one small weakness.
Agreed. It was a lame design. The lack of a firing arc, the strafing, and driving over water alone made it so different than the other tanks. It would have been far better had it been implemented as a hovering tank that rotated slowly with a turret and arcing plasma shells with no strafe or water driving. Much easier to balance and from what I can tell compared to the "tank" in the trailer it would function more like a real tank and less like a point and click laser.

PS1 also had a fixed driver gun that worked fine also.
It was actually kind of lame. The Magrider driver gun didn't really do much. It was really only effective against infantry so it only barely helped when chasing down other tanks.

[Draep]

The magrider driver gun of PS1 is to be ignored unless in extremely close quarters. If you are driving your magrider correctly, you shouldn't be in close anyway considering you have the weakest armor for a tank, the fastest speed and the best distance weapon.

I remember pretty well that the a lot of the VS didn't grasp this concept too good and got spanked in standup fights to my prowler. When the TR sanc locked the VS one time and we got magriders....oh boy. We had the best DPS tank of the game and the distance shooter. We ran columns containing both tanks and didn't lose very much until the vehicle benefit was gone.

[Talek Krell]

PS1 also had a fixed driver gun that worked fine also.I disagree with your assessment. The PPC (I think it was) was too squirelly to be kept on target and pitifully weak. It couldn't hurt anything slow enough to track and couldn't track anything small enough to hurt. It mostly functioned as a device to distract drivers so they'd get themselves in over their head and die.

[Raymac]

Damage and the effectiveness of the secondary guns are irrelevant to the topic of fixed position of the driver's gun. BF2142 had a fixed main gun, tank worked great. PS1 also had a fixed driver gun that worked fine also.

Whether it has effective secondary guns or the damage of the main gun are completely orthogonal discussions.

You definitely make a good point, but I still don't like it. Quite simply, a tank's main gun should be on a turret. I'm usually in the "give the devs the benefit of doubt" camp, but in this case, I just don't like it.

I'm not going to like everything about the game. Like Led Zepplin wrote songs that not everyone liked, they left that to the Beegees.

[Brusi]

are you saying i like the beegees?

[Raymac]

are you saying i like the beegees?

It's ok, I don't expect you to admit it. ;)

[Malorn]

I disagree with your assessment. The PPC (I think it was) was too squirelly to be kept on target and pitifully weak. It couldn't hurt anything slow enough to track and couldn't track anything small enough to hurt. It mostly functioned as a device to distract drivers so they'd get themselves in over their head and die.
The strength/effectiveness of the gun is not relevant to this discussion.

Squirrelliness and tracking speed are adjustable characteristics of the vehicle that can be easily tweaked to get the control to feel right. I agree that it did not feel right on the magrider. The position was too low on the vehicle and the vertical speed was much too quick compared to the horizontal turning speed (they needed to be similar). But that is stuff they can easily tweak to make the vehicle handle better and feel more natural.

None of these are evidence that a fixed gun is a bad design idea, only that the magrider had issues with its gun in PS1 having poor handling and weak damage. Both of these are easy to correct.


You definitely make a good point, but I still don't like it. Quite simply, a tank's main gun should be on a turret. I'm usually in the "give the devs the benefit of doubt" camp, but in this case, I just don't like it.

Now "feel" of the tank is something that I cannot disagree with. If you don't like that feel/style then well, you don't like it.

But given the decision to have a main gun in the driver, and the decision to have the magrider a strafing tank are opposing conditions. One of them has to give. So the real 'poll' in this thread should be not whether it is on a turret or not but quite simply whether you would prefer strafing w/ fixed turret or prefer no strafing with a turret.

I would argue that the magrider wouldn't really make sense without strafing. It's the biggest feature from the other tanks. NC use rail-gun and magnetic technology so the no-arc fast moving projectile isn't even distinctly Vanu. Only the hovering/strafing aspect is VS-specific. Without it I think the magrider loses its Vanu feel.


Agreed. The strafe needs to go away if a turret is added. Less keys to worry about also and it brings in more inline with the other tanks.

So as with the above point, the real poll for this topic should be "strafe + fixed main gun" OR "no-strafe w/ turret". There are no other options without removing the driver-manned main gun (and a driver-manned secondary gun makes even less sense given that secondary guns can have things like AA flak cannons on them....hard to shoot aircraft as a driver with a fixed secondary gun).

From the rest of your statements it just seems as though you didn't like the design of the magrider at all. I think a lot of VS players will disagree with you. The lack of firing arc was an advantage against many targets, and the projectile speed was very fast, which made it king in long-range tank engagements. I also knew many mag gunners that could hit aircraft with that thing quite reliably. Add in superior speed and maneuverability and you have the best general-purpose tank in Planetside. Vanguard and Prowler were better for things like camping doorways but whatever...

[CutterJohn]

Hopefully its something like this:

Battlezone 2 single player game play - YouTube

[BorisBlade]

Seriously? I cant believe you guys even think the idea of bfr style tanks is a good idea. This is just idiotic. We need real tanks, with SEPERATE PILOT AND GUNNER AND WITH A FREAKIN TURRET!!!

Just put a tank turret on it. Then put a gunner on it and let the pilot...you know....pilot. Wtf is goin on here, this is a team based game and we are gettin these completely stupid solo kill whore crap vehicles. I want my planetside vehicles back!

Yeah if you leave this crap style of tank in game, then sure its fine fixed if the hover is the same speed sideways/backwards as forwards, since it hovers. But the real issue is that we even have this awful massive design change in the first place.

[Zulthus]

2 Things on the Magrider;

1) The damage on the Rail Cannon was the tradeoff for its no-arc, fast moving projectile. It was pretty bad. You needed 3 direct hits on infantry to kill them, and if you and another MBT got in a fight, each hitting every shot, the Magrider wouldn't win. It's meant to be used at range, away from the hard-hitting shells.

2) Fixed main gun is a no-no. This situation took me 10 seconds to think of. Once in a while, you'd be running away from another tank or something dangerous while it was shooting at you in a close chase. Your Mag gunner might be able to fend them off or kill them before they kill you, but if the driver is in control of that gun, then it CANNOT be a fixed gun. It would have a great disadvantage to the other tanks whereas they can go full speed forward and shoot behind them, and the Magrider would have nothing to do but keep going and hoping you won't die.

Also, what BorisBlade said.

[Raymac]

As I've said before, I simply don't like the idea. However, I have thought of 1 major reason why you won't see very many solo tanks, and that reason is me, or more accurately Reaver pilots.

I'll be in my Reaver looking for tanks, and any time in PS1 that I see a Mag with no gunner, or a Prowler with no chain gunner I lick my chops and slow down for a nice relaxing easy kill.

So I guess I'm saying that we will probably not be seeing as many solo tanks as we may think, just as we don't see many solo Mags in PS1 because Reavers and Libs keep them in check.

[NapalmEnima]

So I guess I'm saying that we will probably not be seeing as many solo tanks as we may think, just as we don't see many solo Mags in PS1 because Reavers and Libs keep them in check.

Not for long anyway. ;)

And the organized folks with the nicely specced secondaries with actual gunners will do Just Fine.

[Raymac]

Not for long anyway. ;)

And the organized folks with the nicely specced secondaries with actual gunners will do Just Fine.

Exactly. Perhaps they devs think that will be a balancing factor?

I still don't like it. I can see the arguement for letting the driver shoot the main gun. I'm not a fan of it, but I can understand it. However, I really think there should be an option to let the driver just drive and have dedicated gunners. But then the Mag would need the main gun on a turret that much more. wtf I'm going cross-eyed now.

[sylphaen]

So as with the above point, the real poll for this topic should be "strafe + fixed main gun" OR "no-strafe w/ turret". There are no other options without removing the driver-manned main gun (and a driver-manned secondary gun makes even less sense given that secondary guns can have things like AA flak cannons on them....hard to shoot aircraft as a driver with a fixed secondary gun).

I agree with that.


2) Fixed main gun is a no-no. This situation took me 10 seconds to think of. Once in a while, you'd be running away from another tank or something dangerous while it was shooting at you in a close chase. Your Mag gunner might be able to fend them off or kill them before they kill you, but if the driver is in control of that gun, then it CANNOT be a fixed gun. It would have a great disadvantage to the other tanks whereas they can go full speed forward and shoot behind them, and the Magrider would have nothing to do but keep going and hoping you won't die.

Very strong point too. I agree.

________________

I chose "Other opinion". By this point, one has to be blind not to realize that PS2 is not PS1. I liked the PS1 tankstyle but if they do not want it like that in PS2, whatever... It's their game in the end. :)

For me, it will be free-to-try and I can always play more infantry instead of tanks.

I think they want to go with the BF tank model where the driver gets the real main big gun canon (i.e. he IS the tank) and the secondary gunner is optional, just there to cover the tank with the AI/AA/(dual AV gun for NC ? :rofl:) light turret (i.e. a very nice to have bonus but not necessary at all).

My guess is that the fixed canon on the Mag is to keep the VS "different" but in the end, the result will be very similar between empires:
- VS: fixed canon, moving body
- NC/TR: moving canon, fixed vehicle

If there is localized damage and the NC/TR tanks can only rotate their body by moving forward or backwards, the VS might be advantaged in short ranged fights since it can keep showing its front hull while going around the enemy tank.

For long range, it might be a pain in the a** to stabilize the aim though. I could never properly align the PPA gun in PS1 because of all the spinning.

If we do get into a BF2142 style game, I also suspect the Mag will not be that faster compared to other empire tanks in PS2 and that the tanks will be closer alike to each other stats-wise.

[Graywolves]

I think a driver focused on driving with gunners will come out on top over a multi-tasked personnel.

Customization and skills ftw

[Erendil]

2 Things on the Magrider;

1) The damage on the Rail Cannon was the tradeoff for its no-arc, fast moving projectile. It was pretty bad. You needed 3 direct hits on infantry to kill them, and if you and another MBT got in a fight, each hitting every shot, the Magrider wouldn't win. It's meant to be used at range, away from the hard-hitting shells.

2) Fixed main gun is a no-no. This situation took me 10 seconds to think of. Once in a while, you'd be running away from another tank or something dangerous while it was shooting at you in a close chase. Your Mag gunner might be able to fend them off or kill them before they kill you, but if the driver is in control of that gun, then it CANNOT be a fixed gun. It would have a great disadvantage to the other tanks whereas they can go full speed forward and shoot behind them, and the Magrider would have nothing to do but keep going and hoping you won't die.

Also, what BorisBlade said.

This.

The Mag's low AI damage was a big disadvantage at key points of the battle in PS1, namely when trying to breach a courtyard or contain the enemy within a tower, or anywhere else where softies congregated.

And its low armour and low DPS meant that in tank battles you couldn't just charge towards the enemy guns blazing. You had to stay at a distance, attack while moving to one side of the enemy, or bait them into chasing you where you could use your superior speed to stay at a distance while firing behind you. A forward-fixed main gun would basically eliminate the latter 2 options.

The only way I can see a fixed-mounted gun not severely gimping the Mag is if, 1)it became the most-armoured and/or highest DPS of the ES Tanks so it normally came out on top during up-close slugfests, or 2)if they made it so nimble that it moved the same speed backwards as forwards and its turning speed was equal to that of a "normal" tank turret so it could keep its distance from other tanks while still returning fire and could track targets as effectively as the other tanks.

But the first option sounds more like a WWII tank-killer then a main battle tank, and the second option IMO would work much better as an ES Lightning varient. And having a fixed turret doesn't exactly sound "high tech" to begin with...

[Captain1nsaneo]

VS focus on mobility and flexibility not armor and firepower. The mag was pretty much the embodiment of this with its long accurate cannon, speed, and water mobility. As a VS I agree with what others have said about its PPA being a waste. It wasn't good against infantry because of adadad strafing being impossible to follow with a fixed tank gun that has no splash.

The idea of most VS stuff is that it's harder to use but it has greater rewards for mastery. I can see this new mag going that way too but it needs to be mobile to accomplish that goal. Give it a good rear view mirror for the driver, a short afterburner instead of emergency brakes, and full speed sideways and reverse with fast turning speed and I see no problem with this build.

[SgtMAD]

now this is only a rough outline of this thread so far.

the answer seems to be make the magrider the fastest tank with the heaviest armor and the most mobility while the other empires are stuck with oversized lightnings.

SOE has really lost their way with all this gunner/driver crap,they could see what the problems would be if they took 30 minutes and had someone that has some game experience show them why the gunner version is the best way to go.

just take them out in a vanny and see what they kill then go jump in a lightning and see how hard it is to dodge through trees shooting at infantry and drive the damn tank,you can't compare the damage output but they would see how hard it is to drive and try to fight off the tank following you .

I mean how in the hell do you defend against a trailing enemy tank if you are both the driver and main gunner? all you are going to do is end up hitting something and getting killed or hit a damn mine field while you were looking backwards trying to defend yourself.

[Graywolves]

2142 Vehicle Gameplay- Type 32 Nekomata [PAC hovertank] Driver - YouTube

There's a vid from gunner perspective too.

[Sirisian]

I mean how in the hell do you defend against a trailing enemy tank if you are both the driver and main gunner? all you are going to do is end up hitting something and getting killed or hit a damn mine field while you were looking backwards trying to defend yourself.
That will separate the skilled users from the beginners. I personally have no problem driving a lightning through trees while shooting behind me. Just takes practice.

Big reason why there's another thread asking for the option to release the main gun to your gunner to use (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37352). When firing shells from a far distance you can multi-task fairly easily. For players that can control their own primary gun skillfully though and have a gunner manning secondary weapons. That will be a very powerful tank.

[video]
Yeah still want the swivel. However, now you're making me remember BF2142 and why I loved that game. I want mechs. :cry: Now that we driver-centric guns maybe people will rethink their mech stance. That's for another thread though. (See sig).

[Talek Krell]

Just takes practice.
Yeah Mad, all you have to do is grow eyes in your ass like Sirisian and you'll have no problem with it.

[Malorn]

Stop talking about damage of the gun; its irrelevant to this discussion.

[Malorn]

Watch the vid Greywolves posted. That's a glimpse into Magrider gameplay as they have it planned.

Yes, you can't shoot while running away, but in return you get...
- more evasion capabilities via strafing (this is huge, watch the video to see how much he was able to dodge by using it)
- always having your strongest frontal armor forward while fighting another tank

That's what we call a "tradeoff"

You're going to spend a lot more time in shootouts than you will running away from fights. And if you use that strafing evasively and that frontal armor advantage then you won't need to run away in the first place. Or you can use the reverse + strafe to keep your distance so you don't need to actually turn and run away and can keep your gun forward.

I remain convinced that the fixed frontal gun on the mag is a net gain and an overall advantage to the vehicle. It also make sit quite unique from the other two tanks with its strafing ability. Good mag pilots will be a pain in the ass to deal with.

[Azren]

Watch the vid Greywolves posted. That's a glimpse into Magrider gameplay as they have it planned.

All I see is a more agile BFR concept... whoever first thought that drivers should get to use the main gun of a tank is a fool. There is a reason why no tank in existence has the driver gunning aswell.


Yes, you can't shoot while running away, but in return you get...
- more evasion capabilities via strafing (this is huge, watch the video to see how much he was able to dodge by using it)
- always having your strongest frontal armor forward while fighting another tank

That's what we call a "tradeoff"


Strafing in PS1 is very slow, you do not really avoid anything with only strafing. In fact, I would gladly trade strafing for a turret (gunner operated one; to hell with driver gunnery). Besides any tank can "strafe", all you have to do is not to be facing directly at your target, but at a 45° angle...

The only place I would like a fixed gun and strafing is the light battle tank (lighting now). It would be fun, like it was in Battlezone. But those tanks do little damage, and die fast.

[Zulthus]

Stop talking about damage of the gun; its irrelevant to this discussion.

Nobody gives a shit whether you think something is relevant or irrelevant to the discussion; nobody was talking to you. Any by the way, it is completely relevant. It is a tradeoff. If the damage of the gun is shit like in PS1, the Mag needs more to compensate for its shortfalls. A fixed turret is a bad idea. It needs to be able to swivel like the other empires, while still having great maneuverability and speeds going any direction.

[FastAndFree]

All I see is a more agile BFR concept... whoever first thought that drivers should get to use the main gun of a tank is a fool. There is a reason why no tank in existence has the driver gunning aswell.

There is. Never been used in live warfare, but there is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-tank)

Edit, it even has a rear driver, so it can reverse as fast as it can go forward. Almost sounds like a french design

[Graywolves]

Magrider's Rail Gun is not bad. I 3-shot Mosquitoes out of the sky.


But damage is a trade-off. Seriously though I love the magrider, I almost want to be VS just to gun for it. omfg man.

[Malorn]

The concept of whether the gun is fixed has nothing to do with the damage it deals because the damage it deals is simply a balance tweak. BF2142's main guns on all tanks was equivalent so the only difference was the fixed gun strafe handling.


It boils down to a simple truth - the concept of the fixed main gun has been shown to be effective in another game. Talking about all the other balance issues with the magrider are irrelevant to whether the concept of the fixed gun is flawed or bad design.

They can always change damage numbers. They can always tweak strafing rates. That is something trivial to change that will likely change many times throughout alpha and beta. Judging the fixed frontal main gun in the context of other flaws of the magrider is just dumb. It doesn't make sense and shows your logic to be poor.

[FIREk]

The only problem with the fixed gun is, should they choose to give drivers control of the secondary guns only (and there are quite a few good reasons to do this), it wouldn't make much sense in a Magrider.

I only see benefits in making the Mag's weaponry mounted just like in any other vehicle, instead of making it a special snowflake.

[Malorn]

Except making it mounted like other vehicles means the mag cannot strafe, which fundamentally changes the vehicle.

I don't see this discussion going anywhere until we get a chance to play the magrider. Dismissing the concept outright would be dumb without actually seeing how it plays compared to other tanks. Playing it and finding problems with it is a whole nother discussion when you have that specific vehicle in context. The only sensible thing is to give the devs the benefit of the doubt and run with it and see how it turns out. If some folks still dont like it that is the right time to perk up and give specific reasons.

[Sirisian]

The only problem with the fixed gun is, should they choose to give drivers control of the secondary guns only (and there are quite a few good reasons to do this), it wouldn't make much sense in a Magrider.
Exactly. Not that I used tanks much in the original, but I do enjoy the idea of gunning while at the same time understand how invaluable it can be to release control to a gunner while running away.

Except making it mounted like other vehicles means the mag cannot strafe, which fundamentally changes the vehicle.
Q and E... :confused:

[NapalmEnima]

I only see benefits in making the Mag's weaponry mounted just like in any other vehicle, instead of making it a special snowflake.

Given that all drivers will also be the main gunner for all vehicles, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that all the tanks have a forward gun with little or no tracking ability, and only the secondaries will be able to spin 360.

I expect that the liberator will lose its 35mm cannon, and the pilot will also be the bomber. A secondary gunner will get the tail gun, hopefully with a better arc of fire.

The Lightening (if still in) may end up being the only vehicle where the driver gets a 360 weapon. I hope they'll draw a secondary view, one for the gun, one out the front, and be able to swap them as the primary display at will.

[Malorn]

Q and E... :confused:

Three issues with this

1) It makes driving that vehicle significantly more complicated than other vehicles. The result will be sub-par drivers who will lose engagements compared to the other tanks that are easier to master. Its important that all the main tanks have roughly the same learning curve or you'll see differences in relative tank populations AND you'll see differences in the results of tank engagements irrespective of balance of the tank.

2) It makes driving that vehicle inconsistent with any other vehicle. You'd have those two keys bound and can't use them for other vehicles that don't have the same handling.

3)It makes driving that vehicle inconsistent with infantry movement, which normally maps quite well and easily to vehicle controls. Its intuitive and makes switching between vehicles and infantry easier.


And its still not necessary. As we've seen, a tank with a fixed main gun can be quite effective. I'm assuming you never actually played BF2142. I played it a lot and enjoyed that tank. It was different and had its own strengths and weaknesses. Mostly the strengths outweighed the weaknesses and personally I was far better at it than the other tank.

[Sirisian]

Three issues with this
2) It makes driving that vehicle inconsistent with any other vehicle. You'd have those two keys bound and can't use them for other vehicles that don't have the same handling.
Per vehicle key bindings. Kind of like how the BFR uses shift+q and shift+e to strafe but most people just binded them to q and e. (Or at least I did).


Three issues with this
3)It makes driving that vehicle inconsistent with infantry movement, which normally maps quite well and easily to vehicle controls. Its intuitive and makes switching between vehicles and infantry easier.
The other tanks will be using a and d to rotate. Using a and d to strafe makes it inconsistent with the other tanks. It's hardly a strong point to make.

Your other comments about making the Magrider too different are true. That's the crux of the problem. The Magrider being a hover tank is just a different vehicle compared to the NC and TR tanks. It's much harder to balance for that reason and more complicated to control. I don't think it should be dumbed down though to a fixed gun platform; however, I also personally don't feel it needs to strafe. It would be much more balanced if it handled similar to the other tanks and the hovering was merely an aesthetic.

This is a problem I saw with the original Magrider also.

And its still not necessary. As we've seen, a tank with a fixed main gun can be quite effective. I'm assuming you never actually played BF2142. I played it a lot and enjoyed that tank. It was different and had its own strengths and weaknesses. Mostly the strengths outweighed the weaknesses and personally I was far better at it than the other tank.
Got it the first day it came out and enjoyed it for a month. Like I said before I didn't really like it, and I don't think it will be a good fit for the VS.

[Malorn]

All of my comments were true. We just have to wait and see how it feels and how it operates. Cannot fairly judge the decision without seeing the results.

[Graywolves]

The VS are supposed to have things that are completley different from other empires.....that's pretty much the entire theme of the VS.

[Sirisian]

All of my comments were true.
I refuted your arguments. It's also easy to see the the tanks never had the same learning curve in PS1 and it wasn't that big of a deal.

Also you said yourself that you enjoyed the BF2142 tanks with a fixed turret. It's obvious to me that you've never used a Magrider or a tank in PS1 while going through a forest. A turreted cannon allows you to shoot at your enemy. So while the NC and TR will have this advantage the Magrider won't unless it drives at an odd angle to face its enemy. Suddenly going between two trees becomes a problem.

I'm starting to think people have something out for the VS. I mean someone in the IRC made a joke that they liked the new Magrider since it'll be an easy kill with the new fixed turret and to keep it. That's one of the reasons I separated the poll like it is so we could try to get unbiased results.

[kidwithstick]

there was nothing wrong with the original? why nerf it?

it wasnt over powered... it was the weakest of the 3 tanks from a damage/armor point of view... which it made up for with no arc and being more maneuverable.

Id be pretty upset if they changed the magrider:mad:

[FIREk]

there was nothing wrong with the original? why nerf it?

It couldn't fit the new design direction. PS1's Mag had the pathetic secondary gun available for the driver. Now drivers operate the main guns, hence the big change.

Now, if they kept PS1's design, can you imagine how useless a Magrider's AA secondary would be if it could only fire forward?

[Malorn]

I refuted your arguments.

I disagree. But I find I dislike much of your posting and threads and find your thinking eccentric and flawed. So I'm not going to continue this discussion. It isn't something we can resolve without playing the game and so it is pointless to debate it now.

[Talek Krell]

I'd like to point out that in BF 2142, and in that video in particular (you can see when he pulls the map up that it's just that one bridge for the entire map), the lack of a turret has less impact than it might in PS due to the difference in scale. When engaging multiple targets you'd generally (at least I would) kill the weakest threat first, while giving the largest threat your thickest armor. The inability to do that is just a trade-off so whether it's balanced or not will remain to be seen, but my concerns remain.

[Graywolves]

http://foxdonut.kikaimegami.com/Random%20Forum%20Shit/Motovationals/Your_Argument_is_Invalid_Geth_by_soccerdemon.jpg

[Zulthus]

I disagree. But I find I dislike much of your posting and threads and find your thinking eccentric and flawed. So I'm not going to continue this discussion. It isn't something we can resolve without playing the game and so it is pointless to debate it now.

You disagree with everyone and dislike everybody's posts. They're eccentric and flawed if they don't agree with you. You aren't the judge of what is pointless to discuss, who is right, who is wrong, and so on. Know that your "logic" is very much flawed if you think otherwise. You may not know this yet, but you are not superior to anyone in any way. So quit acting like it. People are simply giving their opinions, and you think you can just stamp 'em with a big "NOPE" or "I DUN LIKE IT". Give it a rest.

[basti]

My god guys, 5 pages, and not a single useful post.


YOu may not realized yet, but your entire discussion here is completly pointless. Nobody of us has seen how the mag plays out. We dont know about the main guns power, we dont know about the secondarys gun power, we literally know nothing about the mag.

So how do you manage to fill 5 pages of text with arguments that are based on nothing but waves of thin air and a single fact: mags have a fixed main gun now. Theres is nothing to discuss, no facts that speak against or for anyones argument, just one giant blob of personal opinions from a bunch of PS1 veterans. It doenst matter what you think about the mag, the main issue is to make that thing fun to use. ANd we have no clue if the change is good or bad until we can actually hover around the lands.

[Zulthus]

My god guys, 5 pages, and not a single useful post.

YOu may not realized yet, but your entire discussion here is completly pointless. Nobody of us has seen how the mag plays out. We dont know about the main guns power, we dont know about the secondarys gun power, we literally know nothing about the mag.

So how do you manage to fill 5 pages of text with arguments that are based on nothing but waves of thin air and a single fact: mags have a fixed main gun now. Theres is nothing to discuss, no facts that speak against or for anyones argument, just one giant blob of personal opinions from a bunch of PS1 veterans. It doenst matter what you think about the mag, the main issue is to make that thing fun to use. ANd we have no clue if the change is good or bad until we can actually hover around the lands.

The irony

[kidwithstick]

It couldn't fit the new design direction. PS1's Mag had the pathetic secondary gun available for the driver. Now drivers operate the main guns, hence the big change.

Now, if they kept PS1's design, can you imagine how useless a Magrider's AA secondary would be if it could only fire forward?

Im well aware of the upcoming changes. What I fail to see, is a logical reason behind taking away the swivel ability from the mag... Drivers are now going to be able to gun their tanks. A good and a bad idea IMO... WHY must it be a fixed gun? because of its maneuverability? nonsense....

IMO, if it even matters anymore... Drivers should gun their tanks UNTILL they get a gunner. once someone else hops into the tank they now have control over the gun. PROBLEM SOLVED KTHXBYE

[Malorn]

You disagree with everyone and dislike everybody's posts. They're eccentric and flawed if they don't agree with you. You aren't the judge of what is pointless to discuss, who is right, who is wrong, and so on. Know that your "logic" is very much flawed if you think otherwise. You may not know this yet, but you are not superior to anyone in any way. So quit acting like it. People are simply giving their opinions, and you think you can just stamp 'em with a big "NOPE" or "I DUN LIKE IT". Give it a rest.

I'm not forcing you to read my posts. If rational thought uncomforts you so I would recommend taking a deep breath and moving on to the next post, which is most likely useless drivel.

[Zulthus]

I'm not forcing you to read my posts. If rational thought uncomforts you so I would recommend taking a deep breath and moving on to the next post, which is most likely useless drivel.

There is nothing irrational about the posts in the thread. It's something called "discussion". If discussion is useless drivel, then all of your posts are as well.

[Malorn]

So you're saying all discussion is equally valuable?

[Talek Krell]

I do not find Malorn's statements to have been particularly unreasonable.

[Zulthus]

So you're saying all discussion is equally valuable?

Indeed. Nothing has gone off topic in the thread until you go saying someone's opinion is wrong, irrational, invalid, etc.

[Malorn]

Indeed. Nothing has gone off topic in the thread until you go saying someone's opinion is wrong, irrational, invalid, etc.

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn199/Scorpion_X20/UrinalBird.jpg

[Accuser]

As Sirisian has pointed out, the Type-32 'Nekomata' of Battlefield 2142 was very well balanced and effective with a chassis-mounted main gun.

However, the most terrain in BF2142 was relatively open with few spikey hills and cliffs. Harsh terrain hurts a lot more when the direction your tank is going is also the direction your gun has to point.

I'd prefer the classic magrider, but I'll give this a shot in the Beta...

[Zulthus]

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn199/Scorpion_X20/UrinalBird.jpg

See, this is off-topic, so it's useless drivel. Get it now? Wasn't so hard.

[Zulthus]

As Sirisian has pointed out, the Type-32 'Nekomata' of Battlefield 2142 was very well balanced and effective with a chassis-mounted main gun.

However, the most terrain in BF2142 was relatively open with few spikey hills and cliffs. Harsh terrain hurts a lot more when the direction your tank is going is also the direction your gun has to point.

I'd prefer the classic magrider, but I'll give this a shot in the Beta...

Pretty much, there was also at most two or three other tanks to worry about, and normally not all at once. Fixed turrets didn't really matter too much because nobody ever really repaired, but fought to the death.

[Sirisian]

It isn't something we can resolve without playing the game and so it is pointless to debate it now.
I would rather play PS2 with a tank that has a swiveling turret. It can't wait until the game is released. Problems like this need to be fixed as soon as possible.

[Hamma]

Guys please stop with the one image replies, focus on discussion not fail. ;)

[Talek Krell]

As Sirisian has pointed out, the Type-32 'Nekomata' of Battlefield 2142 was very well balanced and effective with a chassis-mounted main gun.klu pointed this out. I'm pretty sure Sirisian dislikes the 2142 implementation and would prefer something else.

[Malorn]

Because you talking about me wasn't a derail in the slightest. I do appreciate the weight of importance you put on my feedback.

Also, thread is still dumb and pointless because as it has been said by several posters we cannot see the impact of it without actually playing the game. But people get worked up over speculation so it's fun.

See quote in my sig. If it doesn't work they'll fix it in beta based on player feedback.

[basti]

Because you talking about me wasn't a derail in the slightest. I do appreciate the weight of importance you put on my feedback.

Also, thread is still dumb and pointless because as it has been said by several posters we cannot see the impact of it without actually playing the game. But people get worked up over speculation so it's fun.

See quote in my sig. If it doesn't work they'll fix it in beta based on player feedback.

You got me an idea.
brb, changing sig.

[Graywolves]

Doesn't matte who contributed what.


We are all a single collective that has but one goal in mind. All our thoughts and disagreements are the reasoning within something larger than individuals.

But I posted the BF2142 video.



As long as the Gunner on the Magrider (2nd dude, not driver, I refuse to call it secondary) can swivel then I am fine.


Why does I not call gunner secondary? Because I feel that calling it that has led people to treat the gunner position as though it was the chaingun on the prowler. These guns are going to be powerful, AV, AI, AA, etc.

[Sirisian]

Also, thread is still dumb and pointless because as it has been said by several posters we cannot see the impact of it without actually playing the game.
As much fun as the "No discussion until Beta" is it's a pretty lame argument. I'd rather fix obvious problems now instead of hoping they get sorted out in beta. :rolleyes:


As long as the Gunner on the Magrider (2nd dude, not driver, I refuse to call it secondary) can swivel then I am fine.
For that same reason I want the Magrider to swivel so that all the tanks can release their cannon to the other gunner if they choose to. This kind of idea will die if they keep the Magrider as a unique fixed turret vehicle. I do not want to have to drive backwards while shooting at the enemy either. It's lame. That and strafing at 70 kph is not something I wanted in the game. I wanted slow strafing with strong forward acceleration only and a slow rotation to keep it on par with the other tanks.

[NapalmEnima]

As much fun as the "No discussion until Beta" is it's a pretty lame argument. I'd rather fix obvious problems now instead of hoping they get sorted out in beta. :rolleyes:

And do you consider it lame for a bunch of fans in some forum to think their discussions will in fact "fix the obvious problems"? Particularly while there's a debate going on as to whether or not they're problems in the first place?



I maintain that they are not. I've stated my reasoning in previous posts, and have yet to see them refuted.

[Malorn]

As much fun as the "No discussion until Beta" is it's a pretty lame argument. I'd rather fix obvious problems now instead of hoping they get sorted out in beta. :rolleyes:

I didn't say no discussion until Beta. There's plenty of great things to discuss, but this particular topic is not an "obvious problem" as your own poll shows quite mixed feelings about it. Its also not something that can really be validated without actually playing the game. We're talking about whether a fixed gun actually works out well, and the jury is still out on that and won't be back until they get a chance to see how it plays and make a decision. Thus, T-Ray's quote, which you should probably read again.

It's also something that wouldn't be all that drastic to change should they find it doesn't work out and want to move it to a turret. They could play with it. It isn't a core gameplay issue. It's a control/feel issue for a single vehicle. Its localized. It's simple.

Issues that are more deserving of thought energy would be the discussion about driver guns in general, and vehicle variance and counters, etc. Those are core gameplay issues that would be far more difficult to change at beta after they build many systems and other assumptions around them.

A fixed magrider gun is really not that big of a deal and easily changed should they find it doesn't work out.

[Raymac]

And do you consider it lame for a bunch of fans in some forum to think their discussions will in fact "fix the obvious problems"? Particularly while there's a debate going on as to whether or not they're problems in the first place?

Exactly. WE (the fans communicating with the devs) arn't going to fix squat. Hell, T-Ray didn't even know about the Idea Vault here. All we are going to do is offer up our point of view and the devs are going to do what they want. And to repeat one of my all time favorite movie quotes "Many of the truthes we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Alot of these discussions are really just self serving, but what else are we gonna do when we can't play the game yet.

[Azren]

All this idle talk aside, there is only one sensible reason why the devs decided to add fixed turret to the Magrider - driver controlled main gun. The idiotic notion of giving the drivers the ability to use most of the vehicle's potential on their own is what resulted in this abomination.

Main battle tanks must have dedicated driver and dedicated gunner, which makes such nonsence fixed main guns impossible. Remodell the Mag to have it's turret back and bring the PS 1 tank concept to PS 2. It works great now, don't try to fix what's not broken...