Vertical stabilizer for vehicle turrets?

[Azren]

What are your thoughts on vertical stabilizers for vehicle turrets? Do you want them in game or not? Please write an explanation to your answere.

If you are unclear on what I mean; a vertical stabilizer would help the gunner keep aim while the vehicle moves up and down on obsticles. In PS 1 we have this system in most ground vehicles, but only for horizontal movement (for example, when a tank turns, your turret does not turn with it). Unlike in PS1, there would be a maximum speed at which the turret can adopt to the changes, so very rough terrain would still make aiming very hard.
How this would affect gameplay mostly is by enhancing the speed the vehicles can move while still being at their full potential.

[Redshift]

I went no, if your driver decides to drive over stupid terrain that's his own fault

[DayOne]

No stabilisers makes for realistic and interesting game play that means the driver has some responsibility rather than just getting from point A to point B.

Yes it's annoying over rough terrain so you NEED to slow down to shoot properly.

But if this method is used then turrets need as much movement as possible, 360 degrees if possible.

Edit: I know realism isn't a huge factor in this game but immersion is.

[Azren]

No stabilisers makes for realistic and interesting game play that means the driver has some responsibility rather than just getting from point A to point B.

Vertical stabilizers are standard for all of today's tanks, this would not change in the future. Check this video for an example: Speed Tank Action - Extreme Driving - YouTube

[DayOne]

I imagine if this were realistic then they'd have all manner of stabilizers on their vehicles. But that would be boring as hell.

[Kaotc]

No, the driver is gunning, so if he wants to shoot properly, he needs to drive properly.

its already to easy in the fact that the driver can gun his own turret, adding in aids for him doing so is a non-starter for me.

[Shade Millith]

The driver already guns himself. We don't need to make it any easier than it's already become.

[ringring]

Well the driver is the gunner. Also, the floating magrider has a softer ride meaning that no stable-izers hurt TR and NC more and possibly TR more than NC since the prowler is to become the fastest tank.

Even so, I voted no.

I suppose many things go together into the 'balance topic', namely how is easy is it to drive, how easy is it to gun, speed, armour, firepower (both in tank vs tank and tank vs other units on the battlefield) - and we won't know that for certain until beta and after a couple of balance passes.


*usual plea to not have self-gunning tanks

[Azren]

This topic should not be limited to tanks. Sunderers and the TBA buggies should also be part of the conversation.

I would like to see a turret stabilizing option as a possible sidegrade. Maybe as a "stabilization / turing speed" sidegrade.

I do agree with the above though. A self driven/gunned vehicle needs no such system, maybe make it exclusive for the guns which require a gunner?

[Kaotc]

i dont think secondary gunners are going to be affected any where near as much as the main gun, you hardly need stablisers on dual 15mm chainguns ontop of a tank, they move fast enough to be able to compensate manually.

[AncientVanu]

More like limited stabilization would be ok. The gun should not be completely stabilized, as that would make the gunner pretty deadly. On the other hand a complete lack of stabilization is terrible cause when the vehicles is on the move the gunner can't hit anything, you've seen the terrain in PS2, every little bump is going to make you miss big time.
Limited stabilization would mean the gun is stabilized but not dead on, the terrain still affects the aim and would require minor corrections but not as huge as when it has no stabilization at all.

[DayOne]

More like limited stabilization would be ok. The gun should not be completely stabilized, as that would make the gunner pretty deadly. On the other hand a complete lack of stabilization is terrible cause when the vehicles is on the move the gunner can't hit anything, you've seen the terrain in PS2, every little bump is going to make you miss big time.
Limited stabilization would mean the gun is stabilized but not dead on, the terrain still affects the aim and would require minor corrections but not as huge as when it has no stabilization at all.

So minor dampening? Perhaps as a side grade?

[Aractain]

Sounds like a easy cert tree option to meeeee!

[Gortha]

No, i am against this.

This would take a lot of Skill out of the game.

I wonder why some of you don´t start polls about implementing aimbot in the game... lulz

[Hmr85]

I voted no, the driver needs to pay attention to what he is doing and line his shot up for the gun.

[AncientVanu]

I voted no, the driver needs to pay attention to what he is doing and line his shot up for the gun.

Now I see you are talking about the main gun as well. When I wrote my 1st post in this thread I had only the gunner in mind.
The main gun I think should be stabilized. Driving a tank without a fully stabilized main gun would feel archaic as hell. Gyroscopic stabilized gun and sight is a primary feature of the main battle tank. Some of the tanks in the WW2 had main gun stabilization ffs! I will laugh so hard if we get tanks with no main gun stabilization in PS2 :D

[Hmr85]

You do have a stabilizer...Its called your mouse. How did the rest of you survive in PS1 driving the Lightning? Its pretty much going to be identical.

[AncientVanu]

You do have a stabilizer...Its called your mouse. How did the rest of you survive in PS1 driving the Lightning? Its pretty much going to be identical.

The mouse is not a stabilizer. The RL stabilization and the in-game one provides increased accuracy on the move, you cannot possibly achieve that level of precision with your mouse. And this is not a matter of skill, it's a matter of effectiveness and arcaicness.

[Hmr85]

Did we have one in PS1? Because I sure don't remember having one. I do remember having to line my shot up for my gunner. If your on uneven terrain you should have to pay the price for it. This isn't RL. This is also another good example on why SOE needs to go back to the 2 seat vanguard. With a driver and a dedicated gunner.

[AncientVanu]

Did we have one in PS1? Because I sure don't remember having one. I do remember having to line my shot up for my gunner. If you on uneven terrain you should have to pay the price for it. This isn't RL. This is also another good example on why SOe needs to go back to the 2 seat vanguard. With a driver and a dedicated gunner.

Not having one in PS1 doesn't mean you won't have it in PS2. It's a new game with a number of new features, not a copy of PS1 with new engine and better graphics.

[Hmr85]

Not having one in PS1 doesn't mean you won't have it in PS2. It's a new game with a number of new features, not a copy of PS1 with new engine and better graphics.

I'm fully aware of that. It was never a issue in the 8 years myself that I played PS1. I cannot see it being a issue come PS2. I standby that I do not think it is needed. I ran Vanguard columns for those 6 years out of those 8 and never ever had a problem with the gun be it with the MBT or the lightning. People just need to pay attention to what they are doing.

[AncientVanu]

Looking at the new terrain I'm sure you'll have bigger problems with it. But I'm 100% sure the guns will be stabilized so no need to go more over it. One less thing to worry about, especially since the driver is firing the main gun in PS2, the attention can be redirected to maintain better situational awareness instead of looking out for rocks and bumps on the road.

[Hmr85]

I betting it doesn't and its Identical to the lightning in PS1. With that said I guess will have to agree to disagree on this. Will find out soon enough.

[Kaotc]

if you want the guns are stabilised, why not just add console style aimbot aswell.... how easy do you want the game to be?

[AncientVanu]

if you want the guns are stabilised, why not just add console style aimbot aswell.... how easy do you want the game to be?

Last time I played battlefield the gun stabilization there was not called aimbot. Don't confuse stabilization with auto-acquiring a target and no recoil.

[xSlideShow]

Sounds great, hated when my gunner couldn't hit shit cause we were on Ish.

[Hmr85]

Sounds great, hated when my gunner couldn't hit shit cause we were on Ish.

Find a better gunner next time. The problem with most gunners is that they can't figure out how to lead their target.

[AncientVanu]

Actually I was wrong by giving that BF example, after giving it a second thought I don't think there is any kind of stabilization (vertical or horizontal) in BF, seems I haven't played BF for a while and have forgotten the mechanics. :) It's more of a smoothness in gun and sight movement that some games don't get right but it is not stabilization.
Using an example to give a better idea of stabilization:
Horizontal stabilization we have when we put the crosshair on an enemy tank and when we turn the tank the crosshair stays on the target without requiring any mouse movement to compensate the turning.
Vertical stabilization we have when we put the crosshair on an enemy tank and it stays there even if we move through bumps and obstacles. Of course there is a limit in barrel elevation so when you're going through a bigger obstacle even if the gun is vertically stabilized it could go way off the target.
None of these are present in BFBC2 or BF3. Yes you can turn the turret in all directions while the tank is on the move but you always have to correct the aim when you go through elevations or the tank is turning.
Now I'm a little confused how it works in PS1 as I have never played this game, but the OP said there is horizontal stabilization in it. From the videos I've watched I don't think that's true, it looks close to the BF system (no stabilization at all) although the barrel movement seems kind of more robotic. Can anyone who has played both PS1 and BF tell if there is any difference in these games with regard to main tank gun movement?

[xSlideShow]

Find a better gunner next time. The problem with most gunners is that they can't figure out how to lead their target.

Nope, it was always the gun bouncing up and down. Was a great gunner on a stable platform.

[Gortha]

Last time I played battlefield the gun stabilization there was not called aimbot. Don't confuse stabilization with auto-acquiring a target and no recoil.

Wut? Even BF3 as noobish as it got has no Vertical Stabilization.
It would take out too much skill out of the game.

I really hope it sticks to the PS1 Mechanics the MBTs and the Lightning got.:groovy:

[AncientVanu]

Wut? Even BF3 as noobish as it got has no Vertical Stabilization.
It would take out too much skill out of the game.

I really hope it sticks to the PS1 Mechanics the MBTs and the Lightning got.:groovy:

you are right it has no vertical stabilization, I was wrong about it as I said in my comment.

[Rbstr]

I'm pretty sure the recent BF games do have stabilisation to some extent. They've certainly smoothed the turret bouncing compared to PS.
Perhaps they model a suspension somehow.

Remember there's a difference between tank elevation change and the tanks orientation in space (angle). Stabilisation won't help with elevation unless it's very sophisticated.

[Warborn]

BF maps tend to be a lot more flat/gradually sloped than Planetside. Planetside's terrain was incredibly rough in a lot of cases. Some places were nice and flat and gunning wasn't too bad, but other places were so goddamn rough you were constantly pitching back and forth.

[AncientVanu]

I'm pretty sure the recent BF games do have stabilisation to some extent. They've certainly smoothed the turret bouncing compared to PS.


That's what I've noticed, it's not a stabilization though it's more like a bouncing dampening. Vertical and horizontal stabilization keep your aim on the target no matter what movement you are performing with the tank and what obstacles you are going through so long as you are withing the gun elevation limits. I don't think any game has this modeled unless it's a tank sim we are talking about.

BF maps tend to be a lot more flat/gradually sloped than Planetside. Planetside's terrain was incredibly rough in a lot of cases. Some places were nice and flat and gunning wasn't too bad, but other places were so goddamn rough you were constantly pitching back and forth.

In that regard PS2 terrain seems even more rough.

[Hmr85]

Nope, it was always the gun bouncing up and down. Was a great gunner on a stable platform.

Then it sounds like you need a better driver ;) :lol:

[Hmr85]

In that regard PS2 terrain seems even more rough.

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if its quite the opposite. A lot of that jagged terrain we saw in PS1 should be gone come PS2 with the addition of newer technology.

[ThGlump]

For tanks there is no need for stabilizers as tank battles will be more static than in ps1 - more shooting from distance while standing than driving around and shooting (look at any game with driver/gunner style)

For sunderer there is no need either, as its primary transport, resupply utility vehicle with some defense, its not meant to have accurate weapons.

[HitbackTR]

Absolutely no. If the game is dumbed down enough for drivers and gunning to be performed by the same person I don't want the game dumbed down even more. SMH.

[Belight]

I think it needs to meet in the middle or be skill tree.

Being a machine gunner in BF3's jeeps is next to impossible and looks stupid becasue it bounces all around like crazy.

Modern day tanks can drive like crazy and still shoot the hell outta things. Dunno why they'd go backwards in technology in the future setting of PS....

[Raymac]

I voted before I read the thread and was thinking in the context of the secondary gunner, so I voted 'yes'. Having read the comments, I agree that I don't think the driver/main gunner should have the vertical stablization for a number of reasons, but I still think it's a good idea for the secondary gunner.

[Azren]

Now I'm a little confused how it works in PS1 as I have never played this game, but the OP said there is horizontal stabilization in it. From the videos I've watched I don't think that's true, it looks close to the BF system (no stabilization at all) although the barrel movement seems kind of more robotic. Can anyone who has played both PS1 and BF tell if there is any difference in these games with regard to main tank gun movement?

I made no mistake here; in main battle tanks, sunderers, buggies the turrets are horizontally 100% independent from the vehicle. The tank can spin around and you won't notice it. Vertical stabilization is 0 though.

The ligthing, quad, aircraft guns follow the vehicle, so you have to adjust aim both horizontally and vertically in those (but this is no problem because of the nature of these vehicles).

If vertical stabilization was implemented, it would have to be very moderate. Only help with small bumps on the road. If your driver climbs a hill, you would have to adjust the aim. In other words: it does not help with elevation change, only keeps the turret at the same angle (as much as it's able to, it would have to have a speed limit to how fast it can adjust)


I really hope it sticks to the PS1 Mechanics the MBTs and the Lightning got.:groovy:

The mechanics of MBTs and the lightning are very different, just which one is it you want them to stick with?

[Gortha]

I know all MBTs and the Lightning.
I also resubbed a few days ago and drove all Tanks at the Weekend,
where all Empire Vehicles were available cross factions.

The need to compensate vertical angles for the gunner or the driver in a lighning are very similar. It takes skill and reflexes. Not just dumb autoaim clicking.

[VioletZero]

I voted yes.

Anything that increases the skill gap should increase the game's depth. This does not. It is just an arbitrary hindrance that makes being a gunner harder to pick up and play.

[BorisBlade]

Sadly due to bad developer decisions, the driver is also a gunner now too. So the driving will be much worse compared to ps1 where the driver could focus on his skill as a driver, which means they wont focus as much on keeping a good shot with positioning and avoiding the crazy bumps or moving tactically. Vertical stabilization could be good. But honestly, I would have to test it out. It could be flat out terrible idea as well. Hard to say too much til we can test it out.

Now that i think about it more tho, definitely dont want it for the driver who also is a gunner, bad enough its an option on main tanks, it should be harder to do. Not quite as opposed, until i test it that is, for pure gunner slots. But again, it could just be bad period but I would need to test it a bit in the actual game versus real targets first.

[CutterJohn]

Yes and no.

I want some stabilization, but not perfect stabilization. There has to be a healthy compromise between the jittery mess of PS1 vehicles and a rock solid reticle regardless of what the driver was doing.

That said, I think PS2 vehicles are likely to have shock absorbers, rather than the perfectly elastic collision model of PS1 vehicles. This may be enough. Hell, the Magriders cannon should be silky smooth anyway. Its.. hovering.

Also, it could be an upgrade, meaning you have to replace one of the other useful items on the tank for increased stability of the turrets.

[Graywolves]

I don't think the Driver-gun should be stabilized but the secondary gunner should.

[Chaff]

.
I had no complaints with the gunning mechanics of PS1. That fact compels me to be hesitant to any changes.

Minimal-to-mild stabilizing.....I could handle.

ONE CAVEAT - absolutely NOT "active" in a single occupant tank. MBT, Lightning,....whatever.

I loved the TEAMWORK element of PS1. Therefore, I'd only vote for stabilizing (slightly) guns if EVERY seat in that vehicle was occupied.

Then, teamwork is rewarded.

My Outfit arranged different events many times each each week. Lightning Crashes were my favorite....you get 8 or more Lightning going it was raining shells....it didn't matter that aiming was a lost art for most of us.....man ! We could scare off tanks even if we only had a 2-1 ratio.....the amount of fire we could put in the air over targets was more than most chose to deal with.

Also RAIDER crashes. Once we got 4 full RAIDERS in a close pack ..... it was surprisingly deadly. LOTS OF FUN ..... especially when we were out on water and 1 or 2 REAVERS thought we were easy prey.
.

[VioletZero]

I don't think the Driver-gun should be stabilized but the secondary gunner should.

That's a good idea. Because then there is at least sync between driving and gunning enough for this to work.

[Lonehunter]

I can see a slight vertical stabilization just to make going over sudden but only 1 foot drop not affect your aim that much, but terrain is one of the many tools of planetside. There won't just be flat space that is a given for vehicles, and space so rough no ground fighting exists. There will be many shades of grey with steep cliffs, rolling hills, chasms, trees, etc.

I don't like the idea of "If it can get there, it can gun there". I think rough terrain should stay an obstacle for vehicles, as in the driver has to use judgement based on his perks and the difficulty of the terrain to decide if his gunner is able to kill while driving there

[ThGlump]

I don't think the Driver-gun should be stabilized but the secondary gunner should.

Yea stabilizing main gun would be bad. They should not have it too easy, when soloing in tank.
But even driving and gunning for some will be hard, so they dont move that much, and making it even harder to aim while driving will stop them entirely, so most tanks become stationary spamming towers (if they arent stupid to become reaver bait). It will be "bridge" stalemate everywhere. Only shows how flawed it is. You cant make it easy not to become best weapon for killwhores, but making it harder will make gameplay tedious.

[Livefire]

I'm totally for full modern stabilization as I'm always for realism and being this is a way futuristic game allowing the driver to gun is also realistic however I must of missed that because I didn't see this news about the drivers also gunning? If the driver is the gunner when he is the only one in the tank that's fine cause he is going to have to go slow or be static to aim and hit shit anyways but what matters is if he can give control of the main gun when he gets a gunner to gun for him so he can then concentrate on being the driver. Is that how its going to work leaving it up to the players decision or did they do something total arcade and highly disappointing and stupid and made the driver the dedicated main gunner the whole time?

[ThGlump]

Sadly its that disappointing and stupid version. Welcome to ps2, looks like you have many info to catch up.

[Figment]

You could also use vertical stabilization as a side grade in terms of accuracy, having it effect something like the max expansion of cone of fire.

World of Tanks does a lot in module upgrades/sidegrades. Quite possible they'll loan some ideas from there.

[jangio]

the skill in vehicles came from the driver's ability to keep up with the target while avoiding damage and the gunner's ability to correctly lead their target. Why should random bumps be a part of the equation? That has nothing to do with skill. Also, even real life tanks these days have stabilization. It just doesn't make sense for a futuristic game not to have it.

Stabilization doesn't make the game skill-less. You guys are starting to sound like a bunch of old retirees who are opposed to any sort of change ("things were better in the good old days"). Don't let nostalgia get in the way of creating a better game- this is planetside 2, not a planetside mod to bring the graphics up to date.

[Livefire]

Sadly its that disappointing and stupid version. Welcome to ps2, looks like you have many info to catch up.

WAAAA!!??? How could that be no planetside player would be for that what the hell happen? There is no way that they are doing something that stupid!? SOE it is simple leave it to the player I know you want to make the game fun for single players that fine let them drive and gun like battle field and new arcade games but let the driver give up the gun to a passenger to gun for him so he can just drive and they can have the team effort experience that planet side is so loved for and is why you have the dedicated fan base you do. Please don't fuck up the only MMOFPS we have. Remember it is fine to add some new characteristics to the game so it can compete with all the new arcades but this is still a mmo and there for different. Guys we can't let them do this!, this must be explained very easily to them LET THE PLAYER DECIDE HOW HE WANTS TO PLAY HIS VEHICLE then every one is happy.

[ThGlump]

You missed the whining about it by few months. But it was all pointless. They have it in vehicle design (mags fixed main gun) and doesnt look they are willing to change it. Its stupid, but we have to wait till beta and then bash them with tanks to head with solid evidence that it doesnt work, and hope it isnt too late.

[Livefire]

You missed the whining about it by few months. But it was all pointless. They have it in vehicle design (mags fixed main gun) and doesnt look they are willing to change it. Its stupid, but we have to wait till beta and then bash them with tanks to head with solid evidence that it doesnt work, and hope it isnt too late.

Sounds like a plan we need to be organized about this and get it changed I will head over to the other forum posts about it thanks for the heads up.

[Fenrys]

Yes, but limited dampening. I think it would be less frustrating and more fun, and that's really the point of playing a game.

[Traak]

No stabilisers makes for realistic and interesting game play that means the driver has some responsibility rather than just getting from point A to point B.

"Realistic" is turrets that actually stay, not just on azimuth, but on target, after you have spotted the target with your targeting system.

The M1A1's gun traverses and moves vertically to maintain it's bearing on a chosen target. Driver can be doing anything in his vehicle up to the bump-stops of the turrets vertical travel, and the gun will stay on target.

That is how it needs to be to be realistic. I think it would be a good addition to the game, too.

[Erendil]

the skill in vehicles came from the driver's ability to keep up with the target while avoiding damage and the gunner's ability to correctly lead their target. Why should random bumps be a part of the equation? That has nothing to do with skill. Also, even real life tanks these days have stabilization. It just doesn't make sense for a futuristic game not to have it.

Stabilization doesn't make the game skill-less. You guys are starting to sound like a bunch of old retirees who are opposed to any sort of change ("things were better in the good old days"). Don't let nostalgia get in the way of creating a better game- this is planetside 2, not a planetside mod to bring the graphics up to date.

It has nothing to do with nostalgia, and has everything to do with trying to preserve tank combat as a complex and rewarding contest of skills.

For the driver, it involves utilizing the terrain to make yourself a harder target to hit while still keeping your vehicle in a good firing position and providing a stable platform to your gunner. For the gunner, it involves anticipating and reacting to changes in terrain in order to quickly adjust your aim and time your shots in order to keep them on target. Mastering both skills is something that IMO separates a "pretty good" tank crew from one that is truly exceptional, and to say that this has nothing to do with skill is frankly quite naive.

In addition, adding vertical stabilization would be a direct nerf to vehicles that use speed and maneuverability to survive rather than raw armour and firepower. The easier it is for an average gunner to hit their target, the longer the range where a contest of player skills to out-gun and out-maneuver your opponent turns into a contest of character certs to just out-equip and/or out-damage them.

So even though I know little about the specifics in PS2 vehicle combat, for now I'm going to say NO to vertical stabilizers. Who knows, my opinion may change once Beta starts. I doubt it tho.

[VioletZero]

No vertical stabilizatiion doesn't make the game more complex, it just makes the secondary gunner role a hell of a lot harder to play if you don't know the driver.

It's an unreasonable expectation to make it so that every tank crew has to know each other. It should be something that people can just ask each other to do to get them cohesively working together.

[Erendil]

No vertical stabilizatiion doesn't make the game more complex, it just makes the secondary gunner role a hell of a lot harder to play if you don't know the driver.

It's an unreasonable expectation to make it so that every tank crew has to know each other. It should be something that people can just ask each other to do to get them cohesively working together.

Yes it does make it more complex because it not only increases the size of the skillset needed to be a top-tier gunner or driver, but it encourages teamwork by rewarding those crews who are able to work together to use terrain to their best advantage.

In single-crew vehicles like a Lightning, it allows you a greater chance to come out on top against a larger multi-crew vehicle that isn't so skilled in dealing with rough terrain or in working well together. As a dedicated Lightning driver in PS1 I can attest to this fact. There have been many, many times I've been able to take out a more powerful MBT because I was able to use the terrain to my advantage, to set up ambushes, attack from angles that made it difficult for the enemy to return fire, and to evade in such a way that the enemy had to follow me over rough terrain to keep up, which threw off their aim in the process.

In multicrew vehicles it rewards tank crews who make an effort to work with one another instead of just playing independently inside the same vehicle. Being able to anticipate a driver's movement patterns allows you to be a better gunner since you'll know the likely courses he'll take and thus what terrain you'll have to deal with, and knowing your gunner's ability to compensate for varying terrain helps the driver to know what paths he can take that still let his gunner land his shots. IMO a tank crew that works often and well with one another should be rewarded for their dedication and experience in working together, and this is one aspect of gameplay that does just that.

In addition, PS1 has shown us quite clearly that a pick-up crew of random players can still be very successful in a vehicle without vertical stabilization even if they've never driven with each other before. They just won't be quite as effective as a crew that's worked together a lot. IMO that's how it should be. The stress on teamwork and communication in vehicle operation is one of the things that makes PS1 (and hopefully, PS2) vehicle combat so great.

And remember, if a player just can't seem to get things to click with others when he's in a multi-crew vehicle and successful teamwork never develops no matter how hard he tries, he can always drive his tank solo, or hop into a Lightning which has just 1 crewmember.

[Gandhi]

I voted no. It's yet another aspect of teamwork between driver and gunner, and considering we now have built in voice comms and hopefully some appropriate voice macros I don't see why it should be removed.

Even in PS1 it didn't always mean stopping the tank, just driving over flat ground for a while. There was actually a lot of skill and planning involved to give your gunner the best possible firing platform while still staying mobile. And I'm still hopeful we can convince them to go back to the 2+ man MBTs in beta.

[Livefire]

"Realistic" is turrets that actually stay, not just on azimuth, but on target, after you have spotted the target with your targeting system.

The M1A1's gun traverses and moves vertically to maintain it's bearing on a chosen target. Driver can be doing anything in his vehicle up to the bump-stops of the turrets vertical travel, and the gun will stay on target.

That is how it needs to be to be realistic. I think it would be a good addition to the game, too.

I totally agree realism for the win and being it is futuristic you can even beef things up even more so it is full of non stop action and destruction. A action/scifi/sim/mmofps would rewrite the fps genre and is exactly what planet side 2 should strive for. A game changer to show all these noob clone arcade fps's whats up:)

[Gortha]

I voted yes.

Anything that increases the skill gap should increase the game's depth. This does not. It is just an arbitrary hindrance that makes being a gunner harder to pick up and play.

Noob! :D

[Erendil]

I totally agree realism for the win and being it is futuristic you can even beef things up even more so it is full of non stop action and destruction. A action/scifi/sim/mmofps would rewrite the fps genre and is exactly what planet side 2 should strive for. A game changer to show all these noob clone arcade fps's whats up:)

Realism is great up to a point, but it needs to take a back seat to gameplay. Vertical stabilizers reduce the amount of skill needed to be an effective gunner and simplifies it to the point that a lot of the challenge is gone, and gameplay suffers as a result. Remember this is a war game, not a simulator. It's a contest of skills, and all other things being equal, if something greatly diminishes the skill involved it should probably be discarded.

Of course we have little info on the effective and max range of vehicle weapons, of typical engagement distances, nor of how much punishment various vehicles can take. So it's possible that some form of stabilization may be necessary to be at all effective in a combat vehicle. But I highly doubt it.

I think I might be okay with it in some limited form if it exists as an unlock buried deep within a vehicle's cert tree. But I don't think it's something that should be available in a stock vehicle.

[Chaff]

BOTH sides - both points-of-view have legitimate merits.

I like how Erendil presents the case to stay more towards the PS1 style of gunning.

The simple premise that gun stabilization would exist in the future is irrefutable - since it exists now.

It seems to primarily effect TANK-VS-TANK. SO that is a wash. The better Tank still wins. It will just involvle more hits/min during encounters.

MBT vs smaller vehicles ?.....wait for Beta. Maybe the rotaional speed of the turret will still give smaller vehicles a fighting chance......AND...if their weapons get stabilization to their primary gun....then perhaps the ACTION is a little more INTENSE....but the ultimate outcome may bear out comparable outcome percentages between PS1 to PS2. The ACTION may be faster and more iNTENSE. The eventual outcome may carry similar percentages to the old game. We have to wait and see.

CHANGES WILL OCCUR. Why is there so much CRYING before Beta shows what the reality of the gameplay changes or the brand new elements actually are.....?

.....the CRYING and FLAME-OUTS are nothing more than people being short-sided or close-minded, insecurity about having to learn new gameplay or strategies, and indicates a general elitist immaturity issue with many PS veterans.

It's gonna be DIFFERENT. It may be too different for many former players. What will drive SOE is what the NEW player base thinks of the game mechanics. If vets are less than 10% of the future population, and we do 90% of the crying......well, don't expect them to heed our cries.

Until Beta and the first 6 months post-Beta......I'm gonna try to grow into the changes. The NEW game deserves a fair chance. Nostalgia will blind those with closed minds.

[Livefire]

BOTH sides - both points-of-view have legitimate merits.

I like how Erendil presents the case to stay more towards the PS1 style of gunning.

The simple premise that gun stabilization would exist in the future is irrefutable - since it exists now.

It seems to primarily effect TANK-VS-TANK. SO that is a wash. The better Tank still wins. It will just involvle more hits/min during encounters.

MBT vs smaller vehicles ?.....wait for Beta. Maybe the rotaional speed of the turret will still give smaller vehicles a fighting chance......AND...if their weapons get stabilization to their primary gun....then perhaps the ACTION is a little more INTENSE....but the ultimate outcome may bear out comparable outcome percentages between PS1 to PS2. The ACTION may be faster and more iNTENSE. The eventual outcome may carry similar percentages to the old game. We have to wait and see.

CHANGES WILL OCCUR. Why is there so much CRYING before Beta shows what the reality of the gameplay changes or the brand new elements actually are.....?

.....the CRYING and FLAME-OUTS are nothing more than people being short-sided or close-minded, insecurity about having to learn new gameplay or strategies, and indicates a general elitist immaturity issue with many PS veterans.

It's gonna be DIFFERENT. It may be too different for many former players. What will drive SOE is what the NEW player base thinks of the game mechanics. If vets are less than 10% of the future population, and we do 90% of the crying......well, don't expect them to heed our cries.

Until Beta and the first 6 months post-Beta......I'm gonna try to grow into the changes. The NEW game deserves a fair chance. Nostalgia will blind those with closed minds.

I'm fine with changes for the better, but not backwards crap like forcing the driver to gun with out the ability to release it to a dedicated gunner, or not giving a full motion turret to the Magrider. Don't dictate changes to the players give them the option. Those are the only things I really have a problem with so far. Fix those in or before beta and I'm fine with changes, just make the changes make sense in a futuristic shooter and explain them in the Planetside story line. Love the sig Erendil :)

[VioletZero]

Realism is great up to a point, but it needs to take a back seat to gameplay. Vertical stabilizers reduce the amount of skill needed to be an effective gunner and simplifies it to the point that a lot of the challenge is gone, and gameplay suffers as a result. Remember this is a war game, not a simulator. It's a contest of skills, and all other things being equal, if something greatly diminishes the skill involved it should probably be discarded.

Of course we have little info on the effective and max range of vehicle weapons, of typical engagement distances, nor of how much punishment various vehicles can take. So it's possible that some form of stabilization may be necessary to be at all effective in a combat vehicle. But I highly doubt it.

I think I might be okay with it in some limited form if it exists as an unlock buried deep within a vehicle's cert tree. But I don't think it's something that should be available in a stock vehicle.

Skill gap is great, but it needs to be the result of DEPTH.

Taking away vertical stabilizers does not increase the game's depth. And if it doesn't increase depth, it at least needs to be more fun.

But it's not fun to have to compensate for your driver going on uneven random terrain. It's a frustration.

Your focus on increasing the importance on skill and teamwork is getting in the way of the facts. Tanks should be something easy to pick up and play. After all, that's why drivers can control the main gun now. It should also be easy to pick up the machine gunner position on someone else's tank without it being a huge frustration.

Being an effective tank driver should come down more to greater tact, not greater skill.

[Garem]

I wouldn't want to have no stabilization at all- maybe some correction delay based upon how harsh the jerking would be, based on terrain and speed.

[Erendil]

Skill gap is great, but it needs to be the result of DEPTH.

Taking away vertical stabilizers does not increase the game's depth. And if it doesn't increase depth, it at least needs to be more fun.

But it's not fun to have to compensate for your driver going on uneven random terrain. It's a frustration.

Your focus on increasing the importance on skill and teamwork is getting in the way of the facts. Tanks should be something easy to pick up and play. After all, that's why drivers can control the main gun now. It should also be easy to pick up the machine gunner position on someone else's tank without it being a huge frustration.

Being an effective tank driver should come down more to greater tact, not greater skill.


EDIT: Apologies for the long post. I'm quite passionate about this subject tho, so plz bear with me :)

It seems to me that you and I have a different definition of the word "depth." IMO, not having stabilizers does increase the depth of gameplay, by not only giving players more skills to utilize and improve upon (namely effective aiming over uneven terrain, minimizing the rough terrain that you drive over, and maneuvering such that the enemy is themselves forced to drive over uneven terrain themselves), but by increasing the variety of environmental hindrances to a player's battlefield effectiveness and allowing for a greater variety of tactics to overcome those hindrances and/or capitalize on the situation when said hindrances are affecting enemy forces.

And contrary to what you might think, the above-described increased depth is fun for many people, my self included. It may be a frustration for you, but for many others it's fun being involved in a tank battle over uneven terrain without stabilizers due to the challenge, just like it's fun to fight at night, or during a snowstorm which you seem to enjoy (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showpost.php?p=625340&postcount=6), or (in a plane) while zooming in and out of cloud cover. the extra challenge and variety and unique tactics that result is what makes it fun. Vertical stabilizers would IMO water this down and make it less fun because gunning would become too easy.

And my "focus on increasing the importance on skill and teamwork" is not getting in the way of "the facts." Rather, your lack of experience in PS1 gameplay is getting in the way of what you somehow think are "facts" to begin with. I really don't mean to be throwing this into your face, but my understanding is you've never played PS1. Reading your other posts you obviously are an intelligent person and have a rather extensive gaming background.

That said, contrary to what you seem to think, gunning in a tank in PS1 is already easy to do. Finding a gunner for a 2-person MBT in PS1 is easy to do. And many people love the game mechanics of vehicle warfare in PS1 despite the fact that there is no vehicle stabilization.

This is not the first time stabilizers have been discussed on a Planetside forum. I've been involved in a few of them over the years on the SOE forums. Many people like the idea. Many others do not. In the end though, stabilizers detract from the skill required and variety involved in vehicle warfare so IMO it shouldn't be implemented by default on all vehicles, but only as a customization if at all.

If you insist on having stabilizers on your turret in order to let the game aim for you, then fine. But you should have to pay for it, and it should be rare and expensive since it would be a big advantange. But don't force it on the rest of us.

[Livefire]

I want all the vehicles in this scifi combat world to look as cool, perform as cool, and be as advanced, stabilizers and all as combat vehicles would be 100s of years from now. Scifi, action, theater size, combat sim, mmofps for the win.

[Erendil]

I'm fine with changes for the better, but not backwards crap like forcing the driver to gun with out the ability to release it to a dedicated gunner, or not giving a full motion turret to the Magrider. Don't dictate changes to the players give them the option. Those are the only things I really have a problem with so far. Fix those in or before beta and I'm fine with changes, just make the changes make sense in a futuristic shooter and explain them in the Planetside story line. Love the sig Erendil :)


Thanks! :cool: I, too, am leery of the changes they made to the Mag. I hope they get the mobility right on it if they end up keeping the main cannon fixed forward, and I hope it has at least a little control like the Fury rocket launchers in PS1.

I think the Mag even looks better with the main cannon attached to the turret like that instead of below. The Mag's turret right now serves little purpose and quite frankly it looks weird having a turret with no barrel sticking out the front, but an additional weapon mounted on top of it.

[Coreldan]

I'd say no too, cos I dont really like the idea of driver gunning in the first place, so I sorta think that it doesnt need to be any more powerful as a solo vehicle than it already is.

That said, I'm ok for the secondary gunner to have it though, but wouldnt want the main turret to be very easy to shoot while on the move.

[Erendil]

I'd say no too, cos I dont really like the idea of driver gunning in the first place, so I sorta think that it doesnt need to be any more powerful as a solo vehicle than it already is.

That said, I'm ok for the secondary gunner to have it though, but wouldnt want the main turret to be very easy to shoot while on the move.

How about for the Lightning, since it doesn't have the option for a secondary gunner?

[Coreldan]

How about for the Lightning, since it doesn't have the option for a secondary gunner?

Hmmh, tough question actually!

I guess that could be one of the "balancing factors", sorta the reason why someone might want to go for lightning over MBT. As in, it would be more mobile/easier to fire on the move.

I dont say the feature has to be completely out of the game, but somehow I dont like the idea of the driver/main gunner of MBT to have easy time shooting on the move.

[Livefire]

Thanks! :cool: I, too, am leery of the changes they made to the Mag. I hope they get the mobility right on it if they end up keeping the main cannon fixed forward, and I hope it has at least a little control like the Fury rocket launchers in PS1.

I think the Mag even looks better with the main cannon attached to the turret like that instead of below. The Mag's turret right now serves little purpose and quite frankly it looks weird having a turret with no barrel sticking out the front, but an additional weapon mounted on top of it.

Yes, it looks stupid to have a turret with no gun simply makes no damn sense. Lets just keep working hard to convince them of the changes they need so we can have the option to man the main gun or hand it to are designated gunner. And keep working on getting that gun on the turret like it's suppose to be or at least another one on the turret the same size of the drivers for your designated gunner to use.

[NewSith]

I'm against horizontal stabilizers, not only vertical.


Reason: you can't turn your vehicle to point the gunner at something important, so he just keep shooting something he doesn't really need to shoot at. That's if he is shooting at all.

[VioletZero]

I'm against horizontal stabilizers, not only vertical.


Reason: you can't turn your vehicle to point the gunner at something important, so he just keep shooting something he doesn't really need to shoot at. That's if he is shooting at all.

There's another solution for that: How about a built in marking mechanism?

[jangio]

There's another solution for that: How about a built in marking mechanism?

I'm all for stabilizers, but I like that idea as well. Allow the driver to use his mouse to look around and point out targets.

[TheBladeRoden]

I like the idea of a stabilizer side-grade attachment, with the pro being stability and the con being a slower overall turret movement speed.

[NewSith]

There's another solution for that: How about a built in marking mechanism?

It doesn't work. Good BF3 pilot experience.

[Erendil]

It doesn't work. Good BF3 pilot experience.

Can u elaborate? Why doesn't it work? Is it a clunky interface? Do gunners just ignore the markers and do their own thing anyway? Or is it something else?

[CutterJohn]

Do gunners just ignore the markers and do their own thing anyway?

This, undoubtedly. The solution to which is obvious.. Get a gunner you can work with.

[Azren]

No horizontal stabilizer would be horrible as a gunner. I wouldn't mind it as a driver+gunner though (like the lightning)

[Aractain]

It depends on the driving model, if its fast and bouncy (better physics in PS2) then it will get pretty annoying to drive and shoot (not skill, just a lot of otherwise missed shots that NOBODY could have prevented).

It would lead to a lot of slowing down and stopping to shoot (same as turreting aircraft). Its boring to fight against.

Ultimately skilled fun gameplay should be about positioning and prediction not who is on the flatest terrain.

[NewSith]

Get a gunner you can work with.

Good solution, yet so impermanent.

[Chaff]

How about a customizable barrel ?

....one that looks like a "willy".....

A "spooge gun"

A "direct hit" of your oppponents vehicle results in the following;

....over the next 9 months any vehicle they pull slowly gets a bigger and bigger belly on it.

Obviously - during this phase - their vehicle slows down, gets odd cravings, and doesn't want to be around its driver much.
.

[Azren]

So, what if your gunner is actually shooting at the more iminent danger, and you mess up his aim so he can see your target? Nah, a gunner's horizontal angle should not be influenced by the vehicle. I'm all for giving the drivers an option to set targets though.

[sylphaen]

I wonder why some of you don´t start polls about implementing aimbot in the game... lulz

No aiming side-grade for it then ? :rofl:

What about homing projectiles side-grades ?
:D