Compromise for the driver=gunner issue.

[BorisBlade]

Since they seem determined to stick with the BF style, solo power tanks. I was tryin to think of a compromise to the problem. This is what i came up with that required the least amount of changes while still leavin their idea mostly intact.

A driver specialization. This completely voluntary spec would allow you to gain a "driver only" slot in appropriate vehicles. As in it wouldn't work on reavers or lightnings, but on most other vehicles that have the gunner=driver idea.

As a trade off for losing the weapon and requiring more manpower, you also gain more armor, significantly more, atleast a third more. Since you do require 50% more manpower a third more armor minimum seems fair. This allows for the more solo-style tanks to have their more appropriate weaker armor while giving those who work as a team in focused roles with more manpower the benefits of better (focused) drivers/gunners and the armor to make up for the manpower needed.

There are no vehicle enter/exit animations so zero changes other than the new entry point would need to be activated upon certing, a relatively simple thing. The only real change would be to vehicles designed for rambo play like the magrider. Its gotta get a real turret like an actual tank. But that's hopefully one of the only vehicles that would need a model change.

Seems like a mostly simple fix to appease the devs who want their solo stuff and the majority of vets who prefer the more team oriented style. I for one would be fine with that. The opportunity to show the Battlefielders how much better the Planetside design is as we literally run circles around em as they try to drive/gun at the same time and get decimated.

At this point I'll settle for anything to get atleast somethin of Planetside to remain, esp my fave part. But I'm interested to hear any of your ideas, suggestions, or tweaks.

[Draep]

The driver taking control of the main gun is just a bad idea. It has also spawned the even worse idea of adding secondary AA. Honestly, no compromise should take place, its a bad system and I think we'll see that in beta. With that being said, you have a decent idea. Anything that can give the driver his job back is a good thing.

[Sirisian]

Don't worry I'll leave the thread alone since I completely disagree with it.
Anything that can give the driver his job back is a good thing.
Surely you mean give the gunner his old job back?

[nomotog]

What if you just included two kinds of tanks. Some with the driver controlling the main gun some with the driver controlling a side gun or no gun. (The driver should control some kind of gun I think even if it's just a laser pointer.) Actually well we are at it. Lets get crazy. Have tanks that hold 4 turrets and a driver.

[Furret]

I always thought the magrider was a good compromise, the driver could gun, and take out infantry, but you couldn't expect to do much against vehicles with it. They already have vehicles for solo players, drive a lightning, don't change up the game for the people who like teamwork.

[Draep]

I always thought the magrider was a good compromise, the driver could gun, and take out infantry, but you couldn't expect to do much against vehicles with it. They already have vehicles for solo players, drive a lightning, don't change up the game for the people who like teamwork.

I see that the community is pretty much universally against the drivers taking over the spot of the main gunner. I just wonder why the devs thought it would be popular with Joe Gamer. It's pretty early in the development cycle I'm assuming so maybe they'll change it to what it should be.

[nomotog]

It might just be that the game plays better when drivers act as gunners.

[Brusi]

sweet, another whole thread about this.

[Lonehunter]

As long as no single driver with a gun can beat a tank with a driver and gunner It'll be fine

[SgtMAD]

we don't know that the gunner thing isn't going to be changed,we don't need to be compromising yet.

wait for beta and let everyone see how this idea sux

[Malorn]

The best compromise is to do it how PS1 did it.

You have 1-man killwhore vehicles (Lightning, Reaver, etc)
You have 2-man (or more) teamwork vehicles that have a lot more impact potential and power (ES Tanks, buggies, Liberator, Sundy)

For vehicles that are similar they can have some common certs in the tree. But going down one way would improve the 1-man vehicles and going down the other way improves the 2-man vehicles, with some shared.

PS1's system worked. It worked very well. I'm not sure why they feel the need to change something so fundamental to planetside.

[Talek Krell]

we don't that the gunner thing isn't going to be changed,we don't need to be compromising yet.

wait for beta and let everyone see how this idea sux
Going with Mad on this one. The forum is rife with reasonable fixes at this point, I think we've accomplished about all we can with brainstorming alone.

[cellinaire]

My personal impression from this topic is : They(dev team) are basically toying around with this 'driver can also act as main gunner' idea to support the faster-paced gameplay they're striving to achieve in PS2. And from what I've observed very recently from Higby's twitter, he knows this issue now and is also thinking about some kind of compromise I guess.

Anyway, I think they're willing to change this kind of controversial things based on enough beta feedbacks from us in this time around, so we still can't be certain whether this'll make it into the actual gameplay or not.

[Captain B]

I wouldn't mind drivers being able to do more than just drive if certed properly and in some vehicles (like MBTs), but being able to fire the main gun and be able to operate independently, even if not as effective as a two- or three-manned vehicle, is still going to put more tracks than boots on the ground. PlanetSide is awesome because of the combined arms nature of the game - infantry, tanks and air - not just all vehicles.

Not to mention they don't need to be treated as "power-ups", as someone had put it in the other thread. Just another cog in the war machine.

[Azren]

As long as no single driver with a gun can beat a tank with a driver and gunner It'll be fine

No it won't. As long as two driver only tanks can kill one tank with driver + gunner, this idea is very bad. Because that is precisely what you have to compare, the combined effort two people can do, and however you look at it two one manned tanks (two main guns, twice the armor) will do much better than one with a gunner (just one main gun and one "other", not AV gun, and half the armor).

sweet, another whole thread about this.

Make as many as it takes until this stupid idea gets scrapped.

we don't that the gunner thing isn't going to be changed,we don't need to be compromising yet.

wait for beta and let everyone see how this idea sux

If we wait for beta it will be far to late.

1 - they stated that they want beta be a stress test mostly, they will not want to bother with other aspects (even if they said they will, we all have heared those empty promises before, do not trust them)

2 - even if they do, this is a CORE gameplay issue here, every single sidegrade / upgrade a tank can have will be influenced by this. Each vehicle would have to be re-ballanced to meet this change. If they want to change it later, they have to rework every aspect of the tanks - something they will not do

No, the only way is to make them scrap this idea as soon as possible (along with that fixed magrider main gun).

We have people leaving already because of this...

[Surge72]

Since you do require 50% more manpower a third more armor minimum seems fair.

For two out of the three MBTs, it is/was 100% more manpower. The TR MBT requires 200% more.

[moosepoop]

another guy summed it up nicely: let drivers drive, let gunners gun.

i would like to ask the devs to think rationally. sure i like planetside, but im not gonna have misplaced loyalty and give you money if you go in the wrong direction of what the majority of players want.

i still have some faith in you guys to have some integrity.

[TheRagingGerbil]

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

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

[moosepoop]

two very important facts about imitating tank game play from badcompany 2:

1- tanks in bad company 2 are overpowered and few in number

2- players who like bad company 2 will all be playing battlefield 3. imitating bc2 will not likely attract them to great effect but instead deter the loyal core playerbase.


if the team shows true spirit and passion, i will full heartedly support you and throw money at you. but if you do not think rationally and views the game as merely a product, then my boner will go from semi hard to completely flaccid.

[BlazingSun]

nvm

[TheRagingGerbil]

Again, everyone is making the assumption that tanks will be driven and gunned primarily from the third person. This is an important piece of information we are missing.

If there is no reticle visible while driving in third person then all of these conversations are meaningless. Especially since the specific comment was "drivers can."

[moosepoop]

Again, everyone is making the assumption that tanks will be driven and gunned primarily from the third person. This is an important piece of information we are missing.

If there is no reticle visible while driving in third person then all of these conversations are meaningless. Especially since the specific comment was "drivers can."

in battle field bad company 2, i can drive and gun in first person with no problem.

[Talek Krell]

in battle field bad company 2, i can drive and gun in first person with no problem.
Yeah, I'm not really seeing why the camera view would make a difference.

[ThGlump]

Its bad idea by design, and if they want to have it in the game, there should be disadvantages. Driver should be gunning only as a temporary solution till he find some gunner, and driver+gunner should be stronger than 2xdriver
first - no secondary guns! ever. thats bad idea brought by driver gunning
second - with no gunner reload and max speed should be lowered. Like to 1/3 reload, 2/3 speed.

[Draep]

Its bad idea by design, and if they want to have it in the game, there should be disadvantages. Driver should be gunning only as a temporary solution till he find some gunner, and driver+gunner should be stronger than 2xdriver
first - no secondary guns! ever. thats bad idea brought by driver gunning
second - with no gunner reload and max speed should be lowered. Like to 1/3 reload, 2/3 speed.

No need for disadvantages. I can kill two tanks with ease if i'm concentrating on driving and my gunner concentrating on gunning while they stumble around to maneuver and have to literally stop in order to put out accurate rounds.

[Draep]

two very important facts about imitating tank game play from badcompany 2:

1- tanks in bad company 2 are overpowered and few in number

2- players who like bad company 2 will all be playing battlefield 3. imitating bc2 will not likely attract them to great effect but instead deter the loyal core playerbase.


This shit right here. Tanks in BC2 have incredible range and killing power. I had multiple 100:1 or more K/D ratios and could pull out with ease for repairs if shit got too hot. A lot of this prolly had to do with the destructible environment of the game tho.

[Malorn]

First person tank driving/gunning makes no difference. Works fine in BF games.

Also that bit about the tanks in BF games being powerful and few in number is big. Tanks in PS2 are avaialble whenever anyone wants one, and there can be dozens/hundreds.

[Raymac]

i still have some faith in you guys to have some integrity.

This quote above...are you freaking kidding me, guy? You think this is about integrity? Really? That's taking it a bit far. :rolleyes:

And like Brusi said, yay, yet another thread about this same tired debate.

[Furret]

PS1's system worked. It worked very well. I'm not sure why they feel the need to change something so fundamental to planetside.

They want the people who put the certs into the vehicle to be able to use the vehicle. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but that's where the Armored Assault I and II system worked. If you wanted to solo-whore, which is the type of group PS2 is starting to shift to, you could spend 2 certs and get your lightning. But if you really wanted to be effective, get a friend and pay an extra cert for that vanny.

[Malorn]

They want the people who put the certs into the vehicle to be able to use the vehicle. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but that's where the Armored Assault I and II system worked. If you wanted to solo-whore, which is the type of group PS2 is starting to shift to, you could spend 2 certs and get your lightning. But if you really wanted to be effective, get a friend and pay an extra cert for that vanny.

I know that's what they said, but that's a bullshit excuse. Several other vehicles and classes are designed around SUPPORT. Medics, Engineers, to name two infantry support. Transport drivers and to a lesser extent Bomber pilots.

All of those have one thing in common - weapon systems / tools which benefit other people and not themselves. Even if you give a driver the main gun he's still putting cert points into a gun he can't use - the secondary gun. I expect that one will have a lot more upgrades than the main gun anyway. If you get people certing it just because they can also gun it then that added set of players is just going to upgrade the stuff that only benefits them.

It is not necessary to turn a vehicle into a one-man killwhore machine just to get people to drive it/cert it. Plenty of people drove galaxies when needed. Plenty of people drove tanks and piloted libs. The tradeoff of the far more firepower and a stronger vehicle emphasized teamwork and coordination with gunners/bombardiers.

As a longtime tank driver what rewards me is not the ability to shoot. It is knowing that my tank crew was kicking ass and impacting the battle. Of course I'm going to cert things that make my entire tank better. You don't need to motivate me or distract me with a main gun.

I'd much rather understand the real design vision and gameplay goals of this change. Giving the certed person the ability to shoot from the vehicle is a poor excuse and I know that isn't the main reason they made the change. They wanted to run design impacts by the playerbase so they have to be straight with us with what they intend with things.

I hope that whole vet-things-with-the-players doesn't start after release. Like to see more idea sharing and insight into what it is they are trying to achieve. I'd certainly go a long way toward us providing more meaningful feedback and ideas that help them achieve it rather than blindly fondling around trying to figure it out and getting visceral reactions to significant changes that seemingly make little sense.

[kaffis]

I know that's what they said, but that's a bullshit excuse. Several other vehicles and classes are designed around SUPPORT. Medics, Engineers, to name two infantry support. Transport drivers and to a lesser extent Bomber pilots.

All of those have one thing in common - weapon systems / tools which benefit other people and not themselves.

It is not necessary to turn a vehicle into a one-man killwhore machine just to get people to drive it/cert it. Plenty of people drove galaxies when needed. Plenty of people drove tanks and piloted libs. The tradeoff of the far more firepower and a stronger vehicle emphasized teamwork and coordination with gunners/bombardiers.

As a longtime tank driver what rewards me is not the ability to shoot. It is knowing that my tank crew was kicking ass and impacting the battle. Of course I'm going to cert things that make my entire tank better. You don't need to motivate me or distract me with a main gun.
As a player whose most offensively oriented cert was special assault, and who had liberator, sunderer, deliverer, galaxy, ams, and ran around gluing bases back together during defenses, I really hope the devs can wrap their heads around what you just said.

I'd much rather understand the real design vision and gameplay goals of this change. Giving the certed person the ability to shoot from the vehicle is a poor excuse and I know that isn't the main reason they made the change. They wanted to run design impacts by the playerbase so they have to be straight with us with what they intend with things.

I'm sympathetic to the notion of "hey, give the guy buying the certs the chance to use the gun." I don't think the path they've indicated is the best way to do that, though. I've outlined a simple solution that does that (as the stated goal) without mucking about with cooperation dynamics and team vehicle vs. solo vehicle balance.

I will admit, though, I'm skeptical, as well, as to whether that's the entirety of the intent. After all, they've gone out of their way to declare that they're providing lots of support roles for people who aren't good at standard FPS skills. One would think, then, that essentially allowing the "driver pulls the vehicle" to create a "driver" support role, and they'd be find with that.

[Raymac]

I know that's what they said, but that's a bullshit excuse.

It's not a bullshit excuse. Bottom line is that ANY tank without a secondary gunner is going to be nothing but wreckage when a Reaver flies by.

[Malorn]

It's not a bullshit excuse. Bottom line is that ANY tank without a secondary gunner is going to be nothing but wreckage when a Reaver flies by.

Only if there is NO other AA nearby. It's an MMOFPS, not a 1v1. All it takes is one good AA in the vicinity to ward off reavers. It could be a MAX, or a Wasp, or good reaver pilot, or infantry-based AA.

Even if none of those exist, you'd only need minimal secondary gunners.

4 tanks, only 1 has a gunner with an AA config. 5 people, 4 tanks. Lots of main gun firepower. Lots of tank hit points to destroy before they're gone. Way better than running 2 tanks.

[Raymac]

Only if there is NO other AA nearby. It's an MMOFPS, not a 1v1. All it takes is one good AA in the vicinity to ward off reavers. It could be a MAX, or a Wasp, or good reaver pilot, or infantry-based AA.

Even if none of those exist, you'd only need minimal secondary gunners.

4 tanks, only 1 has a gunner with an AA config. 5 people, 4 tanks. Lots of main gun firepower. Lots of tank hit points to destroy before they're gone. Way better than running 2 tanks.

You're right. It's not 1v1. And yet all these threads are based on this vaccuum idea of tank v tank. But we've all been in the game it's tank with air and AV troops and snipers all in 1 mega....how did Higby put it? ah yes clusterfuck battles. I mean of course balance has it's place, but I don't see the different sides of this debate agreeing unless it's some split the baby solution, which is what may end up happening.

[Sirisian]

Even if none of those exist, you'd only need minimal secondary gunners.

4 tanks, only 1 has a gunner with an AA config. 5 people, 4 tanks. Lots of main gun firepower. Lots of tank hit points to destroy before they're gone. Way better than running 2 tanks.
I don't see the problem. That's perfect teamwork. Everyone is engaged in the fight in combat roles. It's what an MMOFPS is supposed to be about. Combat. Also I'm glad you finally figured out the game isn't 1v1. We've been pointing that out for a while. It's about a lot of people working together to fight. You don't need some do nothing driver role. It adds nothing to a shooter game when you already have teamwork with people working in groups.

This is the same reason you don't see a mossy with a driver and a guy controlling the guns. It's just not as fun as having control of the weapons. People try to latch onto these points and go "oh but the fighters are solo players and won't work together". No you just have groups of them destroying the enemy. That is working together. You don't need one guy driving and another firing the bullets to get things done.

[Zulthus]

I don't see the problem. That's perfect teamwork. Everyone is engaged in the fight in combat roles. It's what an MMOFPS is supposed to be about. Combat. Also I'm glad you finally figured out the game isn't 1v1. We've been pointing that out for a while. It's about a lot of people working together to fight. You don't need some do nothing driver role. It adds nothing to a shooter game when you already have teamwork with people working in groups.

This is the same reason you don't see a mossy with a driver and a guy controlling the guns. It's just not as fun as having control of the weapons. People try to latch onto these points and go "oh but the fighters are solo players and won't work together". No you just have groups of them destroying the enemy. That is working together. You don't need one guy driving and another firing the bullets to get things done.

It seems that more than 90% of the forum users are against one man MBTs. Regardless of what you think as stupid and boring, many, many people find driving and gunning being separate from each other very much superior to solo killwhore vehicles, including me. Coordinating with each other is great fun and you operate much more efficiently with people concentrating on one role at a time.

[BorisBlade]

As long as no single driver with a gun can beat a tank with a driver and gunner It'll be fine

No, you are missing the point. Its still a solo buff rather than a vehicle. And there are plenty of us who love to just drive. I dont even use the PPA on the magrider when i play, other than once in a million years (of course it was a pain to use with all the sway). I love driving for my crew and focusing on gettin them a good shot while avoiding enemy fire. Nothin more fun than having a good driver paired with a good gunner(s). And dont get me wrong i dont mind gunning, thats fun when ya get a good pilot. But i do not wanna gun and drive at the same time, and unlike the magrider, you cant not use the main gun or you are worthless. On top of that, if you are in the secondary slot, you have to put up with half ass driving from someone who is tryin to shoot and drive all at once. Screw that.

And because it is so solo focused it will have to have much weaker armor compared to what a real tank should have. It will be much more like bf where you die rather fast even in a tank. And in a game with a zillion people thats awful design. We need a vehicle that can take the hits, its slow and cumbersome as a downside and needs its 3 people but has high armor and can take a beating to help push forward.

The teamwork focus is so much more fun, this is not a random deathmatch game, its an MMO. We will have Outfits (guilds) and make many friends all of which who can gun for us as we drive. It gives the feel of teamwork and an actual operation goin with reality in drivers not gunning. It improves the social aspect. And prevents the "buff" feel that solo vehicles get, and the more solo mindset you get. I dont really feel like part of my squad when we are all runnin around in our own lightnings. It just doesn feel as epic at all.

[BorisBlade]

we don't know that the gunner thing isn't going to be changed,we don't need to be compromising yet.

wait for beta and let everyone see how this idea sux

I have been sayin that about most ideas, because they can be changed easily enough. This one tho, isnt so easy. If they keep this up, then we get more of those awful magriders which will not work for a team based vehicle at all. And it could apply to other things like skills etc that are based on this non-teamplay idea.

If we have a bunch of vehicles, skills, weapons, systems, etc all designed for this solo way, then it becomes too difficult and time consuming to change it all at that point and so we get stuck with it. Even the very limited info we know already requires a complete redo of the magrider. (i vote shrink it and make it the ES variant of the lightning!!!)

But yeah, most other things can be ironed out in beta, just gotta catch the stuff that really cant before it gets developed too far into the core of the game.

[Sirisian]

Coordinating with each other is great fun and you operate much more efficiently with people concentrating on one role at a time.
That's why I'm a big proponent of allowing the driver to release the main cannon to the gunner for people that wish to play that way. You don't always need AA or AI support, so you can keep the gunner busy using the AV cannon. There are a lot of times when a skilled player can just drive and gun at the same time and make their own shots. This was obvious in the Magrider. My driver would be taking shots then just because I was bored I'd be hitting them with the PPA. That whole time I could just be firing the main cannon and my gunner could be launching a mortar shell at infantry. I do understand that people feel strongly about driving though so it's important to allow that for people tat don't want to focus on both actions at the same time especially when moving fast.

And because it is so solo focused it will have to have much weaker armor compared to what a real tank should have. It will be much more like bf where you die rather fast even in a tank. And in a game with a zillion people thats awful design. We need a vehicle that can take the hits, its slow and cumbersome as a downside and needs its 3 people but has high armor and can take a beating to help push forward.
This is more of a balance issue. I too am a fan of long TTK on vehicles even with a single person. That's why I prefer it takes a lot of AA rounds to kill a plane and focused fire to kill a tank.

To fully understand this imagine 4 solo tanks go against each other. 4 prowlers vs 4 vanguards. You're imagining a necessity that they'd die in a few hits. It doesn't need to be that way. They could have a ton of health and take 10+ direct hits to kill each other. Tanks that focus their fire together using teamwork would destroy a single of the enemy tank in 3 turns. (4 * 3 = 12 rounds). This would destroy the enemy tanks much faster than randomly shooting which would damage the tanks evenly basically however with focused fire the enemy would be down a tank and lose much faster at that point. So a long TTK is really important to gameplay and give players many choices when they're being attacked.

Okay fun. If you look at this program you can see the math (http://ideone.com/Lzr79). (This shows 5 tanks firing randomly at the enemy will beat 4 using focused fire if they have 10 health). Click clone then change the Health and team sizes and run it to see the outcome at the bottom. It gives you a hit for hit battle report assuming the tanks are trading rounds and firing all at the same time.

[Marth Koopa]

I support driver drives gunner guns because it gives me more EXP when my Lancer rips tanks apart. :groovy:

[Raymac]

It seems that more than 90% of the forum users are against one man MBTs. Regardless of what you think as stupid and boring, many, many people find driving and gunning being separate from each other very much superior to solo killwhore vehicles, including me. Coordinating with each other is great fun and you operate much more efficiently with people concentrating on one role at a time.

Actually it's 50%, but whatever. So half of a vocal minority of an obscure cult game in a very non-scientific poll think something. That frankly means jack squat.

I'm not quite sure how many times the devs need to say PS2 is a team based shooter. I mean some people around here are acting as if they took the 2nd seat out of the tanks altogether. Personally, I think people just need to deal with the reality that people play shooters to shoot. When is the Gran Turismo MMO coming out again?

[Azren]

That's why I'm a big proponent of allowing the driver to release the main cannon to the gunner for people that wish to play that way. You don't always need AA or AI support, so you can keep the gunner busy using the AV cannon. There are a lot of times when a skilled player can just drive and gun at the same time and make their own shots. This was obvious in the Magrider. My driver would be taking shots then just because I was bored I'd be hitting them with the PPA. That whole time I could just be firing the main cannon and my gunner could be launching a mortar shell at infantry. I do understand that people feel strongly about driving though so it's important to allow that for people tat don't want to focus on both actions at the same time especially when moving fast.

Releasable main gun is not possible due to the Magrider.

If it was possible, balancing it would be hell, since all the properties of the main gun would have to change the second it got released to the gunner.
One way for this to work would be to give driver operated main gun 50% slower reload rate than the released gun has. This option I could accept, but only if we have it from the getgo and not as a cert along the way.

Actually it's 50%, but whatever. So half of a vocal minority of an obscure cult game in a very non-scientific poll think something. That frankly means jack squat.

I'm not quite sure how many times the devs need to say PS2 is a team based shooter. I mean some people around here are acting as if they took the 2nd seat out of the tanks altogether. Personally, I think people just need to deal with the reality that people play shooters to shoot. When is the Gran Turismo MMO coming out again?

12.50% of the voters want PS 2 style tanks
50% want PS 1 style
The rest is the "BFR Style", "other" group. The people who want "releaseable main gun for gunner" belong to this group too.

So what you are saying that 50% of the people's opinion "means jack squat". 50% is a huge number in any vote, even greater if you consider that your side only has 12.50%.

At any rate, why does someone who clearly wants to play as a reaver pilot most of the time, want to tell those who want to be dedicated tank drivers to get in line? Really while your opinion should be noted, it should not be of much weight here.

[sylphaen]

the tanks are trading rounds and firing all at the same time.

@Sirisian: Thanks for sharing your ideas. You made me realize about another big difference between 1-man vehicles and crew-vehicles.

With a team of people in 1-man tanks and assuming that you cannot come back to the battle right away with a new tank, once you're taken out, you're out. Out of the heat, out of the action, etc... You're left alone respawning at the base to get a new vehicle, thinking how you could have played better in the previous round while reflexively proceeding to get back to the battle.

I do not know if I am the only one who experienced this feeling of being left out of the team once in a while but it can suck...

Now in a crew-vehicle, you never miss the climax of the battle ! How ? Well, the climax is either when you defeat your target or when your whole crew gets blown up.
:D


In PS1, while dying as infantry was expandable and just as fast to respawn. In the contrary, losing your tank was like taking a hit because the vehicles were slow and you had to come back all the way. On the other hand, the tanks were durable if you took care of them. In any case, my point is that having fun with your crew through both the best and hard times was the whole point of tank play.


In essence, either 1-man tanks or crew-tanks are viable in a game function-wise. However, the feeling is much different. Just like requiring a secondary gunner to function vs. being already effective and seeing the secondary gunner as a bonus. The feeling/immersion is much different.

Let's wait for beta and see how things will be.


half of a vocal minority of an obscure cult game

@Raymac: yes, people will run tanks in PS2. But also: yes, people who run those PS2 tanks will be very different minded...

I mean some people around here are acting as if they took the 2nd seat out of the tanks altogether.
Please, understand that I am not trying to argue what you are saying since people would be stupid to forget that PS2 tanks will still have 2 seats; however:
PS1: 2 seats, driver, MAIN-gunner
PS2: 2 seats, driver/MAIN-gunner, secondary

The people who need to realize that people play shooters to shoot also realize that between PS1 and PS2, there was a big difference in design philosophy.

Can you realize that some people enjoyed some PS1 aspects more than you did ? Driving for great gunners (along with footzerging on bases) is what made me come back to PS1 repeatedly (and willing to shell out 15$/m).

I am not saying that this preference is superior to other preferences (like killwhoring) or that the devs must switch back to PS1 system because 15 players like me enjoyed driving tank with BFGs. The devs will (and should) do what it takes to make their game successful.

By voicing their concern, the 50% cult-followers are essentially trying to alert and warn the devs that something out there offers some diversity (driving) to the core gameplay of a FPS (shooting) and that it adds a lot of value to some players. Now if the devs want to make a MMOFPS which offers 100% of the same thing to air & land & infantry (i.e. killwhoring with different guns in different ways but always killwhoring), then it's their call.

In PS1, I never felt like a lame driver. I felt like the guy that multiplied the potential of big-fucking-guns on rails, baby ! And I was always thankful to my gunners because they (almost) never failed to seal the deal. And we had FUN !

So yah... PS2, different game, different people. Not necessarily bad, just different preferences.

btw, I also find it unecessary to be so condescending towards people who enjoyed PS1 vehicle style and defend it: it's a matter of taste. To conclude, I'll stay vocal where I feel it's necessary (i.e. to defend what I enjoyed the most in PS1 because I want PS2 to be as enjoyable) and no, I do not enjoy racing games like Gran Turismo (is it truly possible to make a MMO out of that ? :eek:).

PS2 devs will do what they deem best for their success. It does not mean it will be the right formula for everyone either. Time and beta will tell !

[Baneblade]

As one of the best tank drivers ever to play PS, I can say with certainty that the only thing a tank driver needs for a gun, is a 20mm 60 deg forward MG. Not very good at killing air, but useful against infantry and light vehicles.

[FastAndFree]

12.50% of the voters want PS 2 style tanks
50% want PS 1 style
The rest is the "BFR Style", "other" group. The people who want "releaseable main gun for gunner" belong to this group too.

So what you are saying that 50% of the people's opinion "means jack squat". 50% is a huge number in any vote, even greater if you consider that your side only has 12.50%.

At any rate, why does someone who clearly wants to play as a reaver pilot most of the time, want to tell those who want to be dedicated tank drivers to get in line? Really while your opinion should be noted, it should not be of much weight here.

For the record, I am also guilty of being a reaver pilot in the tank discussion, but I still want to point out that "50% of the votes" sure sound better than "just over a platoon's worth of votes". Because that poll only has 64 votes, total.

About a game that we hope thousands will play, probably many of whom never played or even heard about Planetside 1

So yes, I would say that the result of the poll is only indicative of a fraction of active PSU users' preferences, who are apparently a drop in the ocean.

[Baneblade]

What poll?

[FastAndFree]

What poll?

I assumed we were talking about this one (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37352)

[Azren]

this: http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37352

[Baneblade]

I assumed we were talking about this one (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37352)

That is a pretty shitty poll. I don't like polls 'cleverly' disguising the real point the poster wants to make... in that case an idea of his own...

[Azren]

I have made a more simple poll about it, but it got closed by Hamma :rolleyes:

This thing here: http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37418

[moosepoop]

this is gonna be bfrs all over again, except this time its at the launch of the game.

[NapalmEnima]

1) The devs have lots of dials they can twist to make a tank with a gunner better than two tanks without. If they want it, they can get it.

2) They may not want it.

Lets ass-u-me for a moment that two MBTs with a driver can take out a single tank with a gunner (AV or not).

Let us also ass-u-me that a pilot who is also the gunner will be all but worthless against A2G (which seems reasonable), and have a tough time if flanked by AV infantry (or infantry with effective cover, also seems reasonable).

Now, if A2G and AV infantry are common enough, those two MTs with no secondaries aren't going to last very long. UNLESS they are working with infantry and some sort of air defense not within their vehicle. Depending on how long the tank timer is, they might have to wait a while to get a new one, reducing the overall number of 1-seater MBT Yahoos running around on their own.

So rather than promoting teamwork within a tank, they may instead want to encourage coordination with folks outside of the tank. A tank with no gunner better roll with infantry or they'll get et up by enemy AV troops. Better have some AA or air cover, or enemy A2G will easily pound that tank to scrap.

So if the MBT Yahoos hop in their tank and charge off and die in fiery glory, then have to spend twice as long waiting for their tank to be available again as the time they spent in combat, they just might figure out a couple things. They either need:
1) A gunner
2) External support

And the "everyone grabs an MBT with no gunner" argument pretty much makes option two impossible. With "everyone" in MBTs, there's no one else to offer that support.

But when "everyone" starts getting slaughtered by A2G, some of those folks are either going to take a path to counter it (AA maxes, AA secondaries, or air superiority craft), or go grab some A2G themselves so they can slaughter the enemy's MBT Yahoos. And as A2G becomes more common, so will various counters for it. And counters for that, and so on.

That sounds remarkably like balanced, team-oriented gameplay. Golly.

[Bags]

this is gonna be bfrs all over again, except this time its at the launch of the game.

Uh, the biggest problem with BFRs was the ridiculous power they gave to one person. Due to their shield recharge rates, it took multiple BFRs to kill one BFR.

Unless you think the lightning is problematic, this won't be game devastating.

[Traak]

And, with tanks, we won't have those shields that were magically proof of big guns. Stupidity on ritalin.

[Hamma]

I have made a more simple poll about it, but it got closed by Hamma :rolleyes:

This thing here: http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37418

We already had polls on the same issue - soon we would have to create a poll to decide which poll is more valid :lol:

[Raymac]

btw, I also find it unecessary to be so condescending towards people who enjoyed PS1 vehicle style and defend it: it's a matter of taste. To conclude, I'll stay vocal where I feel it's necessary (i.e. to defend what I enjoyed the most in PS1 because I want PS2 to be as enjoyable) and no, I do not enjoy racing games like Gran Turismo (is it truly possible to make a MMO out of that ? :eek:).

PS2 devs will do what they deem best for their success. It does not mean it will be the right formula for everyone either. Time and beta will tell !

You were right to call me out for being condescending. I guess I'm just frustrated by the circles this debate keeps running around and instead of just avoiding it, I get pulled in to reply to one thing or another.

You make alot of extremely well thought out points in your post and it's hard for me to find anything that I'd disagree with. I'd just like to clarify that what I meant by the "vocal minority" was referencing all of us here on the forums, not just the people I disagree with on this particular subject. Out of all of the thousands (and hopefully hundreds of thousands) that will play PS2, we represent only a small fraction of that. Our opinions still matter, and I think we are a great sounding board for the devs, but saying some poll on here has any meaning at all is a bit of a stretch. Even the most professional scientific polls have alot of flaws.

The bottom line though is a point you made very eloquently: when it comes to all this stuff "time and beta will tell."

[sylphaen]

@Raymac: Thanks for reading the (full) post ! I write too much. >.< I can understand your frustration but don't fuel it in a negative way, we are all super passionate about this game and that's just what it is.
:)

If it makes you feel any better, I do enjoy reading your posts so don't feel too worried about what I said. In fact, that post was out of your usual tone so I was wondering about it but avoided mentionning it for fear of coming out too strong (lack of contextual expression sometimes make it hard to convey a message correctly by writing)

Playing the devil's advocate, I do think that this is the best way to attack/invalidate that poll we keep mentionning:
Because that poll only has 64 votes, total.

The real question is: given the number of PS1 players left, can that sample represent an accurate picture of the full population ? I betcha !
:rofl:

Enjoy sharing, enjoy posting and always keep smiling because if you played PS1 and still follow the game, you know who you are and that you can't escape from being THAT "special" group of people.
:lol:

And if I may, even our devs seem kinda special too.
:lol:

<3 T-Ray's motivation ! Higby is like the new kid on the block but so far, he seems to have some hidden yet witty repartee skills too.
:D

Who will be the best dev by release ?!?! Poll anyone ?
:p

[moosepoop]

Uh, the biggest problem with BFRs was the ridiculous power they gave to one person. Due to their shield recharge rates, it took multiple BFRs to kill one BFR.

Unless you think the lightning is problematic, this won't be game devastating.

they want to implement a solo one man vehicle that can one hit kill infantry. wake up.

[Bags]

they want to implement a solo one man vehicle that can one hit kill infantry. wake up.

the lightning can already pretty much instagib infantry with the AI machine gun. wake up.

[Captain B]

Lightning also doesn't have the same armor as a Vanguard, though, and can be brought down or chased off relatively easily. It's the whole of the issue(s), not the sum of their (many) parts.

[moosepoop]

the tanks can go head to head with 5 or 6 infantry, will outnumber the infantry outdoors. game will be unplayable.

[Xyntech]

the tanks can go head to head with 5 or 6 infantry, will outnumber the infantry outdoors. game will be unplayable.

This is the kind of statement that makes PS1 players seem paranoid and irrational. I agree that if they don't change the driver being the gunner now, they aren't going to change a core mechanic like that during beta, but seriously? If tanks overwhelm everything else during beta and make the game unplayable, they are going to get nerfed to shit until it IS playable. Odds are they would catch that during internal and we would never even see it.

Can the topic at least be discussed from the point of people with differing preferences and and visions for what PS2 should be? If we are to assume the devs are willing to allow the game to be unplayable on the tank/outdoor front, why not assume they will make pistols 10x deadlier than rifles and give galaxy spawn ships a million hit points? It makes no sense. The developers may not be doing what you want but that doesn't make them incompetent.

[kaffis]

If tanks overwhelm everything else during beta and make the game unplayable, they are going to get nerfed to shit until it IS playable. Odds are they would catch that during internal and we would never even see it.
Even if we don't ever see it, do you really WANT a "main battle tank" to feel like it's been "nerfed to shit"?

I want my tanks to feel meaty, powerful, and durable. To feel like a tank. To truly be a tank-like play experience, rather than a MAX for the outdoors with wheels and a bigger model.

To do that and maintain balance requires different demands when it comes to things like manpower and availability. Hence, timers and no single-man crew.

[Captain B]

I want the feel of tanks rolling over a hill to be "OH SHHIIII- GET BACK IN THE HOUSE!" not a routine shrug and going about business as usual.

[Xyntech]

I don't disagree, but I think there could be something pretty cool about 100 tanks rolling over the hill too and you just aren't going to see that as much if every single one of them demands at least 2 people to be a functional force.

I think there can be a happy middle ground. If it ends up being that catastrophic, maybe that core mechanic would be changed. Big things don't usually get changed that late, but if it's a big enough problem, who knows?

I think the idea IS that tanks WILL dominate open spaces. On the other hand, I suspect that the main cannon will not be as unstoppable an infantry killer as it used to be. Infantry, firing (somewhat) faster TTK anti tank weapons from cover/hiding places at vulnerable rear armor should mean that tanks become much less dominant in areas with a lot of places to hide. There are large places in planetside where pretty much NO fighting ever happens and the PS2 devs want to change that. They aren't going to change it exclusively by adding incentive to fight in those areas, because some places just don't work for infantry combat, even in PS1. Those places are going to need large enough vehicle populations to make open field battles interesting.

[Captain B]

I'd love to see a hundred tanks rolling over a hill, too, but not because they were sacrificed at the altar of Little Timmy and his ADHD. If a player wants to drive around solo, there's an app- I mean, a tank for that. It's called the Lightning. Great little drive, that, and it's pretty durable and nasty, particularly against infantry.

It also takes a few rockets and ends up a smoldering heap, and gets socked right in the nuts against any real tank in the game. BUT, if you want to drive around on your own, you can. There isn't any need to make EVERY tank a Lightning+.

I'd be cool if it meant a tank driver could auto-switch between driver and main gunner when the seat is empty on the fly, but being able to drive an upgraded Lightning with bigger guns and more armor by yourself? That's a bit much. We have the one-man tank already, and it works just fine.

[Xyntech]

Little Timmy didn't last very long in a Reaver compared to someone who knew their shit. Again, hopefully there will be options for more old school PS1 play styles, but bottom line is that the devs have made it clear that they intend to change this mechanic. We have seen in Air Cav that this does not destroy the game, team work, or any of that. Will the developers change their mind on this one? maybe, but I wouldn't count on it.

It's a change in design philosophy and they only way I can see it not making it into the final game is if it destroys the rest of the gameplay. That doesn't seem at all likely to me, despite what some of the alarmists think.

Don't misunderstand me, most of the people with concerns about this aren't being alarmist, it's just that this is obviously a very divisive issue. By all means, let the debate rage on, if it is this important to people than it should warrant consideration from the dev team, but again, I would be surprised to see them completely go back on this design choice unless it completely broke the game.

There is still time left to play PS1 for those who really can't stand the idea of change, but I've been playing the game again a bit recently and it isn't planetside. There aren't enough players for it to be planetside. Maybe those wanting 1 driver 1 gunner tanks are selfish and maybe I'm selfish to want the priority put on attracting a larger player base, but I will always side with more players, because that is the single most important component of Planetside to me. If it only is popular for 3 years but has a large playerbase for those 3 years, they will be a glorious 3 years.

[Azren]

We already had polls on the same issue - soon we would have to create a poll to decide which poll is more valid :lol:

Yes, and an overly complicated one at that :rolleyes:

[moosepoop]

This is the kind of statement that makes PS1 players seem paranoid and irrational. I agree that if they don't change the driver being the gunner now, they aren't going to change a core mechanic like that during beta, but seriously? If tanks overwhelm everything else during beta and make the game unplayable, they are going to get nerfed to shit until it IS playable. Odds are they would catch that during internal and we would never even see it.



this is not irrational. this is completely logical if you guys would THINK instead of trying to flirt with higby.

i said nothing about headshots or classes, because i thought them through and they were not significant changes. THIS is significant. you guys need to remember what it felt like to be tank raped, over and over and over, and wake up and take a stand.

we wait years for this game and you guys are all apathetic. whats wrong with you? if you dont like it either why are you arguing against me?

most of the arguments agaisnt me are so convoluted and bizzare it seems this forum is filled with autistics and housewives.

[Xyntech]

i said nothing about headshots or classes, because i thought them through and they were not significant changes. THIS is significant. you guys need to remember what it felt like to be tank raped, over and over and over, and wake up and take a stand.

I have never said this is not a significant change. Quite the opposite. Where we disagree and where I was making the comment about irrationality is the idea that there is only one mechanic that can EVER work in a game and every other way of handling tanks will be doomed to failure and misery. This is just narrow minded.

Tanks should dominate open land and infantry should dominate places with a lot of cover. From what I have heard, it sounds quite possible to balance that with the new system.

Faster TTK's can only benefit infantry here considering that tanks already had the fastest TTK possible (OSOK, actually one shot multiple kills in some cases).

Frankly I don't think anyone here wants the game to be a disaster, but I disagree that this change is inherently bad. I think there is paranoia going on and you think there is apathy and autism going on. So be it.

[TheRagingGerbil]

they want to implement a solo one man vehicle that can one hit kill infantry. wake up.

:rofl: Wow, great statement for a game mechanic/system we know nothing about. The sky fall on your much?

I have faith in Higby and the rest of the devs.

They know how much of a failure BFR's were and I suspect that is the last thing they would repeat here.

There was a point in the BFR's life that they actually weren't that bad. I made quite a sport out of hotdropping on top of them with a jammer and hotswapping deci's. They were ridiculously easy to solo then.

There are a lot of ways to bring balance to the solo tank driver/gunner issue. Perhaps the barrel will be locked in a forward position requiring the entire tank to turn. Maybe it won't be able to be depressed below horizontal making you fodder to infantry. Maybe you can fire but it will require you to change to a gunner position bringing the tank to a halt. Lots of variables we no nothing about...

[Azren]

:rofl: Wow, great statement for a game mechanic/system we know nothing about. The sky fall on your much?

I have faith in Higby and the rest of the devs.

They know how much of a failure BFR's were and I suspect that is the last thing they would repeat here.

...

No need to be a troll about it... so he has a different opinion than you, do you think it's OK to attack him just because you can not make any good points on the subject otherwise?

Blind faith in the devs - I'm sure you will be rewarded for that. We all know how well and swiftly they balanced lashers and biffers over the years, what reason could we possibly have to doubt them? Seriously...

[Xyntech]

No need to be a troll about it... so he has a different opinion than you, do you think it's OK to attack him just because you can not make any good points on the subject otherwise?

Blind faith in the devs - I'm sure you will be rewarded for that. We all know how well and swiftly they balanced lashers and biffers over the years, what reason could we possibly have to doubt them? Seriously...

With that attitude, why play the game at all? Why would you assume they wouldn't fuck up 1 driver 1 gunner tank balance as well? It certainly isn't like infantry stood much of a chance against a tank in PS1 in the first place.

There are a lot of legitimate points in favor of the PS1 style tanks in these threads, but a lot of these posts are sounding very much like the sky is falling and the developers can do no right.

There is a real possibility that they could screw up Planetside 2, but if they are that bad then there is no hope for the game at all. I haven't seen indication of that level of incompetence yet, so I choose to hear them out, especially considering that I can easily imagine countless ways to balance the new tank system myself.

Does it suck that some players may not get to do exactly the same things they used to do in PS1? Yeah, I legitimately hope that they get some options that make them happier. I don't want veteran players to feel excluded. I don't want ADD Timmy and his solo tanking to feel excluded either, because the team players will still have and advantage over him and he will provide another extra target on the battlefield.

I am liking the mindset of the developers: Don't force team work, just encourage and reward it. It seems very non exclusionary. I hope they include as many types of players as possible, as long as it's balanced. I think it can be balanced. Others are entitled to disagree, with legitimately differing view points, or doomsday fear mongering. The former is just a lot more constructive.

[Azren]

You do realise we are talking about a big multi company that has only one goal; profit? They will make the game in the way that attracts the most people, end of story. The part about pleasing the current PS 1 players just belongs there too; they want to keep these people to get a larger playerbase, nothing to do with loyality to us.

Now that this is out of the way: a game that allows every type of player to be happy is not really possible to create, however you can get close. If we stick with tanks (since that is the topic here) the devs could just add two types of tanks. One for soloers (ie. lightning), one for those who just want to drive (MBT). With this the issue would be instantly solved, but I don't see it happening.

As I see it the reason behind this is the very rushed developement. In march they were still only planning to make PS: Next, a grafichal upgrade for PS, in the few months they have till christmas (that is the time they have beta planned), they just do not have the time to add enough content in terms of vehicles. As far as I know deliverer, bikes, buggies, lightning all got scrapped. So they decided to simply mix the roles previously known as skyguard, light tank (lighting) and MBT into one to save time and "please" the palyers.

[Xyntech]

Of course making a profit is a big priority, it is their livelihood after all. I just am excited for the game and I don't see how anyone can be simultaneously looking forward to PS2 and assume that the developers don't know their craft and are sure to mess it up.

We don't have a ton of info, but in my mind it is clear that the new tank system will be possible to balance. If some people think it can't be balanced, I can see where it would be upsetting, but I strongly disagree with that view.

As for the rushed development, I couldn't agree more. It is clear to me that they are doing everything they can to put out a state of the art re-imagining of Planetside in as short a time as possible. This means cutter corners and trimming fat.

Trimming fat can be good, cutting corners can be bad. Time will tell if they get it right, but we aren't going to give them more time or money for the project just by bitching about it are we? All we can do is make our voices heard about what we think are the top priorities, which is something good that this and other threads are doing.

[Raymac]

I can't believe I'm wading into these waters again, but something in the recent Videogamer.com interview really struck me in relation to this endless debate.

It likely has been mentioned before, but I think this might be the perfect solution to finally end all this squabbling. Let me start with the quote. The question was in regards to the level of customization in PS2:

You can pimp out your tank, change your secondary and primary weapons on it, change the armour on it.

It's so shockingly simple. You allow the player to customize his tank to swap the secondary weapon with the primary weapon.

It can then be balanced fairly easily since we all know from our time spent in Lightnings that gunning and driving at the same time isn't the easiest thing in the world. From my point of view, it looks like the perfect split-the-baby solution, and it seems to be something the devs are already talking about.

[Baron]

I can't believe I'm wading into these waters again, but something in the recent Videogamer.com interview really struck me in relation to this endless debate.

It likely has been mentioned before, but I think this might be the perfect solution to finally end all this squabbling. Let me start with the quote. The question was in regards to the level of customization in PS2:



It's so shockingly simple. You allow the player to customize his tank to swap the secondary weapon with the primary weapon.

It can then be balanced fairly easily since we all know from our time spent in Lightnings that gunning and driving at the same time isn't the easiest thing in the world. From my point of view, it looks like the perfect split-the-baby solution, and it seems to be something the devs are already talking about.

To be technical, he didn't say you could SWITCH the primary and secondary weapon, regarding control...just change them. It is possible by changing the roles of each gun you could effectively "switch" them...AV vs. AI vs. AA

[Raymac]

To be technical, he didn't say you could SWITCH the primary and secondary weapon, regarding control...just change them. It is possible by changing the roles of each gun you could effectively "switch" them...AV vs. AI vs. AA

No, you are exactly right. The way you described it is the way I believe he meant it, but it's just a small step from that to actually switching the guns altogether.

[sylphaen]

EMP weapon on the driver gun ?
:D

Ooooh yes.

[Azren]

This is very blurry. For one, we always knew we could change the driver's gun, just like much else on the tank (engine, armor, ect). This really doesn't change much, unless the balance of the two guns is linked: if you lower the power of the driver gun, the gunner gun will get more powerful - that would fix this issue (for the magrider at least).