Not Another Teen Tank Debate

[Xyntech]

This is not intended to be a debate thread. This is a pole to see where people stand. Maybe it can help Higby and crew in their decision on which option to go with.

I've attempted to put every option I can think of, between the PS1 system and the current PS2 system, but I've left the "other" option available for write in votes if you have something I missed. Please only use this option if you have an idea that falls somewhere between PS1 and PS2. This isn't meant to be a thread to come up with entirely unique new ideas on how to handle the tank driver/gunner situation.

I ask that as many people as possible vote here. Even if you don't care about the issue, you can vote for the default current PS2 system, since that one is what the devs currently seem to intend to use.

Once again, this is not a debate thread. I think that this topic has been debated to death. I'd even go so far as to ask the moderators to delete any posts that start getting too debate oriented.

If you wish to post your reasons for your decision, that is great, just try to refrain from debating or deriding anyone else's comments or preferences.

[basti]

We had such a poll aready. It died...

[MooK]

I chose "Driver controls secondary gun. Gunner controls main gun," however, I would have preferred, "Planetside 1 system. Driver only drives. Gunner controls main gun." I chose what I chose as a compromise to the developer's needs for a faster paced game. I believe that allowing the driver to control driving and the main gun will only further displace cooperative and multiplayer gameplay.

[Baron]

The only issue with driver controlling the secondary gun is that gun could be a AA attachment. Soooo, driver now drives and controls a gun that has to look at the sky? good luck :p

[morf]

I chose other. I don't like the driver controlling the main turret. What's the point in my friend gunning my tank when he can just pull his own and we can have double health and 2 primary turrets?

I think they should be equal but different. Don't call it a primary/secondary. Have them both be roughly the same power but serve different roles, then customize from there. If you want drivers to have an advantage, put it in their skill tree that they can unlock more options. Maybe even let them unlock more options as both a gunner and driver. Or maybe make an abbreviated skill tree for gunners.

But definitely, if the driver controls a turret that is 2x as effective as the secondary turret, my crew of 8 will be pulling 8 tanks.

[Raymac]

I think there should be a poll answer that is the current Planetside 2 system with option to add a 3rd passenger so you have 1 dedicated driver and 2 dedicated gunners.

[Talek Krell]

I prefer the PS1 system. I am interested to see what they do with the flexibility they'll have now though. Simply copying Battlefield and putting a dinky LoS turret on the tanks would be a failure state, but they could also use the dedicated gunner to make some interesting and powerful equipment available.

[Sirisian]

hmm left out the option to allow driver to control the main gun, but be able to release it ot the secondary gunner. The driver should never be able to access the secondary guns.

[Xyntech]

We had such a poll aready. It died...

Sorry, my oversight. I only recalled the debate thread, but didn't notice a poll on my quick scanning of threads. I figured since a modification to let the gunner control the main gun was mentioned as still being under consideration in this weeks Q&A, it would be worthwhile to see where the community stood numerically.

The only issue with driver controlling the secondary gun is that gun could be a AA attachment. Soooo, driver now drives and controls a gun that has to look at the sky? good luck :p

Fair trade off for having what would amount to a 1 man skyguard with tank armor :D Besides, you wouldn't be shooting at aircraft all the time. Just slow down or stop if you spot one, or keep moving and hope for the best.

I chose other. I don't like the driver controlling the main turret. What's the point in my friend gunning my tank when he can just pull his own and we can have double health and 2 primary turrets?

I think they should be equal but different. Don't call it a primary/secondary. Have them both be roughly the same power but serve different roles, then customize from there. If you want drivers to have an advantage, put it in their skill tree that they can unlock more options. Maybe even let them unlock more options as both a gunner and driver. Or maybe make an abbreviated skill tree for gunners.

But definitely, if the driver controls a turret that is 2x as effective as the secondary turret, my crew of 8 will be pulling 8 tanks.

Sounds like your primary concern is that the driver should not be able to control the strongest gun. Option 3 would fill that role, with a caveat if you'd prefer the driver to be able to control a gun equally as powerful.

I think there should be a poll answer that is the current Planetside 2 system with option to add a 3rd passenger so you have 1 dedicated driver and 2 dedicated gunners.

That's quite different from what we saw in PS1 (aside from the gimped Prowler) and what they have indicated we will have in PS2. I feel that we should stick to somewhere more within the lines of what's currently in PS1 and PS2 or some compromise that's directly between the two, unless the devs indicate that they are considering more drastically rethinking their options.

hmm left out the option to allow driver to control the main gun, but be able to release it ot the secondary gunner. The driver should never be able to access the secondary guns.

Any particular reason why the gunner shouldn't control the secondary turret? I can't see any balance reasons for disallowing it that would be any different from drivers controlling the main gun.

Allowing the driver to release the gun is a good idea, but I think this could be qualified as a "driver controls the main gun, gunner controls secondary gun" with a thread post to clarify further, including that when the driver released the main gun, they did not gain access to the secondary gun.

It seems like the secondary turret idea has probably been developed pretty heavily already, so I didn't make any options other than the PS1 option that wouldn't include it.

[sylphaen]

Other:

Gunner controls the main gun.
Driver controls the vehicles and counter-measures/secondary systems.

If one person has the cert to get the vehicle:
- allow the owner to either drive or gun that vehicle but not both at the same time.
- allow anyone to either drive or gun for that vehicle as long as the other seat is reserved for the owner and cannot be used by anyone else.

_______________________

Repairing from inside the vehicle is lame since it does give a moment of opportunity of opportunity for snipers/cloakers/reavers/soldiers/etc... to kill the driver and/or gunner.

In PS1, if the driver died to a cloaker, it essentially neutralized the vehicle because it could not move anymore unless the gunner was an adv. medic. I never played as a cloaker but it must have been feeling great for them while as a driver, it always made me feel some kind of tension and risk when deciding to repair because the vehicle system (i.e. gunner+driver+vehicle platform) became vulnerable.


Now if PS2 is meant to be like BF3 with disposable vehicles (and accordingly balanced around that concept), then it is already too late and there is no point to having a vehicle system that's anything like PS1 (even though it's what I prefer).

[sylphaen]

The only issue with driver controlling the secondary gun is that gun could be a AA attachment. Soooo, driver now drives and controls a gun that has to look at the sky? good luck :p

That was the whole challenge of driving a skyguard. Even the driver not having a turret !

When your vehicle has paper armor, situational awareness and good communication with your gunner is essential.
:)

[CplVars]

When your vehicle has paper armor, situational awareness and good communication with your gunner is essential.
:)


That brings some good memories to mind.

Honestly driving was already a full time job in PS1. You had to keep your eyes open for everything; there wasn't any time to do anything beyond drive in intense combat situations. Besides I loved watching infantry flee as I rolled into them with a fully manned Prowler. The arc of the shots was already pretty wonky. I can't imagine trying to guess the targets range, adjust for range, adjust for speed, adjust for target movement, and dodge trees, rocks, and mines all at the same time.

[Azren]

Is there really a need to restart this topic? We had two very long debates on this before. Most people agreed that PS2 plans blow in comparison to PS1. Some people suggested the compromise to have the driver get the secondary gun (like Magrider in PS1). Some (very naiive) people suggested to wait for beta and see how it is. Other (more experienced) people told them this is bs, since any key element what makes it to beta, stays.

That's about it, not much else worthwile input was given on the topic. Same will happen here. PS1 style supporters are the majority.

Btw to stay on topic, I went with PS1 style in the poll.

[Canaris]

Dedicated main gunner and and give the driver a secondary makes sense to me

[BorisBlade]

I think there should be a poll answer that is the current Planetside 2 system with option to add a 3rd passenger so you have 1 dedicated driver and 2 dedicated gunners.

This, either the option or this by default with no "gunner=driver" option at all.

I DO NOT want to drive and gun at the same time, it sux and it doesnt feel like ps at all. I wont even drive if i have to do that and driving was my favorite thing to do in PS.

[Sirisian]

Any particular reason why the gunner shouldn't control the secondary turret? I can't see any balance reasons for disallowing it that would be any different from drivers controlling the main gun.

Allowing the driver to release the gun is a good idea, but I think this could be qualified as a "driver controls the main gun, gunner controls secondary gun" with a thread post to clarify further, including that when the driver released the main gun, they did not gain access to the secondary gun.

It seems like the secondary turret idea has probably been developed pretty heavily already, so I didn't make any options other than the PS1 option that wouldn't include it.
I don't feel like debating since this isn't a debate thread. View the 10 other threads on the subject. This has been discussed in detail already.

[Xyntech]

Is there really a need to restart this topic? We had two very long debates on this before. Most people agreed that PS2 plans blow in comparison to PS1. Some people suggested the compromise to have the driver get the secondary gun (like Magrider in PS1). Some (very naiive) people suggested to wait for beta and see how it is. Other (more experienced) people told them this is bs, since any key element what makes it to beta, stays.

That's about it, not much else worthwile input was given on the topic. Same will happen here. PS1 style supporters are the majority.

Btw to stay on topic, I went with PS1 style in the poll.

There is no reason to debate this again, which is why I said 2 times (3 if you count the title) that this is not another debate.

This is purely intended is a poll. The devs are still considering putting in an option that allows the driver to allow the gunner to control the main gun. I figured that the timing was good for a poll.

PS1 style supporters are far from the majority. Currently they have more votes than any other option (7), but they are almost neck in neck with the current PS2 method supporters (6) and the people who want the driver to control the secondary gun instead (also 6).

I think the real indication (and what I was trying to find indicate to the devs with this poll) is that the vast majority of people would prefer there be some kind of option for the gunner to control the main gun.

Add up poll options 2, 3, 4 and 5, which all have some form of gunner controlled main gun and you have 18 votes.

So that's technically at least 18 to 6 against gunners having no option for controlling the main gun. Now THAT is a majority. Three quarters of the votes.

[Xyntech]

I don't feel like debating since this isn't a debate thread. View the 10 other threads on the subject. This has been discussed in detail already.

Fair enough, I just wasn't understanding. I was more seeking clarity, but you are entitled to your opinion, so no need to go into it if it's going to turn into a needless debate.

[SKYeXile]

gonna love to see how easy the mag is to drive while gunning. ...if the thing even has a turret...so far it looks like it does not...

[CutterJohn]

I think there should be a poll answer that is the current Planetside 2 system with option to add a 3rd passenger so you have 1 dedicated driver and 2 dedicated gunners.

I concur.

[Talek Krell]

gonna love to see how easy the mag is to drive while gunning. ...if the thing even has a turret...so far it looks like it does not...Higby confirmed, the main gun is fixed forward.

[Xyntech]

I concur.

There should also be an option for tanks to be driven by remote control and for the main gun to be fired by an AI, like a TF2 sentry gun.

Until we hear any indication that the devs are even REMOTELY thinking about having more than 2 people in an MBT, I don't feel it's worth putting the option in this particular poll.

I only put the PS1 style option as an extreme example and because it made some sense as the ultimate contrast to the new system. Every other option I put is a middle ground option of compromise between the old and the new.

This isn't about what your ideal driver/gunner relationship is. This is about how far between the PS1 and the current PS2 system you would prefer to see the final PS2 setup to be.

It seems that most people want some form of the gunner controlling the main gun. This is what I am looking for, the majority common ground.

The devs said in the Q&A that they were still considering allowing an option for the gunner to control the main gun in some way. What I think this poll already shows unequivocally is that the majority of people in this community want this option. The devs may not use each persons ideal implementation of the option, but something is better than nothing.

If the devs stick to the plan they have currently laid out, drivers will be the only ones to ever control the main gun. I'd prefer any of the alternatives that give the gunner a chance to control it.

I'd actually prefer the PS1 system to the new system, I just know that it's never going to happen.

[krnasaur]

Shit, wheres the option for 4... driver, gunner, loader and commander

[Raka Maru]

Like in the other tank threads... This is not about realism. This is about the player who decides to cert a tank. He doesn't want to JUST be a taxi and he doesn't want to be STUCK with the alt (less powerful) gun.

[SKYeXile]

Higby confirmed, the main gun is fixed forward.

what the what.

http://www.realitythinking.org/images/5-3-09_2s.JPG
VS:
http://www.aikensairplanes.com/forces%20of%20valor/FV85001_actual13.JPG

much?

think better hit like a freight train and drive all sorts of crazy speeds in reverse and sideways.

[Azren]

Like in the other tank threads... This is not about realism. This is about the player who decides to cert a tank. He doesn't want to JUST be a taxi and he doesn't want to be STUCK with the alt (less powerful) gun.

That is exactly what the devs are thinking and that is exactly what so many disagree on. I do want to be only "taxi" and I do want to put all my time/points into upgrading the gun on my "taxi", because that is what sets PS aside from all the rest.

Bah, at any rate MBTs will be do-it-all vehicles now thanks to the very low number of vehicles they are implementing. I can imagine how this got decided on on one of their conferences; A: "hmmm, so we have 9 months to do this thing from zero, and we do not have the resources to do everything we had in PS, what should we scrap first?" B: "Ah I know, how about mixing all vehicles into one, so we do not have to code all those different behaviours" A: "Oh yea, good one Johnny". So now we have instead of buggies the MBT with AI turret, we have instead of Skyguard the MBT with AA turret, we have instead the MBT the "all-new-revolutioneary" MBT with AV turret. All of these also means that the MBT will have paper armor (if not on day one, very soon for sure).

[CutterJohn]

Until we hear any indication that the devs are even REMOTELY thinking about having more than 2 people in an MBT, I don't feel it's worth putting the option in this particular poll.

I only put the PS1 style option as an extreme example and because it made some sense as the ultimate contrast to the new system. Every other option I put is a middle ground option of compromise between the old and the new.

This isn't about what your ideal driver/gunner relationship is. This is about how far between the PS1 and the current PS2 system you would prefer to see the final PS2 setup to be.

You forget that 1/3 of PS1 tanks had 2 gunner seats. And they could think about it if we asked. One of the upsides of no animations getting into the vehicle is the number of seats in a vehicle is trivially easy to alter.

Course the fixed forward gun of the mag makes does throw a monkeywrench into all of this. It cannot possibly have a gunner controlled main turret without being completely redesigned.



what the what. think better hit like a freight train and drive all sorts of crazy speeds in reverse and sideways.

BF2142 had a tank like that, alongside a regular tank. They hit mostly the same, but the hover tank was rather faster and much more maneuverable. I've no doubt they'll do something similar.

[Azren]

what the what.

Magrider will be the same as it is now, just the two guns will be switched up. Actually I think that VS got the best of this change - hitting a tank as driver with a fixed gun will is much easier than hitting foot soldiers. Will have such a laugh at all those other MBTs who get stuck on trees and stones while trying to gun and drive at the same time.

[Graywolves]

I'd prefer to have a dedicated driver than someone who's running into trees because he's trying to aim and drive.

[MgFalcon]

Magrider will be the same as it is now, just the two guns will be switched up. Actually I think that VS got the best of this change - hitting a tank as driver with a fixed gun will is much easier than hitting foot soldiers. Will have such a laugh at all those other MBTs who get stuck on trees and stones while trying to gun and drive at the same time.

It makes total sense on paper, I want to play the shit out of it in Beta though, from what I'm getting - is that the Magrider NEEDS to have ultra maneuverability otherwise it wont hit the "super-fast" prowler, and get obliterated from the vanguard's cannon.

[TiberiusAudley]

The driver controlling the main gun and a passenger controlling a secondary gun turns it too much into Halo 3 / Halo: Reach Scorpion/Wraith syndrome.

A lot of times, those secondary guns aren't impactful enough to justify trying to get someone to gun them...so the potential side-gunners would just elect to go find something more useful, be it a vehicle of their own or a stronger weapon. The majority of the time you see a turret gunner in a Scorpion or a Wraith, it's because the opposing team is just goofing around and not taking the game seriously.

That problem is alleviated SLIGHTLY in PlanetSide by the sheer numbers of potential people you can have who may want to gun (a lot easier to get a gunner out of 700 than it is 8), but it still becomes a "Why would I use your dinky gun when I could just use a better vehicle or an HA weapon myself?"

[Wizkid45]

I liked the PS1 system, it allowed the driver to solely focus on driving. To put it in perspective, think Magrider versus Vanny or Prowler in PS1. Much more fast paced when the driver can be zig zagging or driving around the terrain at full speed while the gunner is unloading, rather than the driver have to stop or slow down to shoot at something.

[Raka Maru]

That is exactly what the devs are thinking and that is exactly what so many disagree on. I do want to be only "taxi" and I do want to put all my time/points into upgrading the gun on my "taxi", because that is what sets PS aside from all the rest.

Bah, at any rate MBTs will be do-it-all vehicles now thanks to the very low number of vehicles they are implementing. I can imagine how this got decided on on one of their conferences; A: "hmmm, so we have 9 months to do this thing from zero, and we do not have the resources to do everything we had in PS, what should we scrap first?" B: "Ah I know, how about mixing all vehicles into one, so we do not have to code all those different behaviours" A: "Oh yea, good one Johnny". So now we have instead of buggies the MBT with AI turret, we have instead of Skyguard the MBT with AA turret, we have instead the MBT the "all-new-revolutioneary" MBT with AV turret. All of these also means that the MBT will have paper armor (if not on day one, very soon for sure).

My post from another thread... That also turned into a tank debate.

Ok let me rephrase that.

You don't want to be FORCED to be a taxi or STUCK with an alt gun when the player certs a tank. I would gladly turn my main gun over to a competent gunner. Welcome to my tank, I can relax and concentrate on my badass driving now. Tank ownership caters to the owner in this decision to give drivers the main gun.

They can go further with this by giving owner controlled gun assignments. After all, everyone is in the same tin can. They should be able to switch seats (at least guns) when you're safe inside. Specified if the tank owner flags those guns usable. Think trunk space or vehicle use interface as an example of what I'm getting at.

[Raymac]

As a Reaver pilot, I will make a living off of punishing tankers that leave base without a secondary gunner. Eeeeeaasy pickings.

[Azren]

That problem is alleviated SLIGHTLY in PlanetSide by the sheer numbers of potential people you can have who may want to gun (a lot easier to get a gunner out of 700 than it is 8), but it still becomes a "Why would I use your dinky gun when I could just use a better vehicle or an HA weapon myself?"

Problem is, everyone will be able to get MBT on day 1 (and keep it as long as they don't delete the character). So, would you either;
A: Enter a tank as a secondary gunner, with an unknown driver (who will get you killed in 1 minute because he is to busy shooting his main guns), or
B: Just get a tank of your own and hope that AA MAXes and grunts fend of those pesky reavers?

I assume 90% of the palyers will go with option B.

As a Reaver pilot, I will make a living off of punishing tankers that leave base without a secondary gunner. Eeeeeaasy pickings.

AA max, AA weapon for grunts, direct fire main weapons (magrider) are more then enough not to bring any AA specific vehicle with you in PS, will probably be the same in PS2. Still, I hope you are right, then again, if tanks die too easy to air, they will be class locked into AA secondary gun (that's a no-no).

[Raymac]

AA max, AA weapon for grunts, direct fire main weapons (magrider) are more then enough not to bring any AA specific vehicle with you in PS, will probably be the same in PS2. Still, I hope you are right, then again, if tanks die too easy to air, they will be class locked into AA secondary gun (that's a no-no).

I got the tankbuster merits pretty easily in PS1 mainly using the Reaver, even with all that other AA out there you mentioned. I totally agree that secondary AA should not be de facto mandatory, but having a few more out there will help tanks out as a whole I think.

[Talek Krell]

My post from another thread... That also turned into a tank debate.And it's as wrong here as it was there.
You're still talking for other people who have gone on record as disagreeing with you, so I'd say you did a pretty poor job of rephrasing that.

Complaining that you certed an MBT and then were FORCED to drive it is like complaining that you ordered a hamburger and then were FORCED to consume beef. There's already a single person tank for people who want to gun and drive simultaneously.
Course the fixed forward gun of the mag makes does throw a monkeywrench into all of this. It cannot possibly have a gunner controlled main turret without being completely redesigned.That's definately a big one, but there's other problems involving the secondary weapon.

The one thing they do gain from having a dedicated secondary gunner is that they can give him weapons that are too unorthodox to be used as a primary gun. Indirect fire and non-LOS weapons with unusual firing perspectives spring to mind, but things like AA turrets would be clunky to use simultaneously with the main gun too. Forcing the gunner to split his attention between two turrets designed to be used by different people doesn't seem that much better to me than forcing the driver to handle both driving and gunning simultaneously. At best you're trading firepower for navigation. Between that and the mag design I don't think they can make the alternate control scheme idea work without completely scrapping a lot of their design work on the MBTs.

[Raka Maru]

Complaining that you certed an MBT and then were FORCED to drive it is like complaining that you ordered a hamburger and then were FORCED to consume beef. There's already a single person tank for people who want to gun and drive simultaneously.

Cert a prowler, what do you get? A big tank that you the owner can only drive. You completely ignored my suggested solution while twisting the analogy.

The purpose of my post was to examine the minds of the devs or decision makers as to why this was done. Not for realism, but for the player who certs the MBT.

[Xyntech]

Well at least the poll is still running strong :)

Hopefully the devs come up with some compromise option.

[TheRagingGerbil]

It was stated that the secondary guns (the second gunners weapons) are more powerful then the main gun. So while you could drive around solo in your medium tank, it would behoove you to find a gunner and add a secondary weapon.

[Azren]

The purpose of my post was to examine the minds of the devs or decision makers as to why this was done. Not for realism, but for the player who certs the MBT.

Why it was done? Isn't it obvious at this point? For one, to pull in all the CoD and Battlefield players who love to play as one man armees. The other reason is to save time; make one frame and put every possible weapon on it, so they don't have to bother with role specific vehicles.

It was stated that the secondary guns (the second gunners weapons) are more powerful then the main gun. So while you could drive around solo in your medium tank, it would behoove you to find a gunner and add a secondary weapon.

Where was this stated? Link please.
Last I heared the balance was around 50-50, which is still crap IMO.

[Raymac]

It was stated that the secondary guns (the second gunners weapons) are more powerful then the main gun. So while you could drive around solo in your medium tank, it would behoove you to find a gunner and add a secondary weapon.

I don't think they said the secondary guns are more powerful than the main guns. (they wouldn't really be secondary then, right?) I think what they said is that the "secondary guns pack more of a punch than you would think" or something like that.

[Talek Krell]

Cert a prowler, what do you get? A big tank that you the owner can only drive.Right. You get a Prowler.
You completely ignored my suggested solution while twisting the analogy.I explained pretty clearly that your suggested solution won't work because it fundamentally conflicts with the designs of the tanks.

The purpose of my post was to examine the minds of the devs or decision makers as to why this was done. Not for realism, but for the player who certs the MBT.There's a distinct difference between examining something and stating your opinion as fact. There's an even larger one between those and stating your opinion as other people's opinion over their objections. "The players who cert the MBT" have been raising some of the strongest criticism.

I think what they said is that the "secondary guns pack more of a punch than you would think" or something like that.I think "no joke" were the exact words.

[Raka Maru]

There's a distinct difference between examining something and stating your opinion as fact. There's an even larger one between those and stating your opinion as other people's opinion over their objections. "The players who cert the MBT" have been raising some of the strongest criticism.


I apologize for this, but do you think that's why they are recreating the MBT this way now?

[Erendil]

I chose option 3, "Driver controls secondary gun. Gunner controls main gun" for many reasons:


Assuming the main gun is the more powerful one, a MBT will be more combat-effective if the main gun has the dedicated gunner.
In a fight w/ two 1-man tanks vs one 2-man tank, the 2-man tank should win otherwise why bother. A dedicated main-gunner is nan easy way to achieve this balance.
If the driver controls the main gun, where does this leave the Lightning? its role is severely diminished if 1 person can hop into a MBT and stomp all over the Lightning.
It makes sense the the person spending the certs on the tank (the driver) should be able to use the weapons he's chosen to cert in (the secondary gun variants).
Giving the secondary gun to the driver means their vehicle can still be combat=effective if the chose to only drive, but gives them something to fire while driving if they want to.

[EASyEightyEight]

I think the MBT is the way it is now because the intent is that it's more akin to a max suit with coop capabilities. There's been no confirmation, but it wouldn't be too big a stretch to guess that vehicles will have locational damage ala BFR's. A single well aimed decimator in PS2 might outright disable a tank where in PS1 it would just do a high amount of damage, regardless if the rocket hit the barrel, treads, or engine of the tank.

Tanks may fear land mines and attacks from the side for their ability to ruin treads. Shots to the rear or bottom where the armor is weakest may be devastating, while shots towards the front can be weathered through. These dynamics in themselves drastically change tank play, and most definitely demand close infantry support for each tank to reach maximum effectiveness (I'd argue this is more important than requiring gunners.) A tank pilot would be foolish to think they can play PS2's tanks the same way as they could in PS1 then.

But again... it's just speculation vehicles will have location based damage. Yet, I'm not expecting the PS1 mechanics for vehicles making it into PS2.

[CplVars]

But I liked the Blitzkrieg tactic in PS1.

[xSlideShow]

I chose option 1 cause it means more skill when driving a tank. Having to multitask as a driver is a great imo.

[Talek Krell]

I apologize for this, but do you think that's why they are recreating the MBT this way now?While I realize it's the argument they've presented, I see too many flaws in the logic to accept it.

1. I believe that most of the "cert" points in MBTs will actually be going toward the gunner weapon, which the driver won't be able to use, and the driving characteristics, which the driver would get regardless. I've not seen evidence that the main cannon is even customizable.

2. It's obviously a personal preference. If the devs simply failed to realize how many toes they'd be stepping on I'd rather see them own up to that.

3. There's already the Lightning. It makes more sense to revisit that design for people that want the full value of their cert points. They've already confirmed it's in.

At this point I think trying to compromise will just come off as a hatchet job. I'd rather they make the MBTs as planned and then maybe build the heavy tank around specialist roles when they get to it.

I chose option 1 cause it means more skill when driving a tank. Having to multitask as a driver is a great imo.I have difficulty with this idea. The ability to see out the back of your head doesn't come with practice, which means that the driver will ultimately still be paying only half as much attention as he ought to be to two critically important tasks at the same time. I certainly don't envy you suckers that are still using treads on your tanks. :p