Drivers Main Weapon [Archive] - PlanetSide Universe

Senyu

2011-11-26, 09:29 AM

So I'm correct in understanding that the driver will control the main turret/weapon/cannon on the ES tanks right?

If so why? The Magrider in PS1 you needed the second gunner to control and rotate that cannon so you can effectivly drive and shoot at the same time. If it was up to the driver you would never see the Mag as effective as it was. It would be a pain trying to hit Aircraft with it to. It's like replacing the weapon the driver did have with the cannon which was much harder to hit with. Now PS2 Magrider I'm sure is going to be very different as will all the tanks. But the example I posted still remains. Why are they making it so everyone can popout a ES tank and not require teamwork/ally to have it be usefull? Yes a guy can hop in and use the secondary weapons....woohoo..ya they help but you can still roll with just the main weapon alone.

We don't need people treating ES main tanks like a more advance version of a Lighting. Make the main weapon the passengers weapon, add the teamplay and teamwork. I can understand giving enough power to people to be able to play by themselves but it should remain duel-effort for the ES Main Tanks.

Just might have to wait till beta though and see how it actually plays. But on paper it doesn't sound great :/

FIREk

2011-11-26, 09:42 AM

We've been through this a bazillion times already. We'll see how it works in beta. If it's crap, I'm sure it will be changed.

One-person tanks are ineffective compared to two-person tanks. Just play Battlefield 3 to find out why, I can't be arsed to explain this again.

I'm more concerned about being able to spawn vehicles without cost. I'm wondering if it would be more beneficial if vehicles always cost resources (as far as I know, right now un-customized vehicles cost nothing). This way they won't be powerups, like in the Battlefield series, but effective, yet costly, tools that need to be treated properly, not driven kamikaze style to rake up kills before dying. Especially since there will be more vehicle spawning areas in PS2, if I understand the map correctly.
It would also give a bigger advantage to low-pop empires, since they would be able to field more vehicles, not just vehicles with slightly better, customized weapons.

ringring

2011-11-26, 11:51 AM

Xyntech

2011-11-26, 12:14 PM

The only picture I've seen of a prowler has 1 gun (therefore I assume this is the driver gun and a subsidiary gun hasn't been added) and that gun is in a fixed position shooting straight-ahead, rather like the Mag's PPA.

This makes having a secondary gunner absolutely essential I would have thought ...

It also makes the tactics of using the prowler rather interesting, especially given that the tank can't strafe unlike a magrider.

I don't believe we've seen a picture of the new Prowler yet. We saw something blurry in the back of the PCGamer cover and we saw some concept art of a tank in TR colors, although I now believe that was the Lightning.

I don't see how they could balance having a fixed forward gun without the ability to strafe. Strafing is the only reason I'm not freaking out and raising a shitstorm over the Magriders fixed gun. In fact quite the contrary, the fact that it can strafe makes the fixed gun rather appealing to me.

ringring

2011-11-26, 02:44 PM

I don't believe we've seen a picture of the new Prowler yet. We saw something blurry in the back of the PCGamer cover and we saw some concept art of a tank in TR colors, although I now believe that was the Lightning.

I don't see how they could balance having a fixed forward gun without the ability to strafe. Strafing is the only reason I'm not freaking out and raising a shitstorm over the Magriders fixed gun. In fact quite the contrary, the fact that it can strafe makes the fixed gun rather appealing to me.
Yea, looking at the magazine again it's clearly a piece of concept art (and it does have a descrete gunner turret).
Even so, from my POV if the driver gun is fixed forward it make me more likely to drive it than if the driver gun is in a turret a la lightning.
If driven the existing magrider a bit during the last year and using the driver gun in that is fun although it does help that the mag 'strafes' and the main gun is a useful AV weapon.

Gwartham

2011-11-26, 04:07 PM

As a Magrider fanatic, I got plenty of kills using the secondary wep while driving full speed, always keeping my maneuverability edge, and was always able to keep the target in my fire while giving my main gunner a good line of fire.

The way it will be currently as described in PS2 will be a huge plus for someone like me :D

Raka Maru

2011-11-26, 04:27 PM

Waiting for the Prowler also. Would like to be able to pull it and pick up gunners on the way without being defenseless if no one is there with me. So I do like the design as it is. However, I would like to be able to turn those controls over to my passengers, even the main gun when sharing the tank.

Devs please give us this option. :)

LZachariah

2011-11-26, 06:35 PM

CutterJohn

2011-11-26, 10:05 PM

I'm surprised that people are still confused about this issue. Higby said, multiple times, without any ambiguity, that the pilot of each vehicle will always have use of the vehicle's primary weapon, and the reason for this is: The pilot is the one who's been buying certifications for the vehicle. Since they are the one who's gone to all the trouble spending experience and resources to give their Magrider +mobility, +speed, and +armor (or whatever), they receive the benefit of being in control of the primary weapon of the vehicle. Additional passengers may be given secondary weapons.

~Zachariah

Which brings up an interesting question.. I often find a partner in crime, and we will trade off driving/gunning. I'm curious if the bonuses apply to the vehicle, or to the person driving. If the bonuses only go to the person driving, the one with the higher skills will be largely stuck doing that.

Unless its just pulled, and the balance is resource cost, in which case the one person probably couldn't afford to continue pulling the vehicles all the time.

Captain1nsaneo

2011-11-26, 11:38 PM

Which brings up an interesting question.. I often find a partner in crime, and we will trade off driving/gunning. I'm curious if the bonuses apply to the vehicle, or to the person driving. If the bonuses only go to the person driving, the one with the higher skills will be largely stuck doing that.

Unless its just pulled, and the balance is resource cost, in which case the one person probably couldn't afford to continue pulling the vehicles all the time.

I believe that the mods stay with the tank. The only thing that's confirmed to take resources (that I know of) is adding the gunner's turret. Which personally confuses me as that seems to make teamwork cost more than just going solo.

CutterJohn

2011-11-27, 02:03 AM

I believe that the mods stay with the tank. The only thing that's confirmed to take resources (that I know of) is adding the gunner's turret. Which personally confuses me as that seems to make teamwork cost more than just going solo.

2 people in 2 tanks working together = 2 people in 1 tank working together = teamwork.

Also there are more upgrades to purchase than just the turret. 2 fully upgraded tanks sans turret probably cost more than one with the turret.

moosepoop

2011-11-27, 11:54 AM

the problem with this is you cant fire on the run.

on the other hand this will prevent infantry kill whoring, because its harder for you to do hit and runs, which is a positive thing.

the magrider's gun position also prevents sniping behind cover.

SgtMAD

2011-11-27, 12:48 PM

2 people in 2 tanks working together = 2 people in 1 tank working together = teamwork.

Also there are more upgrades to purchase than just the turret. 2 fully upgraded tanks sans turret probably cost more than one with the turret.

the "teamwork" theory makes me laugh

Rivenshield

2011-11-27, 12:59 PM

/heavy sigh

In the first place, this is supposed to be an FPS. In PS1, you could have a platoon of infantry with mines and AV weapons take on a dozen tanks and give a good account of themselves. Now? It'll be thirty infantry versus thirty tanks. The only FPS action will take place indoors, because to do otherwise will be suicide. That's boring.

In the second place, people will be pulling armor and using it more for transportation than fire support. You MUST have a tank cert to survive outside -- that's a given. So you pull your MBT, trundle up to the tower, spam it with your main gun for awhile, get bored, hop out and go inside as soon as someone sets up a spawn point nearby. I predict abandoned armor EVERYWHERE. The landscape will be littered with them.

Third place? Tanks have CREWS, not pilots. That in itself encourages teamwork, which puts the MMO into it. That makes outfits capable of pulling off a true armored zerg a fearsome and admirable thing, rather than a pedestrian one. And it *will* be pedestrian. You can't tell me that six fully crewed tanks with AV turrets will be more powerful than TWELVE tanks all blasting away with their main guns alone. Brute force will out. Everybody will discover this sad truth in the first few hours of combat, everybody will cert MBT, and nobody will gun. And the world's largest FPS will devolve into a sci-fi themed version of World Of Tanks.

Oh, but surely you'll need gunners for the AA and AP roles, right? Nope. The same dynamic applies. You can either have six AA armed tanks that can move and fire against aerial targets, *or* a dozen that move, stop as the drivers switch to their AA turrets (even if they have to hop out to do so) and now you've got twice the volume of fire going into the air. And which poses a greater threat to the occasional foolish infantry unit that ventures outside of the courtyard? Six fully crewed tanks with some kind of autofire weapon? or a freaking dozen that come roaring in and steamroller them?

But, bububut a fully crewed tank can move and shoot at the same time.... BALLS! Has anyone here ever played an FPS where you can deliver accurate fire from a vehicle *without* stopping? You can't do it in PS, you can't do it in any of the BF games, you can't do it in HALO, and you won't be able to do it in PS2.

This is a really bad idea. Full stop. I can only hope it gets scrubbed out in beta.

BorisBlade

2011-11-27, 02:28 PM

We've been through this a bazillion times already. We'll see how it works in beta. If it's crap, I'm sure it will be changed.

Wont change, period. Give people boring, simple, easy mode ways to get what is really just a solo player buff and it will stay. If it was like PS1 from the start then that would stay cause people wouldnt know any better and wouldnt complain, as long as they had their lightnings and what not for those who like solo.

Besides, it means the magrider would have to be completely redesigned. Dont see that happening.

Now if they do give the option to let us give the pilot's gun to a second gunner on the other tanks/vehicles, i would be happy. Sadly if its only available on the tr/nc it would def keep me from playin vs.

I want to drive a vehicle. I dont want to drive a lightning with an extra gunner seat. If i have to drive and shoot at the same time i just wont drive. Not exactly excited about gunning for them either cause it means i get a half ass driver who's tryin to shoot someone rather than maneuvering to get us a good shot and avoid enemy fire. Its boring, and solo focused. Seems like a cheap FPS rather than PS. =(

Raka Maru

2011-11-27, 03:23 PM

Now if they do give the option to let us give the pilot's gun to a second gunner on the other tanks/vehicles, i would be happy. Sadly if its only available on the tr/nc it would def keep me from playin vs.

This is what we need to fix this. Gun assignment option screen. Driver gets to select gun he controls.
1) none
2) main
3) secondary

The passenger/gunner will get choice like lightning interface when the driver selects none.

FIREk

2011-11-27, 03:52 PM

Besides, it means the magrider would have to be completely redesigned. Dont see that happening.

Give the driver a weak-ass gun like PS1's PPA, then redesign the turret to incorporate both a primary and secondary gun. Both turret-mounted guns would be used by the gunner (he would toggle between them). The turret wouldn't have a coax gun as its equivalent would be used by the driver. Problem kinda solved.

Tracked tanks could give the gunners control of both weapons as well, or the secondaries could be used by the driver. I dearly hope that these will get nerfed as soon as they add buggies to do proper AA.

Xyntech

2011-11-27, 03:56 PM

This is what we need to fix this. Gun assignment option screen. Driver gets to select gun he controls.
1) none
2) main
3) secondary

The passenger/gunner will get choice like lightning interface when the driver selects none.

Except that the new Magrider throws a monkey wrench into the idea.

I still say that the idea of a modification that simultaneously removes the main gun, boosts the tanks armor and gives the gunner an extra powerful turret would be the most viable alternative that could still be used with the current system.

It would work for all 3 ES tanks, including the new Magrider. It would prevent tanks from acting as one man AA tanks (if that's something that the devs wish to avoid). It would reward dedicated driver/gunner combos by giving them extra protection, while allowing them to do almost as much AV damage as tanks sporting driver guns + AV gunner turrets.

They would be less versatile than other types of tanks, but would be the undisputed champion of tank vs tank combat.

All that the devs would have to do:

Add a good looking visual to replace the missing main gun

Add a new, extra large gunner turret

Possibly add a visual representation of the tanks extra armor

Plus the usual tweaking around of stats and balance testing.

Their new system would remain intact and still be viable options on the battlefield, while old school PS1 tank drivers and gunners would get to have their more familiar system available, and also still viable.

Raka Maru

2011-11-27, 04:26 PM

Xyntech, I didn't have a solution for the mag, but yours looks good, I like.

CutterJohn

2011-11-27, 07:52 PM

Except that the new Magrider throws a monkey wrench into the idea.

I still say that the idea of a modification that simultaneously removes the main gun, boosts the tanks armor and gives the gunner an extra powerful turret would be the most viable alternative that could still be used with the current system.

It would work for all 3 ES tanks, including the new Magrider. It would prevent tanks from acting as one man AA tanks (if that's something that the devs wish to avoid). It would reward dedicated driver/gunner combos by giving them extra protection, while allowing them to do almost as much AV damage as tanks sporting driver guns + AV gunner turrets.

They would be less versatile than other types of tanks, but would be the undisputed champion of tank vs tank combat.

All that the devs would have to do:

Add a good looking visual to replace the missing main gun

Add a new, extra large gunner turret

Possibly add a visual representation of the tanks extra armor

Plus the usual tweaking around of stats and balance testing.

Their new system would remain intact and still be viable options on the battlefield, while old school PS1 tank drivers and gunners would get to have their more familiar system available, and also still viable.

Thats viable. Though it would have to be less than double the damage, since one person dedicated to driving and the other to gunning is inherently easier.

Azren

2011-11-28, 04:35 AM

I'm surprised that people are still confused about this issue. Higby said, multiple times, without any ambiguity, that the pilot of each vehicle will always have use of the vehicle's primary weapon, and the reason for this is: The pilot is the one who's been buying certifications for the vehicle. Since they are the one who's gone to all the trouble spending experience and resources to give their Magrider +mobility, +speed, and +armor (or whatever), they receive the benefit of being in control of the primary weapon of the vehicle. Additional passengers may be given secondary weapons.

~Zachariah

That reasoning is BS. It is the player who decides what to spend time on, if he/she decides to spend time to upgrade the gunner's weapon, it is his choice to do so. The vehilce he drives will be more effective that way, so it will be a positive thing for the driver.

There is only one reasoning for this that is actually valid; they want to pull in players from BF series who are used to this kind of driving sheme (who by the way are also used to solo play and don't give a damn about teamplay).

Blackwolf

2011-11-28, 04:01 PM

I'm surprised that people are still confused about this issue. Higby said, multiple times, without any ambiguity, that the pilot of each vehicle will always have use of the vehicle's primary weapon, and the reason for this is: The pilot is the one who's been buying certifications for the vehicle. Since they are the one who's gone to all the trouble spending experience and resources to give their Magrider +mobility, +speed, and +armor (or whatever), they receive the benefit of being in control of the primary weapon of the vehicle. Additional passengers may be given secondary weapons.

~Zachariah

Pretty bad reason if you ask me. Again this kills team work and promotes solo play styles. And besides, maybe some of us WANT to go through all that "trouble" and find a gunner as our partner and let them gun while we drive? Seriously if your playing the game, your getting the experience and certs anyway. If you want to spend them to purchase a tank so that you can drive it, then do so. Higby is basically suggesting that people are being forced at gun point against their will to pilot tanks. Never had a problem finding people with tank certs in PS1, which tells me the system wasn't broken.

I think the secondary gun would be just fine for the tank drivers, a forward mounted 180 degree arcing weapon (strait mounted for the Magrider). As long as the driver can have his fun gunning then why does he need the big cannon?

CutterJohn

2011-11-28, 11:33 PM

Stop confusing 'secondary turret' with 'weak'. Its not. It will be very beneficial for a tank to have a gunner.

Talek Krell

2011-12-01, 04:27 PM

Stop confusing 'secondary turret' with 'weak'. Its not. It will be very beneficial for a tank to have a gunner.But will it be more beneficial than having a second tank? And if so, then why bother calling it a "secondary" turret when it's obviously the most powerful weapon on the vehicle?

daish k

2011-12-01, 06:49 PM

Blackwolf

2011-12-01, 08:25 PM

When the game is in beta, we really just need to get a group of people to try fighting 1 man tanks vs 2 man tanks. See which side does best, and also see what the rest of the beta playerbase does normally.

Maybe 1/2 the tanks with 2 people in them is better, but most people will still solo tank because it is good enough. I hope that if everyone taking their own tank is better than teamwork that it will not make it out of beta that way.

It's pretty much mathematically impossible for 1 tank with 2 people to out perform 2 tanks. Even if the secondary gun was as powerful as the primary gun, even if the 2 man tank had both AV guns against the 2 one man tanks with AV guns.

The reason is because of the level of damage needed to take out the two tanks compared to the level of damage needed to take out the one. 2 tanks, double the damage, double the armor. And if that secondary gun is even remotely less potent then the primary cannon, well the 2 man tank probably won't even take out one of the opposing tanks before dieing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a two man tank is useless and pointless, however in a tank on tank battle, with only 1 type of target to contend with, there's not point in two people jumping into the same vehicle. This point by itself makes it very likely that this kind of design will turn the game into tankside.

No matter how you slice it, no matter how you argue for it, no matter how you spin it. On paper this is a bad idea. But I guess we'll see.

sylphaen

2011-12-01, 08:35 PM

I still say that the idea of a modification that simultaneously removes the main gun, boosts the tanks armor and gives the gunner an extra powerful turret would be the most viable alternative that could still be used with the current system.
[...]
Their new system would remain intact and still be viable options on the battlefield, while old school PS1 tank drivers and gunners would get to have their more familiar system available, and also still viable.

That's quite an elegant solution... Good idea !
+1

If the driver can also get interesting mechanics (radar/countermeasure/speed boost/redirecting armor/etc...) when losing its gun, it would be even greater. It would also justify a specialization in vehicles for the guy with the certs.

CutterJohn

2011-12-01, 08:44 PM

It's pretty much mathematically impossible for 1 tank with 2 people to out perform 2 tanks. Even if the secondary gun was as powerful as the primary gun, even if the 2 man tank had both AV guns against the 2 one man tanks with AV guns.

.....

No matter how you slice it, no matter how you argue for it, no matter how you spin it. On paper this is a bad idea. But I guess we'll see.

Your math doesn't account for several things.

-Ease of operation. The gunner can focus solely on gunning. Assuming he has an AV gun, he will easily be more effective at putting out damage than a driver who has to split his concentration between two activities. The PPC on the magrider would improve dps by ~50%. Rarely gets used.

-Other threats on the battlefield. The vehicles are not in a vacuum. 2 tanks with no gunner = dead meat to any air that happens by.

-Cost. Getting two tanks will be more expensive than 1.

-And frankly, they could do something as simple as up the hitpoints when you add one of the turrets, or perhaps there is an active defense that the gunner can control.

Xyntech

2011-12-01, 08:53 PM

I don't think solo tanks being overpowered and turning it into tankside will be the problem. The only problem I foresee is having 2 man tanks, of any kind, be rare at best, used only occasionally for AA support and nothing more.

Beta will tell though. No sense griping over it since the Magriders design clearly indicates that it won't change.

Honestly, if they wanted to, it wouldn't be that hard to just make the gunners turrets be way more powerful than the drivers "main" gun. They could still keep the driver guns far more effective than PS1's Magrider PPA.

If the Vanguards 150mm can do 500 damage per shot, give an AV gunner turret 1000 damage per shot. Make it be laser guided AV missiles. Make the missiles way more effective against vehicles and terrible against infantry, while the 150mm can do some decent AI and AV damage.

There are so many ways that they can fix this if it ends up being fubar, which it still may not be.

I still think that having a classic, PS1 style variant with a dedicated driver/gunner would be great, although it would be better to have it balanced against 2 man tanks instead of solo tanks. The solo tank vs two man tank would really need it's own balancing outside of it.

dsi

2011-12-02, 07:07 PM

This is obviously a bad decision to anyone who has played Planetside vs Any game with 1 player tanking.

It takes a huge part of teamwork for many people and shoves it down the toilet.

SgtMAD

2011-12-02, 07:43 PM

Your math doesn't account for several things.

-Ease of operation. The gunner can focus solely on gunning. Assuming he has an AV gun, he will easily be more effective at putting out damage than a driver who has to split his concentration between two activities. The PPC on the magrider would improve dps by ~50%. Rarely gets used.

-Other threats on the battlefield. The vehicles are not in a vacuum. 2 tanks with no gunner = dead meat to any air that happens by.

-Cost. Getting two tanks will be more expensive than 1.

-And frankly, they could do something as simple as up the hitpoints when you add one of the turrets, or perhaps there is an active defense that the gunner can control.

all the tank with the driver/gunner combo has to do is pick his ground,all they need is a few obstacles or small hills to work with and its over for both single-manned tanks ,add in some half-assed air support and the single-manned tank is a death trap

damn, that sounds like a lot of fun

Raymac

2011-12-02, 07:54 PM

This is obviously a bad decision to anyone who has played Planetside vs Any game with 1 player tanking.

It takes a huge part of teamwork for many people and shoves it down the toilet.

I might be able to accept that argument IF there wasn't a secondary gunner seat in the tanks. If they turned the MBTs into simply beefed up Lightnings, then I might agree with you, but that's not what happened, so your point doesn't really hold water.

Plus when you factor in the issues that CutterJohn points out, your point gets even weaker. Teamwork will still be an essential component of the game.

Then just try to imagine someone that never played Planetside before, they spend their skill points in getting a tank. "What do you mean I can't shoot? WTF is this?" And that's likely one of the main reasons they made the change.

sylphaen

2011-12-02, 08:08 PM

Then just try to imagine someone that never played Planetside before, they spend their skill points in getting a tank. "What do you mean I can't shoot? WTF is this?" And that's likely one of the main reasons they made the change.

If PS1 is any indication, skilled killwhores would not use tanks anyways.

dsi

2011-12-02, 09:12 PM

I might be able to accept that argument IF there wasn't a secondary gunner seat in the tanks. If they turned the MBTs into simply beefed up Lightnings, then I might agree with you, but that's not what happened, so your point doesn't really hold water.

Plus when you factor in the issues that CutterJohn points out, your point gets even weaker. Teamwork will still be an essential component of the game.

Then just try to imagine someone that never played Planetside before, they spend their skill points in getting a tank. "What do you mean I can't shoot? WTF is this?" And that's likely one of the main reasons they made the change.
That is exactly what these things are, beefed up Lightnings with room for one more. All the secondary gun does is turn tanks into jacks-of-all-trades, sure you'll be less useful without the secondary person, but you're going to do just fine alone. That isn't a sign of a teamwork oriented game.

The first time I played Planetside I was absolutely amazed that the game wanted me to work directly with other players to win, not work and have someone else tag along. I was excited.

This is a poor design decision along the lines of instant hop-in/hop-out, both of which are signs of re-targeting to a much... simpler audience at the cost of gameplay.

EDIT: Reddit has a nice thread (http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/mx16v/drivers_and_gunners_in_main_battle_tanks_who_else/) going on about this as well.

sylphaen

2011-12-02, 09:33 PM

A lot of people are on your side dsi and we have expressed our opinion countless times.

Let them it their cake and see how it tastes. Who knows ? A good result might come out from a recipe perceived as terrible.
:confused:

Or we may just choke over it when we finally taste.

One things is certain, some people will like it ! Until they realize that PS2 tanks are there to be a bonus target for Aircav and engineers. But if they can instantly bail out of the vehicle, it should not be a huge bother.
:rolleyes:

As I mentionned the last time I actively participated in a vehicles' discussion, if it's not good, I will play infantry. And if PS2 is a huge disappointment (note: I sincerely hope not), I'll simply do something else.

Raymac

2011-12-02, 09:55 PM

That is exactly what these things are, beefed up Lightnings with room for one more. All the secondary gun does is turn tanks into jacks-of-all-trades, sure you'll be less useful without the secondary person, but you're going to do just fine alone. That isn't a sign of a teamwork oriented game.

The first time I played Planetside I was absolutely amazed that the game wanted me to work directly with other players to win, not work and have someone else tag along. I was excited.

I know it's been said a number of times before, but I'll say it again here. Allowing the driver of a tank to shoot is not going to kill teamwork in PS2. That is such a ridiculous overreaction.

Plus, there is a difference between encouraging teamwork (driver can shoot, but more effective with a gunner) and forcing teamwork (driver is a chauffeur that is useless unless on voice chat with the gunner).

If Planetside 2 strives to be the sandbox game that it is claiming, they aren't going to pigeon hole players like that, especially for something as basic as a tank.

So until SOE says they are removing outfits or squads, then don't play the "no teamwork" card.

Raka Maru

2011-12-02, 10:41 PM

Hehehe how did this debate start again?

dsi

2011-12-02, 11:02 PM

Hehehe how did this debate start again?

SOE made a poor design decision :(

Raymac: Please tell me how much teamwork Battlefield tanks require. All 0% of it, the driver is doing the majority of the work while the secondary gunner gets to do drive-bys on inf.

BorisBlade

2011-12-02, 11:18 PM

I'm surprised that people are still confused about this issue. Higby said, multiple times, without any ambiguity, that the pilot of each vehicle will always have use of the vehicle's primary weapon, and the reason for this is: The pilot is the one who's been buying certifications for the vehicle. Since they are the one who's gone to all the trouble spending experience and resources to give their Magrider +mobility, +speed, and +armor (or whatever), they receive the benefit of being in control of the primary weapon of the vehicle. Additional passengers may be given secondary weapons.

~Zachariah

I know they say that but its not a good enough excuse to put in worse gameplay. I want to customize my tank like they say but i want to drive. I dont want to drive and gun at the same time, if i have to do that i just wont drive it period. At very least we need an option to let a second gunner slot open up to take over the turret. Now that means fixing the terribad mag to once again have its main gun on a turret. Its just better for overall gameplay, otherwise its just a armor/firepower buff instead of a vehicle. Its boring, much like BF3 tanks which are terribad. PS1 had the best vehicle designs and was very innovative with their non-solo approach. Sad to see PS2 go backwards just to appeal to the A.D.H.D. crowd.

Raka Maru

2011-12-02, 11:26 PM

Ok then, my 2cents again... :)

1) I want to cert a MBT and have the main gun 'cuz I'm the owner. Not be defenseless until I find someone competent.
2) I would like to be able to turn over the main gun and secondary gun if I pick up a good gunner because I just want to do my badass driving.

#1 I believe is the reason they gave the main gun to the driver. Now the tank is less effective unless they create option #2

Traak

2011-12-03, 12:41 AM

Yeah, certing tank regrettably didn't mean you certed "not having bad gunners".

Rivenshield

2011-12-03, 01:07 AM

This is obviously a bad decision to anyone who has played Planetside vs Any game with 1 player tanking.

It takes a huge part of teamwork for many people and shoves it down the toilet.

Yep.

They *could* make AV gunners' turrets really kickass against other armor -- as in more damage than the main gun, as has been suggested -- but that won't prevent the game from becoming Tankside. It'll ameliorate the problem. Not eliminate it. Brute force and numbers will always count for all.

/le sigh

CutterJohn

2011-12-03, 01:52 AM

Raymac: Please tell me how much teamwork Battlefield tanks require. All 0% of it, the driver is doing the majority of the work while the secondary gunner gets to do drive-bys on inf.

Know what else doesn't require teamwork? Infantry. People bitched and bitched, so now everyone gets to control their own legs and own gun. They don't have to pick whether they are the legs or arms anymore, like a game with real teamwork has. Why are all infantry players such killwhores? Can't they see the obvious benefits of teamwork?

But we all know that argument is ridiculous. Its ridiculous for vehicles too. Forced teamwork is false teamwork. If there is no option other than doing it its not teamwork at all. It wasn't even difficult. There's no tactics or coordination involved, just reporting. Reaver behind us. Tank to the front. Softy over there behind the tree.

Yep.

They *could* make AV gunners' turrets really kickass against other armor -- as in more damage than the main gun, as has been suggested -- but that won't prevent the game from becoming Tankside. It'll ameliorate the problem. Not eliminate it. Brute force and numbers will always count for all.

/le sigh

PS was tankside. It was far and away the most common and useful combat vehicle. Most everything else people just took out for a lark(buggies..), or because it had a useful secondary role.

Sirisian

2011-12-03, 02:28 AM

At very least we need an option to let a second gunner slot open up to take over the turret. Now that means fixing the terribad mag to once again have its main gun on a turret.
Agreed. I've made this point a few times. I feel Higby and Tray are getting too far into making customizations to make this change and it scares me since I play VS and it's fine if I'm in a tank just sniping enemies with the main cannon, but there are situations where that's not the case.

I've always been for the driver with the main gun since they're spending the points. The option to release the main gun to the secondary gunner is a totally valid tactic. The direction of vehicles as infantry armor essentially is a really nice system in my opinion. It actually bothers me that they want to put AV secondary weapons.

SKYeXile

2011-12-03, 03:09 AM

If PS1 is any indication, skilled killwhores would not use tanks anyways.

Ill possibly be giving the mag a whirl, it could be a farming machine or it could not.

sylphaen

2011-12-03, 03:23 AM

Ill possibly be giving the mag a whirl, it could be a farming machine or it could not.

Let's not forget the new "vertical gameplay™". Those very interesting gravity mechanics shall be fun for tanks !
^^

Raymac

2011-12-03, 04:06 AM

Raymac: Please tell me how much teamwork Battlefield tanks require. All 0% of it, the driver is doing the majority of the work while the secondary gunner gets to do drive-bys on inf.

I know it's been said, and I know it's blatantly obvious, but here goes: Planetside isn't Battlefield.

The massive scale and persistance is what makes teamwork so much more important than a quick little 10 minute, 16-man arena shooter. Sure e-sports teams do their thing, but we've all played Planetside, and we've all seen how teamwork is important, whether you are running bang buses, a squadron of reavers, or just a group in a tower.

You can say you don't like the idea since it is different from Planetside 1 (to each their own), but don't try to sell me the bullshit that it's going to kill teamwork.

Worst case scenario is 2 solo tanks are better than 1 tank with a gunner, but those 2 tanks will still need to somewhat coordinate for that to be the case. You know, all teamwork like.

dsi

2011-12-03, 04:17 AM

I know it's been said, and I know it's blatantly obvious, but here goes: Planetside isn't Battlefield.

The massive scale and persistance is what makes teamwork so much more important than a quick little 10 minute, 16-man arena shooter. Sure e-sports teams do their thing, but we've all played Planetside, and we've all seen how teamwork is important, whether you are running bang buses, a squadron of reavers, or just a group in a tower.

You can say you don't like the idea since it is different from Planetside 1 (to each their own), but don't try to sell me the bullshit that it's going to kill teamwork.

Worst case scenario is 2 solo tanks are better than 1 tank with a gunner, but those 2 tanks will still need to somewhat coordinate for that to be the case. You know, all teamwork like.

What about the driver and gunner combo teamwork? Oh wait...
Know what else doesn't require teamwork? Infantry. People bitched and bitched, so now everyone gets to control their own legs and own gun. They don't have to pick whether they are the legs or arms anymore, like a game with real teamwork has. Why are all infantry players such killwhores? Can't they see the obvious benefits of teamwork?

But we all know that argument is ridiculous. Its ridiculous for vehicles too. Forced teamwork is false teamwork. If there is no option other than doing it its not teamwork at all. It wasn't even difficult. There's no tactics or coordination involved, just reporting. Reaver behind us. Tank to the front. Softy over there behind the tree.

PS was tankside. It was far and away the most common and useful combat vehicle. Most everything else people just took out for a lark(buggies..), or because it had a useful secondary role.
What are you even trying to get at here? One is a human and the other is a multi-human-operated machine.

It isn't ridiculous for vehicles because vehicles are like that, they're more powerful than a single person so shouldn't they be harder to use to balance them? Or are we going to get 1v1s of tanks vs inf ala Battlefield now?

Play Project Reality and tell me forced teamwork is false teamwork. Or fuck, play any game with multi-manned tanks, you know, like Planetside.

Also "There's no tactics or coordination involved, just reporting. Reaver behind us. Tank to the front. Softy over there behind the tree." is exactly what is going to happen with the secondary gunner system, the passenger might just take a few potshots as he reports targets. Then the driver runs into a tree because he was trying to do too many things at once because SOE has no idea how vehicles work anymore apparently.

Raymac

2011-12-03, 04:51 AM

What about the driver and gunner combo teamwork? Oh wait...

I know you're not suggesting there wouldn't be teamwork with a driver and gunner combo, because that doesn't change at all whether the driver can shoot or not. The driver drives, and the dude in the backseat doesn't. It's the same in video games and in real life.

And speaking of real life, don't play the "it's not realistic" card now because drivers don't shoot. Everybody knows that. Nobody is that stupid. But it falls into the gameplay vs realism spectrum. You want simulation realism, go play your Project Reality or ArmA. That was never Planetside 1, and it's not going to be Planetside 2.

I can understand the point of view of not liking the change simply because it's different. But don't pull the strawman fallicy by dragging it through the mud then complaining about it being dirty. Tanks will still have a 2nd seat, and it's a gunner, not just a passenger.

God forbid the guy that actually spends his skill points on the tank be allowed to shoot the freakin thing. Sky is not falling. Teamwork lives.

Erendil

2011-12-03, 04:55 AM

all the tank with the driver/gunner combo has to do is pick his ground,all they need is a few obstacles or small hills to work with and its over for both single-manned tanks ,add in some half-assed air support and the single-manned tank is a death trap

damn, that sounds like a lot of fun

As a long-time Lightning driver I can tell you that once people get used to driving and gunning at the same time (and they will) your argument won't hold any water. The two tanks will simply flank to either side of any obstacle you put in front of them and continue putting on the pressure from different angles.

The 2-man tank in this scenario basically has 3 options:

Zero both cannons on one target and hope to take it out quickly so it can then focus on the 2nd tank. This can work if you can isolate one of the tanks long enough to kill it uninterrupted. But if you can't that gives the 2nd tank time to focus solely on accurate firing without having to dodge so it can really rip into the 2-man tank w/o repercussion. It can even stop in place and concentrate fully on firing (I do this all the time in PS1, even in larger battles).
Focus one cannon on each of the two 1-man tanks, but then the driver has the same drive-and-gun multitasking to do and the 2ndary gunner no longer has the tank being positioned to optimize his shots. Meaning the greater armour of 2 tanks vs 1 will probably win out
The driver can forego firing and concentrate on fancy manueuvering. This will help with survivability, but you now have 1/2 the armour and half the firepower. The 2 tanks would probably win in this case.

Accurately firing a tank's main cannon while driving over uneven terrain is not that big of a deal once you get a little practice at it. The only time it becomes an issue is when you are almost dead and fleeing for your life.

Know what else doesn't require teamwork? Infantry. People bitched and bitched, so now everyone gets to control their own legs and own gun. They don't have to pick whether they are the legs or arms anymore, like a game with real teamwork has. Why are all infantry players such killwhores? Can't they see the obvious benefits of teamwork?

But we all know that argument is ridiculous. Its ridiculous for vehicles too. Forced teamwork is false teamwork. If there is no option other than doing it its not teamwork at all. It wasn't even difficult. There's no tactics or coordination involved, just reporting. Reaver behind us. Tank to the front. Softy over there behind the tree.

That's a pretty bad analogy. Infantry are slow moving, squishy targets that give up the ghost if they take a couple bullets to the head or a nearby vehicle breathes on them too hard. Whereas vehicles have a ton more firepower then infantry, move way faster, and can take a lot more punishment. One way PS1 balanced that is to force MBT drivers to get a gunner. Tanks need to have limitations otherwise nobody will play infantry outside.

However, tanks drivers in PS2 have just as much teamwork forced upon them as they did in PS1. PS2 tank drivers are being forced to gun as well if they want to survive when going up against an enemy 2-man tank. I don't see how that is any better than the PS1 mechanics in this regard.

The obvious compromise is to allow the driver to hand off control of the main cannon to a 2nd gunner if they desire, making it a 3-man tank. That is what I wish they'd do. But then, as already mentioned you run into a design problem with the Mag which has a forward-fixed cannon.

dsi

2011-12-03, 05:06 AM

I know you're not suggesting there wouldn't be teamwork with a driver and gunner combo, because that doesn't change at all whether the driver can shoot or not. The driver drives, and the dude in the backseat doesn't. It's the same in video games and in real life.

And speaking of real life, don't play the "it's not realistic" card now because drivers don't shoot. Everybody knows that. Nobody is that stupid. But it falls into the gameplay vs realism spectrum. You want simulation realism, go play your Project Reality or ArmA. That was never Planetside 1, and it's not going to be Planetside 2.

I can understand the point of view of not liking the change simply because it's different. But don't pull the strawman fallicy by dragging it through the mud then complaining about it being dirty. Tanks will still have a 2nd seat, and it's a gunner, not just a passenger.

God forbid the guy that actually spends his skill points on the tank be allowed to shoot the freakin thing. Sky is not falling. Teamwork lives.
But it was Planetside, Planetside was focused on teamwork at all levels. If they aren't going to do that with PS2 why not just say so so we can all just forget about PS2 now and not worry about it until we find out when we finally get to play it?

Raymac

2011-12-03, 05:17 AM

But it was Planetside, Planetside was focused on teamwork at all levels. If they aren't going to do that with PS2 why not just say so so we can all just forget about PS2 now and not worry about it until we find out when we finally get to play it?

That's the point. Teamwork is still encouraged. Capisce? It still has a 2nd gunner seat. What game are you lookin at? Quit acting like they took out the 2nd seat altogether, and they removed outfits, and there's no more squads, and it's a 1v1 arena deathmatch.

On top of that, it's an assault vehicle. It's a tank. It's not a troop transport. Let the pilots of assault vehicles shoot, and let the troop transports be the chauffeurs. It's that simple, and that logical.

Coreldan

2011-12-03, 05:28 AM

Erendil

2011-12-03, 05:49 AM

The primary turrets are also likely to be much weaker at anything non-armored. Like it was said that Vanny still 1 hits soldiers on A DIRECT HIT, as opposed to the 10m splash :D

So you will very much be reliant on your secondary gunner to keep you safe from AT-soldiers/air-to-ground aircrafts.

This is a very good point. People will be encouraged to get a gunner for their MBT because w/o one it'll be vulnerable to enemy softies and air. But with a secondary gunner you can be AV/AI, or AV/AA. Whereas two 1-man MBT's can only be 2xAV since I don't believe you can change out the main cannon.

Vash02

2011-12-03, 06:30 AM

SKYeXile

2011-12-03, 06:47 AM

ringring

2011-12-03, 07:53 AM

From yesterday enemy tech was enabled in PS1 which gave me the pleasure of again driving a magrider. That thing is fun!

But again it highlighted a worry about the PS2 driver/gunner thing.

I think the mag is good because:

the magrider has a fixed forward gun, albeit with some lateral and virtical movement to assist aiming.
the magrider can strafe making it more manoeverable
the driver gun, while it causes damage is the secondary
the main gun is particularly good again armour including aircraft and especially reavers

If the PS2 prowler has the above attributes I'll be happy, but it won't.

However, one of the most important things a prowler driver has to do is to escape when damaged ..... and if the driver's gun is in a turret and is the main armament this won't be easy.
I am thinking the upshot will be that driving the new prowler will be akin to driving a lightning. If you fire in one direction while moving in another, as you will have to, wil be similarly frustrating.

I'm not looking forward to it.

Erendil

2011-12-03, 08:05 AM

It doesent matter how much you practice, you are still going to be fucked by that rock/tree you were not looking for because you are firing at a target.

No amount of practice will ever solve that issue, there's a reason why most tanks in BF3 will simply stop and slug it out rather than attempt to keep moving.

Wrong.

I think the key phrase in your statement is "that rock/tree you were not looking for because you are firing at a target." That begs the question: Why weren't you looking for it before you opened fire?

Having good spatial awareness is vital if you're going to be driving and gunning at the same time. If you're constantly running into obstacles on the battlefield you need to spend less time just focusing on enemy units and more time paying attention to your surroundings.

If you make a conscious effort to frequently scan the area around you and take inventory of the surrounding terrain features, it should become easier for you to keep a mental image of what obstacles are around you even while you're in the midst of combat.

I'm not saying it's an easy skill to develop or that you'll never ever run into a rock or tree again. But if you practice at it enough (see what I did there? ;) ) it will eventually become second nature to you. The only time I ever accidentally run into an obstacle while driving a Lightning is if I'm trying to fire behind me while fleeing and actively evading a pursuing enemy. The rest of the time I can fire and maneuver through all but the thickest forests as well as a 2-man vehicle can.

Vash02

2011-12-03, 08:14 AM

Really catering to the casual gamer there. Make everyone die until they learn the conts to the square foot and then it will be fine!

CutterJohn

2011-12-03, 09:17 AM

And speaking of real life, don't play the "it's not realistic" card now because drivers don't shoot. Everybody knows that. Nobody is that stupid.

Realistic in the sense its not done, sure. But its certainly possible. There have been tanks with autoloaders, and there is absolutely nothing preventing them from designing a system that a driver could use, such as with the head tracking tech like the apaches use(and there the Pilot can and does control the turret from time to time).

But troops are cheap compared to tanks, so they do it how it is now.

I'm not saying it's an easy skill to develop or that you'll never ever run into a rock or tree again. But if you practice at it enough (see what I did there? ;) ) it will eventually become second nature to you. The only time I ever accidentally run into an obstacle while driving a Lightning is if I'm trying to fire behind me while fleeing and actively evading a pursuing enemy. The rest of the time I can fire and maneuver through all but the thickest forests as well as a 2-man vehicle can.

Definitely not an easy skill. I generally had to pull back to 80% speed in lightnings to manage to not hit stuff. :)

Erendil

2011-12-03, 09:20 AM

Really catering to the casual gamer there. Make everyone die until they learn the conts to the square foot and then it will be fine!

If you're driving on a freeway during rush hour traffic, do only base your driving solely on the condition of the brake lights of the car immediately in front of you, or do you also scan the area around you to make note of what cars are doing several cars ahead, in the lanes to either side, behind you, on entrance/exit ramps, etc so you can anticipate the traffic around you?

What you're implying here is that you'd have to memorize the entire roadmap of the metro area you live in in order to get from point A to B without driving off the road and into the ditch at the first turn of the road. Even a 5-year-old could tell you that's a load of crap.

The same thing applies when driving and gunning a tank in PS. It only takes a second or two to get a good feel for all of the major terrain features in a 360 degree FoV around you. And if you scan as you drive in the direction you're heading, even a casual gamer can also make note of and avoid any obstacles in their path, while exchanging fire with enemy forces, and without memorizing the whole damn map. They may not be perfect at it on the first run, but they will get better over time.

You stated in your previous post that no matter how much you practice you can't get any better at avoiding obstacles while driving and gunning at the same time. I'm telling you that you're full of shit.

Now, do you actually have a real argument or are you just going to present us with another pointless strawman?

Vash02

2011-12-03, 10:21 AM

If you're driving on a freeway during rush hour traffic, do only base your driving solely on the condition of the brake lights of the car immediately in front of you, or do you also scan the area around you to make note of what cars are doing several cars ahead, in the lanes to either side, behind you, on entrance/exit ramps, etc so you can anticipate the traffic around you?

What you're implying here is that you'd have to memorize the entire roadmap of the metro area you live in in order to get from point A to B without driving off the road and into the ditch at the first turn of the road. Even a 5-year-old could tell you that's a load of crap.

The same thing applies when driving and gunning a tank in PS. It only takes a second or two to get a good feel for all of the major terrain features in a 360 degree FoV around you. And if you scan as you drive in the direction you're heading, even a casual gamer can also make note of and avoid any obstacles in their path, while exchanging fire with enemy forces, and without memorizing the whole damn map. They may not be perfect at it on the first run, but they will get better over time.

You stated in your previous post that no matter how much you practice you can't get any better at avoiding obstacles while driving and gunning at the same time. I'm telling you that you're full of shit.

Now, do you actually have a real argument or are you just going to present us with another pointless strawman?

Strawman? what was your entire post constructed over again?
Oh right yes, me saying that people crash cars constantly in real life. As if comparing roads to off road terrain are just the exact same thing. :rolleyes:

I see your arguments but I dont think its a line that should be made for games. In my experience, few people put that much effort into it.

Erendil

2011-12-03, 11:38 AM

Strawman? what was your entire post constructed over again?
Oh right yes, me saying that people crash cars constantly in real life. As if comparing roads to off road terrain are just the exact same thing. :rolleyes:

I see your arguments but I dont think its a line that should be made for games. In my experience, few people put that much effort into it.

*sigh*

Please re-read my post again, carefully this time.

Your claim that people need to memorize an entire cont map or they will keep dying is as ridiculous as me claiming you'd need to memorize an entire roadmap to drive from point A to point B. I am not actually claiming you'd have to do this. And roads or no roads? That's beside the point. It's an analogy, not an exact comparison, and not a strawman because my example (which I don't subscribe to of course) is no more ridiculous than yours.

...:rant:

That said, I never claimed people had to put that much effort into anything. If they don't want to bother, they can still use a tank as both driver and gunner, and have fun doing so. They'll just have to deal with the occasional fender bender with the nearest rock, :D and accept the fact that there will be others who will put in the effort and as such will be able to operate more effectively in rocky terrain. This also means they will be at an advantage whenever the two meet on the field of battle.

Just like any multiplayer game, to become truly exceptional pimp: you have to put in the legwork. :dance:

But you and CutterJohn are right. It isn't an easy skill to master. But even a little effort can go a long ways towards improving your fire-and-maneuver skillz. I would think that people would just naturally pick up enough of that skill just using it day-to-day to make the driver's cannon at least semi-usable. :cool:

dsi

2011-12-03, 03:18 PM

If people want BF3 style sit-and-shoot tanking then have fun with that, I know many people aren't going to be there for that shit.

Alaska

2011-12-03, 03:38 PM

Blackwolf

2011-12-03, 05:12 PM

So having the driver control the main gun automatically makes it a BF3 styled sit-and-shoot? :P

Don't get me wrong, it just seems there's a lot of one track mindedness going on. We can't forget about all the other things they're putting into the game that'll most likely balance all this out. Think outside the box, think of all the possibilities and choices we'll be given. Yes the driver will control the main gun and the secondary gun will most likely be more substantial, but that doesn't automatically kill teamwork or whatever else everyone seems to have a problem with.

We have to keep in mind all the other things going on in the PS2 world that'll hopefully balance everything out. Terrain could play a big part, missions, what squad you're in, if your outfit decides to spec into tanks, any of it could easily change up the playing field. You're probably asking yourself how any of it could change the topic of the driver controlling the main gun. Possibilities, anything can happen. =]

Idealist is idealistic.

Again, if you had a choice between running around on foot with limited speed, armor, and firepower. Or jumping into a tank and having tremendous armor, comparatively faster speed, AND the ability to obliterate buildings. Which would you choose?

It's the choices available that is the problem. Because there is one choice that has the potential to rival BFRs for worlds worst addition to a massive FPS.

And yes, we've already seen the equivalent of PS2 MBTs in a MMOFPS, and it was a disaster to the playerbase and to gameplay. BFRs were introduced to PS1 and it died after that. They were exactly that, heavily armed and armored mobile fortresses that did not need a gunner to operate effectively (pilot always had access to very powerful weaponry). Worse you could get them in flying mode and leap over bases. They destroyed the gameplay where ever they appeared.

Too much power in one player's hands. Whether it's a BFR pilot, someone controlling the main gun of an MBT (which will be the top ground vehicle in PS2 since there won't be BFRs around) and driving it, or a game hacker. These things ruin game play.

PS: I never played BF3, and probably never will. PS1 is really the only multiplayer FPS I will play, because it involved more then just killwhoring and repeatedly dying while playing some stupid capture the flag game. If PS2 takes that turn and turns into nothing more then a really big game of UT2K, guess who won't be playing it.

Xyntech

2011-12-03, 05:40 PM

PS: I never played BF3, and probably never will. PS1 is really the only multiplayer FPS I will play, because it involved more then just killwhoring and repeatedly dying while playing some stupid capture the flag game. If PS2 takes that turn and turns into nothing more then a really big game of UT2K, guess who won't be playing it.

PS2 isn't going to be just like Battlefield, no matter how many alarmists try to claim it will be. Of course it won't be PS1 either, because if it were, it would fail. PS1 is too niche of a game by todays standards.

I've seen enough from this dev team to meet them half way and try out the new system before I condemn it, even if I'd currently prefer the classic PS1 style of MBT myself.

If the new designs prove imbalanced, I have no doubt that steps will be taken to balance them.

On the other hand, soloable MBT's will ruin the game for some, regardless of if they are balanced or not. That sucks, but PS2 is going to be successful regardless. I plan on enjoying it.

sylphaen

2011-12-03, 06:00 PM

On the other hand, soloable MBT's will ruin the game for some, regardless of if they are balanced or not. That sucks, but PS2 is going to be successful regardless. I plan on enjoying it.

Indeed. The good thing with the scale of PS1/PS2 is that you can avoid participating in the aspects of the game you do not enjoy.

In PS1, I did not like flying, did not know how to fly properly and did not want to fly them properly. I did love driving tanks and buggies though... And in base fights, I was more support than frontline-assault oriented.

If it turns out that I do not like vehicles in PS2, I will not use them and focus on infantry/base-fights, sniping etc... If infantry doesnt work out either, I'll be sad since it would mean PS2 delivered only on the graphics side, at least in terms of what I enjoy to play.

A lot of people have a lot of fun in BF3 and I am not here to judge what they like even though I have my opinion on it. In fact, to stop using that BF3 example which is mentionned ad-nauseum, some people like to farm for gear/achievements in World of warcraft. I just have different tastes for gameplay.

NewSith

2011-12-03, 07:42 PM

dsi

2011-12-03, 08:44 PM

I still wonder why people call solo MBTs imbalanced. They're not. But. There's always a but.

My opinion:
solo MBTs are shit. PERIOD.

More detailed view:
Solo tanks give breath to a very flawed, yet common "It's your tank, do what you want with it" logic. It kills teamplay. That's how it works in BF. Doing team tank is not interesting at all for the secondary gunner. Way I hope it to be is tank having AV weapons equal in strength. So, let's say if the driver gets "Laser Instagib Maingun", than AV secondary for it will be "Giant Instagib Plasmaball Secondary Gun". But that will render AI quite useless.

Extra problems I see:
There's no way you can tell anything about it from beta. Beta will mostly be inhabited by PS vets that won't just use Heavy Armor all the time. But when time comes and CoD kiddies aswell as BF guys come, that'll be a whole lot different story.

Solution:
A. BETA testing. But consider yourself warned.
B. Allow primary gun access to a gunner. In fact, allow existence of a GUNNER. Just a checkbox in vehicle term. However I'm not sure that anyone with common sense would prefer 1 gun instead of possible 2.

If you give the choice between 1 man tanks and 2 man tanks everyone is going to choose 1 man except for the most die-hard good hearted players.

Double main cannon, two angles of attack, etc. and you can just pick up a random blue and they can play MP Rail Shooter while you do the majority of the work.

It has to be done right from the beginning for it to be used right.

SKYeXile

2011-12-03, 09:28 PM

I still wonder why people call solo MBTs imbalanced. They're not. But. There's always a but.

My opinion:
solo MBTs are shit. PERIOD.

More detailed view:
Solo tanks give breath to a very flawed, yet common "It's your tank, do what you want with it" logic. It kills teamplay. That's how it works in BF. Doing team tank is not interesting at all for the secondary gunner. Way I hope it to be is tank having AV weapons equal in strength. So, let's say if the driver gets "Laser Instagib Maingun", than AV secondary for it will be "Giant Instagib Plasmaball Secondary Gun". But that will render AI quite useless.

Extra problems I see:
There's no way you can tell anything about it from beta. Beta will mostly be inhabited by PS vets that won't just use Heavy Armor all the time. But when time comes and CoD kiddies aswell as BF guys come, that'll be a whole lot different story.

Solution:
A. BETA testing. But consider yourself warned.
B. Allow primary gun access to a gunner. In fact, allow existence of a GUNNER. Just a checkbox in vehicle term. However I'm not sure that anyone with common sense would prefer 1 gun instead of possible 2.

There are many different types of players that play planetside, even on these forums, we will get a good sample with whatever players are invited, and on the possibility that im wrong and we dont , then in the play tests they can tell oneside to get in tanks and the otherside to be all infantry.

Also we dont know effective tanks or weapons are a tank could be killed in an AV rocket or 2 up the butt, or in a single aricraft pass. there are hitboxes now, it leaves options open. the driver could even be killed by a well placed shot through the viewport. (not VS though, we're not that stupid)

Blackwolf

2011-12-03, 11:49 PM

PS2 isn't going to be just like Battlefield, no matter how many alarmists try to claim it will be. Of course it won't be PS1 either, because if it were, it would fail. PS1 is too niche of a game by todays standards.

I've seen enough from this dev team to meet them half way and try out the new system before I condemn it, even if I'd currently prefer the classic PS1 style of MBT myself.

If the new designs prove imbalanced, I have no doubt that steps will be taken to balance them.

On the other hand, soloable MBT's will ruin the game for some, regardless of if they are balanced or not. That sucks, but PS2 is going to be successful regardless. I plan on enjoying it.

Meh.

Of course steps will be taken to balance them. Of course they will work. Of course the DEVs will solve the problems. Just like they did with BFRs. And that is what you are fighting for really. BFRs in MBT form.

Xyntech

2011-12-04, 01:26 AM

Meh.

Of course steps will be taken to balance them. Of course they will work. Of course the DEVs will solve the problems. Just like they did with BFRs. And that is what you are fighting for really. BFRs in MBT form.

Not really. BFR's had so many other flaws involving shields, flying, etc.

You can look at other games that have solo tanks (as so many use for comparisons) to see the difference between a BFR and a solo tank. Mostly those differences tend to stem from how quickly tanks die in those games, but that's not where the differences end.

I fully expect the game to be balanced (at least to the point of not being broken) by the end of beta for the simple fact that it will have a full development team working on it, not the shoddy backup team that existed by the time they added BFR's in the first game.

Apples and oranges, but I'll admit it's still optimism.

Of course, assuming that not only will the new system be broken, but will receive no attention and remain broken through til launch is the height of pessimism. What's the point, for someone who doesn't even seem that interested in the rest of the game? If one thing is going to break it for you, you can't possibly be that excited for anything else about the game.

Captain1nsaneo

2011-12-04, 04:05 AM

http://i42.tinypic.com/2012b12.jpg

Graywolves

2011-12-04, 10:52 AM

http://i42.tinypic.com/2012b12.jpg

Make a TR one

Blackwolf

2011-12-04, 11:49 AM

Not really. BFR's had so many other flaws involving shields, flying, etc.

You can look at other games that have solo tanks (as so many use for comparisons) to see the difference between a BFR and a solo tank. Mostly those differences tend to stem from how quickly tanks die in those games, but that's not where the differences end.

I fully expect the game to be balanced (at least to the point of not being broken) by the end of beta for the simple fact that it will have a full development team working on it, not the shoddy backup team that existed by the time they added BFR's in the first game.

Apples and oranges, but I'll admit it's still optimism.

Of course, assuming that not only will the new system be broken, but will receive no attention and remain broken through til launch is the height of pessimism. What's the point, for someone who doesn't even seem that interested in the rest of the game? If one thing is going to break it for you, you can't possibly be that excited for anything else about the game.

I ignore game comparisons for one simple reason. This game is not the laboratory conditioned game that BF3 and other games are. It's not an even match between players, and it's not a set goal to win the match.

This game is pushing for thousands of players in a single continent, and what will the majority of FPS players do? They will go for what gets the them the most kills. You can't dictate to the player base how many people can man tanks at any given time because that generates downtime and takes away from those that actually enjoy it. Instead you have to control the tank numbers through other methods, like requiring 2 crew members in a tank in order to best utilize it. Resources is a flawed method, because they will be hogged by tanks.

You say they aren't like BFRs because they don't have shields. I say you are wrong. Because MBTs are the heaviest armored vehicles on the field of PS2, that makes them the top dogs. What were the BFRs? They were the top dogs made with some weak attempt at a full circle by making them vulnerable to infantry and light weapons (which they also had heavy firepower to counter). The shields did NOT over power them, it was an exploitable hole in their defense actually. Yes I called their shields a weakness rather then a strength. What overpowered them was the fact that one person had access to weaponry that made them effective against everything, gave them mobility (not even counting the flight variant), and heavy armor. MBTs will have mobility, firepower, and heavy armor, all available to a single person.

Besides, you can customize the MBTs with shields, tweaked speeds, and tweaked armor. They are the BFRs of PS2, without the requirements to pilot them.

There is a fine line between optimism and naivety.

CutterJohn

2011-12-04, 12:13 PM

What overpowered them was the fact that one person had access to weaponry that made them effective against everything, gave them mobility (not even counting the flight variant), and heavy armor. MBTs will have mobility, firepower, and heavy armor, all available to a single person.

And what about the drivers cannon on the liberator? Shall we dispense with that as well? We wouldn't want one person to have access to mobility, heavy armor, and firepower, after all.

Also.. The tanks were top dogs at one time. But they were never as crazy as the BFRs were, because they were physically weaker. They had actual counters on the battlefield that were a serious threat, aside from massed fire from everything else.

And the tanks with 1 dude in them won't have access to weaponry that makes them effective vs everything. From the sounds of it the driver cannon will not be an AI raping death machine like the PS1 tank cannon were.

And theres more ways to limit than manpower. Tanks could easily have a ten minute respawn.

And having a gunner will be awesome for the same reason it was in BFRs. More eyes, more firepower, faster repairs, better coverage, and, new to ps2, more efficient use of resources.

dsi

2011-12-04, 02:16 PM

Blackwolf

2011-12-04, 02:51 PM

And what about the drivers cannon on the liberator? Shall we dispense with that as well? We wouldn't want one person to have access to mobility, heavy armor, and firepower, after all.

Also.. The tanks were top dogs at one time. But they were never as crazy as the BFRs were, because they were physically weaker. They had actual counters on the battlefield that were a serious threat, aside from massed fire from everything else.

And the tanks with 1 dude in them won't have access to weaponry that makes them effective vs everything. From the sounds of it the driver cannon will not be an AI raping death machine like the PS1 tank cannon were.

And theres more ways to limit than manpower. Tanks could easily have a ten minute respawn.

And having a gunner will be awesome for the same reason it was in BFRs. More eyes, more firepower, faster repairs, better coverage, and, new to ps2, more efficient use of resources.

This is one big derp-a-derp. So let's get started.

Liberators are aircraft, vulnerable to AA, other air, and are giant floating targets. Unless they are invisible, every AA gun in the area is going to aiming right at them, limiting their ability to affect the battlefield. MBTs aren't quite so high in profile, they will stand out in tank ranges but not so much at over 200m away. Also, Liberators probably won't feature armor that is as heavy as a MBT, and their cannon is (I'd hope) inefficient compared to the gunner guns.

MBTs had zero counters that weren't also effective against BFRs. Get enough infantry with rockets aiming at a BFR and it dies, I've done it myself. In fact BFRs had counters designed specifically for them, namely deci drops. And MBTs themselves were effective counters to BFRs in numbers.

And I'm sorry but if your armor is 5000 hit points worth and the infantry armor is 200, your weapon would be effective if it was a spit wad gun. But it isn't is it? It's a AV weapon, probably with splash, that can kill a grunt in one shot on a direct hit. "Oh but it requires a direct hit in PS2!" Yes I've mentioned this, however 5k armor vs 200 armor. Even if the tank misses 30 of his shots, that 31st is going to be murder and the tank will survive long enough to deliver it.

A respawn timer doesn't do squat other then make the players treasure their vehicles, which is needed but not helpful. It doesn't limit the number of tanks on the field at a time. A 6 hour (or however long) timer didn't stop OS rains in PS1 very well now did it? Vehicle timers are a mechanic that generates down time and increases the value of the vehicles once they are pulled. That's it.

And having a gunner will be pointless compared to having two tanks. 30 1 man tanks on a battle field means anything that tries to go up against them will face 30 AV gun blasts every 3 seconds. Even air craft can't dodge them all. This isn't RL battle, air craft can't fire hellfire missiles from beyond the horizon at tanks that are incapable of knowing they exist. Tanks can aim up, point their big guns at strafing runs, and let all hell break loose. Guess who's gonna win.

sylphaen

2011-12-04, 03:26 PM

IMO, BFRs have shown something:
- something balanced in small numbers (disputable idea in the case of BFRs) can become unbalanced in large numbers
- people would rather play another game rather than drop on big f***ing robots with decis all day long.

Xyntech

2011-12-04, 03:45 PM

This is one big derp-a-derp. So let's get started.

Liberators are aircraft, vulnerable to AA, other air, and are giant floating targets. Unless they are invisible, every AA gun in the area is going to aiming right at them, limiting their ability to affect the battlefield. MBTs aren't quite so high in profile, they will stand out in tank ranges but not so much at over 200m away. Also, Liberators probably won't feature armor that is as heavy as a MBT, and their cannon is (I'd hope) inefficient compared to the gunner guns.

MBTs had zero counters that weren't also effective against BFRs. Get enough infantry with rockets aiming at a BFR and it dies, I've done it myself. In fact BFRs had counters designed specifically for them, namely deci drops. And MBTs themselves were effective counters to BFRs in numbers.

And I'm sorry but if your armor is 5000 hit points worth and the infantry armor is 200, your weapon would be effective if it was a spit wad gun. But it isn't is it? It's a AV weapon, probably with splash, that can kill a grunt in one shot on a direct hit. "Oh but it requires a direct hit in PS2!" Yes I've mentioned this, however 5k armor vs 200 armor. Even if the tank misses 30 of his shots, that 31st is going to be murder and the tank will survive long enough to deliver it.

A respawn timer doesn't do squat other then make the players treasure their vehicles, which is needed but not helpful. It doesn't limit the number of tanks on the field at a time. A 6 hour (or however long) timer didn't stop OS rains in PS1 very well now did it? Vehicle timers are a mechanic that generates down time and increases the value of the vehicles once they are pulled. That's it.

And having a gunner will be pointless compared to having two tanks. 30 1 man tanks on a battle field means anything that tries to go up against them will face 30 AV gun blasts every 3 seconds. Even air craft can't dodge them all. This isn't RL battle, air craft can't fire hellfire missiles from beyond the horizon at tanks that are incapable of knowing they exist. Tanks can aim up, point their big guns at strafing runs, and let all hell break loose. Guess who's gonna win.

So you are bringing into question not just the balance of 2 man tanks vs 1 man tanks, but also the balance of 1 man tanks against the rest of the battlefield?

That's a little broad of a subject.

It's easy to balance solo tanks against the rest of the game. Just make sure that their armor and firepower isn't so high that they are overpowered against all else. Let's also not forget locational damage, which will make tanks much more vulnerable to surprise ambushes, while still having potentially higher survivability when facing their attacker head on.

I feel that the real question is whether solo MBT's can be balanced with 2 man MBT's. All of the other tank balancing questions can easily be addressed with a few tweaks to a few stats, but two solo MBT's taking on one 2 man MBT is a balance problem that may go much deeper.

BFR's were not just solo heavy weapons platforms. They were a perfect storm of bad ideas, poorly tested and implemented. If the PS2 devs just said to hell with the gunner slot and made MBT's purely solo vehicles, it would still be entirely possible to balance them within the context of the game, especially at this stage of development where everything else is being balanced as well.

Of course, purely solo MBT's aren't as much fun and aren't as good for team work. Optionally solo MBT's aren't much better than that, but they are still better.

There are still some relatively simple things that the devs could do to balance solo MBT's against 2 man MBT's. For example, those extra armor addons they have mentioned could come at the cost of a lower powered main gun for the driver, while the gunners weapons remain unaffected. If the armor increase were large enough, this could easily bring 2 man MBT's in line with solo MBT's so long as the gunners AV weapons were strong enough.

I just see too many ways for this to be balanced for me to be too worried about the system before we've even seen it. I think the fact that this subject keeps cropping up is a good thing, since it is obviously very important to game balance and to a lot of PS1 players, so it's just as well that the devs be aware of it's significance, but at the same time I'd hope that everyone keep a more positive tone than making claims like that solo MBT's will destroy Planetside 2, or turn it into (insert other game title here), or whatever.

Go play any other FPS that isn't an MMO and tell me with a straight face that Planetside 2 will be like that. Go take a look at firefall, which also boasts a large scale, and tell me that PS2 will be like that, with every class having jet packs. I think not. Planetside 2 is still closer to Planetside than it is to any other game. There may be changes, sometimes changes that may not make some vets very happy, but that's because this is a different game.

The differences don't outweigh the similarities though. For all their differences, solo aircraft are very similar to solo tanks. Solo aircraft didn't destroy PS1 and solo tanks won't destroy PS2, as long as the devs care even the slightest about working to balance the game.

sylphaen

2011-12-04, 04:32 PM

Solo aircraft didn't destroy PS1

Farming with mosquitoes and reavers is a famous activity, though.

dsi

2011-12-04, 04:32 PM

They already balanced solo MBTs with multi-manned MBTs, it's called the Lightning!

Xyntech

2011-12-05, 01:23 AM

Farming with mosquitoes and reavers is a famous activity, though.

Right. Even at it's most exploitable, it still didn't destroy the game. I'm a pilot myself, but I sincerely hope that farming ground targets is less effective in PS2 while dogfights are more prevalent.

The right balance can be struck. They can do it the PS1 way, or they can do it another way, but PS1 doesn't always = balanced and alternatives don't always = imbalanced. If they feel they both need to make a change and also believe that they can balance the change, I intend to hear them out before condemning the entire project.

I know that most of the solid stuff we have seen from the game has been graphics related, but has anything we have seen yet given the impression that the devs are going about this half assed? Has the level of community interaction indicated anything other than that the devs are extremely passionate about this project?

So why assume that the devs are retarded and/or intend to ruin the game and turn it into some arena shooter? Give them some more credit. They have absolutely earned at least a little respect for what they've done with PS2 up until this point.

It's not like Higby and Tray and the rest don't read these threads. These tank discussions have been going on a long time and will presumably keep going on. The balls in their court. I just don't want to see these kinds of discussions descend too deep into negativity and doom and gloom, because if it's all criticism and no constructivity, why are any of the devs even going to want to sift through the bile?