My one 'dislike' of PS2 (Main Battle Tanks)

[Rhapsody]

Sofar, with everything weve seen or been shown, or been told, about PS2, i only have 1 gripe.. 1 'dislike'.

And thats the change theyve made to the MBT's.

Theyve basicaly taken them and removed the 'co-operative' experience/boost from them, which basically turned them into oversized lightnings.

What was the reason for giving the drivers control of the main guns in the main battle-tanks? Dosnt that drastically limit the maneuverability of the tanks now that the driver has to split his attention between were he's going, while also aiming at a target?

I loved being a 'tanker' in PS1, thats what i mainly did when i wasnt playing as a medic/armor support grunt on the ground. But, i couldnt aim for crap. So i spent most of my time in the driver seat of the Vanguard (yea i know, some people dont like the NC.. but not everyone is on the side of the 'true' leadership. =P). Anyway, while i couldnt shoot for crap, i COULD drive. And i was one of the best vehicle drivers of my outfit (vanguards and skyguards). Which meant that alot of the times i got paired up with the best gunners in my outfit. The two of us together were lethal, just as any tank 'crew' should be as each person focuses on their particular jobs (driving or gunning).

Though while i was great while driving a vanguard, and paired with a good gunner, i outright sucked in a lighting (PS1's single-seater tank). Minaly because im use to being vary 'mobile', and when your looking 90-130degree's oposite of were the front of your tank is going, you tend to run into things alot, such as trees, bushes made out of titanium... that one pepble that you couldnt drive over for some reason... friendlies... you get the idea.

So, my question is this... What was the reasoning behind removing the Driver/Gunner separation for the main tanks? I think that is the 1 and only thing i 'dont' like about what we know of PS2. The 'tank' losses alot of its effectiveness if the driver is also the gunner. Infact, why even bother having the lightning in PS2 if the driver of the main tanks is also the gunner? That pretty much makes the lightning obsolete (as well as cut down on the main tanks mobility) dosnt it?. If they gave the driver the controle of the main gun simply to give the driver a way to defend himself, they could have done that simply by giving the driver controle of a forward facing weapon of some kind with maybe a 120-150deg firering arc.

[KTNApollo]

I wholeheartedly agree that the driver should not be able to operate the main cannon. It's unrealistic for one, and it's a lot harder to do. Sure, I understand the whole "the driver is the one who certs the vehicle, he should get to blow shit up" argument, but you're going to be half as effective as you could be because you have to focus on driving and shooting.

[ArmedZealot]

http://ksrcollege.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/beating_a_dead_horse_by_potatoehuman-d3fead4.jpg

Let's do this.

[Rat]

MBTs are going to be fine, cooperation will still be rewarded...lets face it 52 tanks driving around in figure eights wasnt very realistic to start with....driving is going to take some skill now.

[SKYeXile]

The main reasoning i see is the resource system, people would be shelling out high resource costs for vehciles where they dont reap the reward, it doesn't sit well with most people, yet alone the wow generation. Then, as they say they're modernising the game, how doe DICE do it? I rest my case.

[JPalmer]

They might get the cert to have a driver and gunner. I think.

Tanks are a lot weaker this time around like everything else. I find it more disappointing to get a crew together and then get taken out in ten seconds by the swarms of aircraft there will be everywhere the first few months.

[Zulthus]

MBTs are going to be fine, cooperation will still be rewarded...lets face it 52 tanks driving around in figure eights wasnt very realistic to start with....driving is going to take some skill now.

Coordination wasn't skill? Now aside from the organized outfits there's just going to be solo killwhores driving around in what should be a driver/gunner separated vehicle IMO. I loved just driving in PS1... it let you focus on dodging terrain/incoming fire while your gunner took care of the rest.

[atone]

http://ksrcollege.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/beating_a_dead_horse_by_potatoehuman-d3fead4.jpg

Let's do this.

+1 lol:rofl:

[JPalmer]

Then, as they say they're modernising the game, how doe DICE do it? I rest my case.

The games without these features you hate have already been released. Go play 'em. If you hate modernization, no one is forcing you along.

+1BeatDeadHorse

[Rhapsody]

MBTs are going to be fine, cooperation will still be rewarded...lets face it 52 tanks driving around in figure eights wasnt very realistic to start with....driving is going to take some skill now.

How often did that actualy happen were people were simply swirling around in figure 8's? When i drove i was useing cover, with the hull of the tank pointing one direction while my gunner focused on the target (so that when we were found i could imediatly move away in a direction of my choice). Simply driving up to a spot, parking, then shooting... thats not 'tank' warfare, thats CoD, MW, BF, warfare. Its 'arcade' warfare, not 'tank' warfare.

They might get the cert to have a driver and gunner. I think.

Tanks are a lot weaker this time around like everything else. I find it more disappointing to get a crew together and then get taken out in ten seconds by the swarms of aircraft there will be everywhere the first few months.

Thats why i plan to rig up my vehicles with AA on them. To shoot down all those pesky aircraft. :lol:

[KiddParK]

http://ksrcollege.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/beating_a_dead_horse_by_potatoehuman-d3fead4.jpg

Let's do this.

Coffee... everywhere... just everywhere. That was some prime lol's

[Stardouser]

The games without these features you hate have already been released. Go play 'em. If you hate modernization, no one is forcing you along.

+1BeatDeadHorse

BF3's done a lot wrong. TTK is too low, disabling, suppression, killcam, etc. And I would say that they think ignoring VOIP and proper squad tools is modernization too.

[KTNApollo]

MBTs are going to be fine, cooperation will still be rewarded...lets face it 52 tanks driving around in figure eights wasnt very realistic to start with....driving is going to take some skill now.

The tanks driving in figure eights didn't last very long now did they?

[SgtMAD]

wait until everyone is pissed off that tanks cost so much to spawn and yet die so easily due to it being pretty damn hard to defend the tank and drive it at the same time.

they make the MBT's a driver/gunner veh so the driver gets the reward of gunning but in fact will lead to less armor being pulled by the casual player due to not wanting to pull an armored coffin.

you will still see all the "need a gunner" spam we saw in PS because these tanks are going to be big boxes of rolling XP.

[Rat]

Coordination wasn't skill? Now aside from the organized outfits there's just going to be solo killwhores driving around in what should be a driver/gunner separated vehicle IMO. I loved just driving in PS1... it let you focus on dodging terrain/incoming fire while your gunner took care of the rest.
Coordination is most definately a skill, all I am saying is all you needed to do as a driver was avoid minefields and the trees, watch your health bar and run behind the nearest hill at 25%, 3 of you jump out with glue guns and repair the prowler in 12.3 seconds.
I greatly enjoyed tank driving in ps, I feel that it is going to take more skill this time around...not gonna be able to do those figure eights and hit anything. as far as the kill whores, I dont think they will have much of a life expentancy and will be pecked off by air in no time.

[Rhapsody]

you will still see all the "need a gunner" spam we saw in PS because these tanks are going to be big boxes of rolling XP.

Only now the 'gunner' controles nothing but a anti-infantry/anti-air type pintle turret rather than the 'main' gun. The rest still lies on the driver to both take out the main target + figure out how to drive without seeing were he's going.

[The noob]

I believe that it's been said that they're considering a cert where you can give control of the main turret over to the gunner, if one wants to. Also, in terms of modernization, it's possible to do it right, and possible to do it wrong. BF3 is one of the latter due to gutted features that many vets were expecting in a BF game, such as the commander, alongside with broken mechanics such as VOIP. Planetside 2 so far, imo seems to be doing it right (in most cases)

[Virulence]

The tanks driving in figure eights didn't last very long now did they?

Nah. You just drove in circles in front of a bridge, took some damage, went back to repair and then went back in to do it some more.

Until someone got the brilliant idea to drive ACROSS the bridge, stop halfway across and leave a half dozen tanks stuck on the bridge unable to go forward OR back up, and then someone would be all "THE HELL WITH THIS," try to drive THROUGH the other tanks and someone would inevitably end up in the water.

[Zulthus]

Coordination is most definately a skill, all I am saying is all you needed to do as a driver was avoid minefields and the trees, watch your health bar and run behind the nearest hill at 25%, 3 of you jump out with glue guns and repair the prowler in 12.3 seconds.
I greatly enjoyed tank driving in ps, I feel that it is going to take more skill this time around...not gonna be able to do those figure eights and hit anything. as far as the kill whores, I dont think they will have much of a life expentancy and will be pecked off by air in no time.

I don't think it will take more skill, it will just be more annoying trying to both dodge things and shoot at the same time. Ever tried the Lightning? There were only a handful of people who were experienced with it... 95% of the time everyone you saw was standing in one spot and shooting at things. Whenever you're running away and shooting you always drive into trees. It will be more annoying than 'figure 8 fights' (I haven't seen one of these yet :P) just having tanks crashing everywhere, or just standing in one place.

It was just simply more fun when you had a crew. Working together was much more satisfying than sitting at the other end of a bridge using your gun as stationary artillery. An experienced dedicated driver + an experienced dedicated gunner > 2 single crew tanks, guarantee it.

[Rhapsody]

I believe that it's been said that they're considering a cert where you can give control of the main turret over to the gunner, if one wants to.

Personaly, i think it should be the 'other way around' if they are considering that. It should require a cert to take controle of the turret as the driver, not 'allow' the gunner to use it.

Also, in terms of modernization, it's possible to do it right, and possible to do it wrong. BF3 is one of the latter due to gutted features that many vets were expecting in a BF game, such as the commander. Planetside 2 so far, imo seems to be doing it right (in most cases)

I think when it comes to tank combat and effectivness, giving the driver controle of the main gun and makeing it so he has to split his attention between driving + fighting would be more of a 'de-modernization' rather than 'modernization' :)

[SKYeXile]

The games without these features you hate have already been released. Go play 'em. If you hate modernization, no one is forcing you along.

+1BeatDeadHorse

Wow you counter trolled me good, you responded seriously to my troll crack about cloning BF3, all while in the background im listening to my IS7 idle away in my garage. I clearly hate the idea of gunning and driving my own tank.

[Rat]

LOL...flame RAT time!!!...

Tank battles were almost always just groups of tanks running around like bananna heads...if you were in a organized outfit, you may have started out in nice neat lines getting ready to do the world renown pincer movement, but as soon as you run in to a equal or greater force you would start doing the zig zags to dodge the incomong rounds, the driver could do this because he didnt have to worry about returning fire...hell...that is the gunners job!!!
Now, hevan forbid....you might have to find some cover and play some peek a boo to trade punches with the enemy force.

[Rhapsody]

if you were in a organized outfit, you may have started out in nice neat lines getting ready to do the world renown pincer movement, but as soon as you run in to a equal or greater force you would start doing the zig zags to dodge the incomong rounds, the driver could do this because he didnt have to worry about returning fire...hell...that is the gunners job!!!
Now, hevan forbid....you might have to find some cover and play some peek a boo to trade punches with the enemy force.

And if you tried any of that 'zig zag to dodge the incoming rounds' while you were both the driver 'and' gunner, you'd end up with a bunch of tanks running into trees, each other, friendly footsoldiers, galaxies trying to land.. yea. :(

Makeing the driver also the gunner by 'default' is going to remove tank on tank 'fighting', and make it more of a 'mobile artillary vs mobile artillary' fight. Were two tanks see each other, stop, and just fire rounds at each other till one blows up without moving any direction but forwards or backwards a few feet.

[The noob]

Personaly, i think it should be the 'other way around' if they are considering that. It should require a cert to take controle of the turret as the driver, not 'allow' the gunner to use it.



I think when it comes to tank combat and effectivness, giving the driver controle of the main gun and makeing it so he has to split his attention between driving + fighting would be more of a 'de-modernization' rather than 'modernization' :)

I did say in most cases for a reason. Although things like this will often be subjective whether something is being changed for the best or not. Since I'm not much of a tank driver or gunner, the mains obviously have more of a weight on this subject then me.

[SKYeXile]

And if you tried any of that 'zig zag to dodge the incoming rounds' while you were both the driver 'and' gunner, you'd end up with a bunch of tanks running into trees, each other, friendly footsoldiers, galaxies trying to land.. yea. :(

Makeing the driver also the gunner by 'default' is going to remove tank on tank 'fighting', and make it more of a 'mobile artillary vs mobile artillary' fight. Were two tanks see each other, stop, and just fire rounds at each other till one blows up without moving any direction but forwards or backwards a few feet.

this is going to happen anyway, tanks now take more damage when getting hit in the back or sides, you wont want to be exposed like that, also you're easy to hit with infantry fire when out in the open, the hand held weaponry in this look to be much more devastating. but sititng still staying hull down or acting as artliry will probably leave them very open to having aircraft rockets plunged up their ass.

it will certainly be interesting to see how things playout though.

[Rat]

Coordination wasn't skill? Now aside from the organized outfits there's just going to be solo killwhores driving around in what should be a driver/gunner separated vehicle IMO. I loved just driving in PS1... it let you focus on dodging terrain/incoming fire while your gunner took care of the rest.

And if you tried any of that 'zig zag to dodge the incoming rounds' while you were both the driver 'and' gunner, you'd end up with a bunch of tanks running into trees, each other, friendly footsoldiers, galaxies trying to land.. yea. :(

Makeing the driver also the gunner by 'default' is going to remove tank on tank 'fighting', and make it more of a 'mobile artillary vs mobile artillary' fight. Were two tanks see each other, stop, and just fire rounds at each other till one blows up without moving any direction but forwards or backwards a few feet.
I dont think that the old zig zag is going to be as effective as it used to be even with a designated gunner, judging from some of the video we have seen we are going to have much flatter firing rounds, so I think we are going to be looking for more cover and hull down positions..being a driver in PS was a blast, I just dont think it will be this time around if your not gunning too, I thinks tanks will be more stationary....I dont necessarily dissagree with anyones points, I think the new toys are going to require new tactics.

[Rat]

this is going to happen anyway, tanks now take more damage when getting hit in the back or sides, you wont want to be exposed like that, also you're easy to hit with infantry fire when out in the open, the hand held weaponry in this look to be much more devastating. but sititng still staying hull down or acting as artliry will probably leave them very open to having aircraft rockets plunged up their ass.

it will certainly be interesting to see how things playout though.

you gotta know someone pretty well for that!!!

[Turdicus]

Well I know that with PS2 they want to do away with so called indirect gameplay, so putting a gun in the drivers hand is a step in that direction. I loved driving my prowler in PS1 as well, but I have also played other games that have the driver in control of the main gun and I have enjoyed those games very much, and I have even been very effective.

It's different, and I am a little sad about the change, but I also know that this method works and is still fun. Whether or not its more or less fun, I dunno, guess we will see.

[ZeroOneZero]

Hopefully everything will balance out. The only problem I see that, each faction has different specs for their vehicles (Nc heavy armor and deal more damage...etc). So taking out a NC reaver might be a little difficult, seeing how they dish a lot of damage and soak in damage. I could see the gunner having better AA guns mounted to scare off them off, while the driver can actually concentrate on finding a safe position to help out his buddy.

[Serpent]

In all honesty I have to disagree. It's more a matter of getting used to it, a lot of people can definitely adapt to this new form of gameplay. I play BF3 very often and I really don't think I would do better with someone else gunning, because you need constant communication between the two.

Both ways are fine, I just wanted to point out you may be being more close minded than you intended to be.

[Rhapsody]

this is going to happen anyway, tanks now take more damage when getting hit in the back or sides, you wont want to be exposed like that, also you're easy to hit with infantry fire when out in the open, the hand held weaponry in this look to be much more devastating. but sititng still staying hull down or acting as artliry will probably leave them very open to having aircraft rockets plunged up their ass.

it will certainly be interesting to see how things playout though.

I remember seeing plenty of cover to use while watching the few videos we saw. So you'd still have areas to go to which would give you cover from the infantry or other tanks while still staying mobile. (like driving past a building, or around a hill/mountain/rock pile). But if your focusing on both driving and gunning, you'll hardly ever see people taking 'full' advantage of such cover as instead of driving past it while shooting, you'll simply see people driving up 'next to' it, parking, then shooting.

Granted, while i was a dedicated driver, i did find instances were i'd 'hull down' on a hill and park. But those instances were rare, and usualy only happend when my gunner was engaging stationary targets such as turrets or enimy tanks lined up on a hill. Asside from that, i was staying fairly mobile, useing any and every cover i could see while not staying in any 1 spot long enough to be easily hit.

I just think with the single-seat main-tanks, we'll see alot more of the 'pull up, park, shoot' arcade style fighting than the 'constantly flowing/moving' style PS1 had alot of.

[Rhapsody]

In all honesty I have to disagree. It's more a matter of getting used to it, a lot of people can definitely adapt to this new form of gameplay. I play BF3 very often and I really don't think I would do better with someone else gunning, because you need constant communication between the two.

Both ways are fine, I just wanted to point out you may be being more close minded than you intended to be.

Im not being closed minded :). Im all for people having the 'option' to play a main battle tank as an oversized, unmobile, lighting if they chose. I just dont agree with makeing it the 'default'.

Ive played as a dedicated driver for vanguards in PS1, ive played quite a bit in a lighing in PS1, and ive also played as a tanker in BF3. With both the lighting and the BF3 tanks, ive always ended up doing the 'park, fight' routine as trying to drive around obsticles + shoot at something thats 90deg + to the side always ends up with me running into a wall and suddenly becomming, literaly, a sitting duck. And ive seen other people do the same. Turn to drive around something while their turret is aimed towards me, only to ram into whatever it was they were trying to drive around.

Yea having a driver / gunner crew takes constant communication, but thats realy not a big problem today as nearly everyone that plays these types of games are on some type of VOIP program. And baring that, a quick "hey if i say 'incomming enimy vehicles' with the v,w,v combo, that means there is a enimy vehical dead ahead of the tank" has always served me well with a 'pick-up' gunner.

[Furber]

They might get the cert to have a driver and gunner. I think.

I second this, it sounds like there is a very strong possibility they'll do this.

[Serpent]

Im not being closed minded :). Im all for people having the 'option' to play a main battle tank as an oversized, unmobile, lighting if they chose. I just dont agree with makeing it the 'default'.

Ive played as a dedicated driver for vanguards in PS1, ive played quite a bit in a lighing in PS1, and ive also played as a tanker in BF3. With both the lighting and the BF3 tanks, ive always ended up doing the 'park, fight' routine as trying to drive around obsticles + shoot at something thats 90deg + to the side always ends up with me running into a wall and suddenly becomming, literaly, a sitting duck. And ive seen other people do the same. Turn to drive around something while their turret is aimed towards me, only to ram into whatever it was they were trying to drive around.

Yea having a driver / gunner crew takes constant communication, but thats realy not a big problem today as nearly everyone that plays these types of games are on some type of VOIP program. And baring that, a quick "hey if i say 'incomming enimy vehicles' with the v,w,v combo, that means there is a enimy vehical dead ahead of the tank" has always served me well with a 'pick-up' gunner.

I see what you mean by the sitting duck, but this is mainly all speculation, they could easily change it or add a cert for the original layout.

However, BF3 definitely isn't as bad as it seems, at least I think so. I guess you just get shot at a lot more or the positioning of your tank is bad. No idea, not blaming you, but usually I can still drive and shoot at the same time. Just putting it out there, I"m not sure why you claim to be a "sitting duck". Concentrating too much on aiming may not work out to your advantage, once you get into range and put the crosshairs over the enemy, you can basically start moving around and just pull the fire button. You can still move and shoot, is all I'm saying, it just may take time to get used to it.

[Hamma]

Tanks won't be nearly as powerful without a secondary gunner imo.

[Serpent]

BLITZKRIEG!

We know the secondary gun on the Mag is extremely powerful, watch the Night Ops.

But do you mean ... secondary gunner or a separation between the gunner/driver.

Because secondary gunner implies 2 gunners. Lol I just wanted to clear it up :P

[CutterJohn]

I have a sneaking suspicion, judging by how effective that Lightning was vs the Mag, that tanks will have additional hitpoints with two players inside.

If they don't, they should. A slow recharging shield(like amp station shield) would work well for RP purposes and completely eliminate all balance issues between 1 man and 2 man MBTs.

[Mechzz]

LOL...flame RAT time!!!...

Tank battles were almost always just groups of tanks running around like bananna heads...if you were in a organized outfit, you may have started out in nice neat lines getting ready to do the world renown pincer movement, but as soon as you run in to a equal or greater force you would start doing the zig zags to dodge the incomong rounds, the driver could do this because he didnt have to worry about returning fire...hell...that is the gunners job!!!
Now, hevan forbid....you might have to find some cover and play some peek a boo to trade punches with the enemy force.

My bold. Isn't it odd that people can see the same thing in such completely different ways?

The bolded bit is my reason for wanting the driver to give up the gun. It's amazing how intense it gets when as a driver you're listening for your gunner to spot and then using your knowledge of the terrain to get the jump on the enemy, or escape.

[Mechzz]

I see what you mean by the sitting duck, but this is mainly all speculation...


The one hard data point we have is TB bailing out of a dying mozzie as a jetpacking light assault then sneaking up behind a one-manned Magrider and c4'ing the bejasus out of it. 1-man tanks will die, and die easily.

And Higby has said they are considering a cert that allows the original crewing of MBTs. Can't see how that will work with the Magrider though unless the variant has the main gun on the turret (new Mag has old fixed PPA position as main gun)

[Pyreal]

I can't remember using a tank in PS, but from my experience as a Heli gunner in BF3, unless you have direct communications and good rapport with your pilot/driver you aren't going to have much FUN.

I say Heli gunner because the main damage from a Heli is the gunner, not the pilot.

I like the way PS2 is handling tanks, and that is because I like blowing stuff up! It's fun, and that's what my focus is going to be in PS2: one of the finest purple painted ass kickers around!

If the driver didn't control the main weapon tanking would be less appealing to me. I'm a team player but I still like to play My way within that team. I don't want some toestubber driving the tank just so I can try to blow stuff up whilst he bumbles into everything. I want him to go that way, but he goes this way...

My tank, my big gun, your smoking wreck! :D

[Purple]

in the night ops vid TB gunned down a air unit quickly as the secondary gunner. tanks will be very weak vs air without a gunner. i also think it would be unfair to the VS because their is no point for their main cannon to be gunned by anyone else then the gunner.

also in ps1 i loved driving tanks but often times i couldent get a gunner for it. or when i did get one he ends up bailing as i bring the tank out of battle with just the tip of gun barrel green. gunners are great but for me at least never seem to be around when you need them.

[Tikuto]

This is the future.

[Stardouser]

I have a sneaking suspicion, judging by how effective that Lightning was vs the Mag, that tanks will have additional hitpoints with two players inside.

If they don't, they should. A slow recharging shield(like amp station shield) would work well for RP purposes and completely eliminate all balance issues between 1 man and 2 man MBTs.

I disagree with that, it's the same unit, the idea that the same unit has more hitpoints just because it has another person in it doesn't make sense, ruins suspension of disbelief, and is basically just taking a shortcut to a problem. And Galaxies with 12 people in them shouldn't have 12 players' worth of hit points either. More durable than other aircraft yes, THAT durable, no.

[FastAndFree]

http://ksrcollege.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/beating_a_dead_horse_by_potatoehuman-d3fead4.jpg

Let's do this.

I was crying with laughter when I saw that

[Shogun]

hmm, everything dies with almost one shot from anything if the ttk stays as it is. so it doesn´t matter at all :(

but if ttk is changed to a level where the choice of weapon does matter, the tanks should be old ps1 style by default and should have a sidegrade/cert for the kiddys that don´t understand the concept of driver and gunner to change to the lightning-system.

[JHendy]

The games without these features you hate have already been released. Go play 'em. If you hate modernization, no one is forcing you along.

+1BeatDeadHorse

You're confusing modernisation with simplification.

[Stardouser]

hmm, everything dies with almost one shot from anything if the ttk stays as it is. so it doesn´t matter at all :(

but if ttk is changed to a level where the choice of weapon does matter, the tanks should be old ps1 style by default and should have a sidegrade/cert for the kiddys that don´t understand the concept of driver and gunner to change to the lightning-system.

Wait a second. If tanks are killing each other that fast, has anyone considered the ramifications of Liberators? That Massive Air COmbat video showed some pretty intense cannon bombardment.

Unless Liberator cannons are somehow going to be magically a LOT weaker than tank cannons.

[Figment]

Wait a second. If tanks are killing each other that fast, has anyone considered the ramifications of Liberators? That Massive Air COmbat video showed some pretty intense cannon bombardment.

Unless Liberator cannons are somehow going to be magically a LOT weaker than tank cannons.

People don't think that far ahead, they have to "see" it first. :P


Compared to a Galaxy Gunship, Liberator will be peanuts though.

[Stardouser]

People don't think that far ahead, they have to "see" it first. :P


Compared to a Galaxy Gunship, Liberator will be peanuts though.

Thing is, weren't you arguing for GG to have weak armor(which would result in a low TTK for GG killing)...I am instead arguing that the overall TTK shouldn't be so low. That way, vehicles can set up near cover and move into it when threatened from the air, but with the vehicle TTK I've seen, you will become quite dead before you have the chance to drive 5 feet- and that's from just ONE aircraft hitting you.

[Immigrant]

I myself have an impression that the new system is better there are however several conditions presumed.

Conditions:

1. Main tank gun isn't actually the strongest (DPS wise) gun on the tank, it has large blast radius requiring less accuracy and it must have limited movement so drivers can actually focus on driving (so even if he isn't shooting at all he could still make a great team if paired up with a good gunner).

2. Gunner's gun should actually be primary weapon of that tank making the most DPS in consideration to it's class (AI, AA or AV). AV gunner's gun actually be more powerful than the main cannon itself, however gunner's guns should require great deal of precision (no blast radius) and should have 360 free movement radius independent of the direction the vehicle itself is facing.

[Figment]

Thing is, weren't you arguing for GG to have weak armor(which would result in a low TTK for GG killing)...I am instead arguing that the overall TTK shouldn't be so low. That way, vehicles can set up near cover and move into it when threatened from the air, but with the vehicle TTK I've seen, you will become quite dead before you have the chance to drive 5 feet- and that's from just ONE aircraft hitting you.

I was argueing to not have a GG at all, tbh, because it seems to me the entire concept of the GG is simply broken by definition.

[sylphaen]

I was argueing to not have a GG at all, tbh, because it seems to me the entire concept of the GG is simply broken by definition.

Wowowooooo... Let's not get carried away there... Some game mechanics can actually break a game ?
:D

I always thought people were oblivious to that concept. But then again, it's Figment posting and I like your posts so you may be the exception confirming the general rule.

Maybe there will be a day where people agree unanimously that ideas which sound awesome may not be actually fun in a game.
:thumbsup:

[Stardouser]

Fun is subjective and unfortunately, some people think their fun is ruined if a multi-crewed vehicle exists that requires teamwork to kill, this is where we come back to some people wanting duel simulators, and an infantry AA can't really solo duel kill a large air unit, can they? The key is that large units like that need to not be nimble and too fast, allowing them to be swarmed and killed by other appropriate units.

[Rhapsody]

I can't remember using a tank in PS, but from my experience as a Heli gunner in BF3, unless you have direct communications and good rapport with your pilot/driver you aren't going to have much FUN.

I say Heli gunner because the main damage from a Heli is the gunner, not the pilot.

I like the way PS2 is handling tanks, and that is because I like blowing stuff up! It's fun, and that's what my focus is going to be in PS2: one of the finest purple painted ass kickers around!

If the driver didn't control the main weapon tanking would be less appealing to me. I'm a team player but I still like to play My way within that team. I don't want some toestubber driving the tank just so I can try to blow stuff up whilst he bumbles into everything. I want him to go that way, but he goes this way...

My tank, my big gun, your smoking wreck! :D

The reason their making the MBT's over-sized 1 person lightnings is likely because of the BF, MW, CoD crowd who are use to having 'fun' while solo-riding in a tank. But, at the same time, its throwing us old PS1 players a curve-ball as were USE to having 'fun' by getting together with a buddy and owning up 'single-seaters', and sometimes other 2 seaters, due to the extra mobility we have when one person is focused strictly on driving, while the other focuses on gunning.

If they want to cater to the CoD, MW, BF crowd, they should make the ability to take controle of the main gun a 'cert' and leave the tanks the old PS1 way by 'default'.

And as someone mentioned the VS tanks gun. In PS1, the VS tank had 2 guns on it. Its primary gun which the gunner controlled was mounted on top in a turret. Not sure why they seemed to have removed that from the new Magrider. The one mounted on the nose which the driver controlled was a lower damage anti-everything weapon. While hopping in a mag-rider solo was effective, it wasnt nearly as effective as if they waited for, or got, a gunner to man the main gun.

Like i said, if their turning the MBT's into over-sized lightnings to cater the Cod, MW, BF crowd, i honestly think they should make that the 'option', not the default. They shouldn't 'dumb-down' PS just to get more subs. :(

[Figment]

Fun is subjective and unfortunately, some people think their fun is ruined if a multi-crewed vehicle exists that requires teamwork to kill,

That's not the point really. If killing one GG requires teamwork, how much teamwork is required to kill 20?

[Mechzz]

If they want to cater to the CoD, MW, BF crowd, they should make the ability to take controle of the main gun a 'cert' and leave the tanks the old PS1 way by 'default'.



This may be in the game, actually. Only the other way round. In one of the interviews Higby says they're considering a cert for the driver to give up the main gun.

Not sure how that will work on the magrider, but am prepared to wait and see.

[Mechzz]

That's not the point really. If killing one GG requires teamwork, how much teamwork is required to kill 20?

Well, the answer is "the same amount of teamwork as was used to get 20 fully-manned GGs in the air".

The only time this doesn't work is if your side is low on the organised groups you'd need to do that. If that happens too often, then the "fun" gets drained away and replaced by a sense of helplessness.

[Stardouser]

That's not the point really. If killing one GG requires teamwork, how much teamwork is required to kill 20?

That would be 120 guys if fully staffed, and how many people total are in a battle on average? If the average battle was 400 people(200 per side, and yes for simplicity I'm assuming a 2 empire fight) and you have 120 of them in GG alone, they won't be able to capture flags on the ground. Strategically, it should all balance out, because however many less guys they have on the ground capping flags, lets your team have that many more guys up in Mosquitoes or Reavers(or Lightnings) to shoot them down.

Yes, I'm aware that this may force extra infantry to choose AA, or to not play infantry at all and instead pull appropriate vehicles, but if it weren't that way, the strategic importance would be reduced.

Also, if we've got 5 gunners in a GG, I'm guessing only 3 will get good firing aspect angles at any given time, the inefficiency of that fact also makes this less powerful than it seems. A GG = 5 gunners, only 3 of which will have a good shot at any given time, whereas if it were replaced by 6 Reavers, would that not be a lot more powerful?

[Rhapsody]

This may be in the game, actually. Only the other way round. In one of the interviews Higby says they're considering a cert for the driver to give up the main gun.

Not sure how that will work on the magrider, but am prepared to wait and see.

Yea, someone mentioned their considering a cert for the driver to 'give up' the main gun. But that implies the driver has control of it by default. It should be the other way around: Cert being required for the driver to take control of the main gun, with the trade-off being he wont be nearly as mobile as a 2 person crew.

And yea, the new Mag is an issue since they seemed to have removed the top turret and turned the 'nose' gun into its main gun.

[Rhapsody]

Well, the answer is "the same amount of teamwork as was used to get 20 fully-manned GGs in the air".

The only time this doesn't work is if your side is low on the organised groups you'd need to do that. If that happens too often, then the "fun" gets drained away and replaced by a sense of helplessness.

Actualy, me and a gunner use to chase GG's off all the time with a skyguard, and we'd even take them out when 4 of us got together in a pair of skyguards :)

[sylphaen]

Like i said, if their turning the MBT's into over-sized lightnings to cater the Cod, MW, BF crowd, i honestly think they should make that the 'option', not the default.

That sends out the wrong message though, imo. In general, the thing you unlock is meant to be an improvement, better than the default, or to offer something different but desirable (otherwise, what's the point of working to unlock it?).

When you put driver/gunner as a reward, it indirectly implies that it's better to drive and gun; or if it's not better, that it should be better since it's at the top of an unlock/cert tree.

[Mechzz]

Yea, someone mentioned their considering a cert for the driver to 'give up' the main gun. But that implies the driver has control of it by default. It should be the other way around: Cert being required for the driver to take control of the main gun, with the trade-off being he wont be nearly as mobile as a 2 person crew.

And yea, the new Mag is an issue since they seemed to have removed the top turret and turned the 'nose' gun into its main gun.

I hear ya. Some of us had a fairly lengthy tussle on this a month or two back. Overall, it seemed more peeps were of the opinion that to attract the BFers that we need to go the "driver is gunner" route.

Personally, driving or gunning in PS1 was a genuine highlight of the game, one I look to experience anew :)

[Figment]

That would be 120 guys if fully staffed, and how many people total are in a battle on average?

Why do you assume fully staffed?

GGs are typically staffed for 40%-60% to optimise the endurance / player and optimise their firing angles so they are useful players. Often less.

If the average battle was 400 people(200 per side, and yes for simplicity I'm assuming a 2 empire fight) and you have 120 of them in GG alone, they won't be able to capture flags on the ground. Strategically, it should all balance out, because however many less guys they have on the ground capping flags, lets your team have that many more guys up in Mosquitoes or Reavers(or Lightnings) to shoot them down.

What you forget is concentration vs dispersion of troops. Like most players talking about GGs, they ALWAYS for some reason assume the defender is equally concentrated and that no other opposition is locally present.

They won't be and these GGs will invade any fight their empire has virtually instantly due to being airborne (they ignore terrain). That creates an immediate imbalance locally between the amount of AA needed before and after.

Meaning, that AA won't be present or organizable, while at the same time you need AV and AI to fight off others. And when the GGs have passed, they will continue to ANOTHER point. Since they are aircraft, they can become present ANYWHERE on the continent within a minute or two, which is NOT true for AA and ground vehicles.

Yes, I'm aware that this may force extra infantry to choose AA, or to not play infantry at all and instead pull appropriate vehicles, but if it weren't that way, the strategic importance would be reduced.

Also, if we've got 5 gunners in a GG, I'm guessing only 3 will get good firing aspect angles at any given time, the inefficiency of that fact also makes this less powerful than it seems.

No, it just means there will be more GGs with less crew in it to prevent players being non-functionally present. NEVER assume that when crew is not useful, it will be present! Players are not that stupid!

A GG = 5 gunners, only 3 of which will have a good shot at any given time, whereas if it were replaced by 6 Reavers, would that not be a lot more powerful?

That depends entirely on how fast you can take out a single Reaver vs a couple GGs (not one). If you can reduce the Reavers firepower faster then the damage dealt over time of 6 Reavers will be less than a couple half filled GGs.

[Gandhi]

I think TTK for vehicles will be a big deciding factor in this. If an MBT dies in 3 or 4 hits then the fact that a fully crewed Prowler will have more firepower and more versatility won't mean much. In fact in that case it'd be much better to have 3 solo Prowlers, or a Prowler and 2 Lightnings, or whatever. On the other hand, if tanks can withstand a lot of punishment then that extra edge for being fully crewed could make a huge difference.

And lets not forget you're rarely going to find yourself in a 1 vs 1 against any kind of vehicle. You're going to be in a melee, with aircraft, infantry and other tanks all firing at you. If a solo Prowler can take you down to 25% health before your fully manned Prowler can kill it then what solace is that? Something will just pick you off right afterward and again you've wasted 2 people on gunning when they'd have been a lot more effective driving their own tanks.

So to me vehicle TTK is the more important issue here. A fully crewed MBT has to be able to survive long enough for those extra gunners to make a difference.

[Stardouser]

@Figment: Even if we assume that a GG only carries 3 gunners instead of 5, even 4 Reavers would outdo 1 GG would it not? Especially when that gives you 4 different targets to shoot at.

And would 80 Reavers blanketing an area really be any easier on the other empire than 20 4 man GG?

[Figment]

I think TTK for vehicles will be a big deciding factor in this. If an MBT dies in 3 or 4 hits then the fact that a fully crewed Prowler will have more firepower and more versatility won't mean much. In fact in that case it'd be much better to have 3 solo Prowlers, or a Prowler and 2 Lightnings, or whatever. On the other hand, if tanks can withstand a lot of punishment then that extra edge for being fully crewed could make a huge difference.

And lets not forget you're rarely going to find yourself in a 1 vs 1 against any kind of vehicle. You're going to be in a melee, with aircraft, infantry and other tanks all firing at you. If a solo Prowler can take you down to 25% health before your fully manned Prowler can kill it then what solace is that? Something will just pick you off right afterward and again you've wasted 2 people on gunning when they'd have been a lot more effective driving their own tanks.

So to me vehicle TTK is the more important issue here. A fully crewed MBT has to be able to survive long enough for those extra gunners to make a difference.

But don't you then again create the exact same circumstances with a slight bit time difference? Of course at really low TTKs, it's like two tanks would die at once if one tank with two gunners die, so I see where you're coming from, but I don't think there's ever going to be a hard choice between extra tank or second crewmember as gunner as long as drivers can fire at all with anything heavy.

[Figment]

@Figment: Even if we assume that a GG only carries 3 gunners instead of 5, even 4 Reavers would outdo 1 GG would it not? Especially when that gives you 4 different targets to shoot at.

And would 80 Reavers blanketing an area really be any easier on the other empire than 20 4 man GG?

Depends. If an AA guy can kill one aircraft on his own, he is more likely to kill several of the 4. Whereas if one AA guy cannot kill one aircraft on his own, he's unlikely to deal with multiple.

[Stardouser]

This doesn't exactly address your concerns, but I am a definite believer in, if you hit an aircraft with heavy fire on exactly the spot where a passenger or gunner is, that they can be killed. This goes for pilots too, hit the glass with a heavy weapon and it can kill them. I know that pilots who want to hover rape won't like that, but it should be that way.

[Rhapsody]

That sends out the wrong message though, imo. In general, the thing you unlock is meant to be an improvement, better than the default, or to offer something different but desirable (otherwise, what's the point of working to unlock it?).

When you put driver/gunner as a reward, it indirectly implies that it's better to drive and gun; or if it's not better, that it should be better since it's at the top of an unlock/cert tree.

Eh, i can see how it would be an 'improvement' over the single-seat option to unlock the driver/gunner option. But on the flip-side, unlocking the 'driver is gunner' option would be 'different and desirable' to the CoD crowd.

I guess it depends on which crowd their trying to cater the most to, the old PS1 players, or the CoD crowd. With the MBT's, it seems like their trying to cater more to the CoD crowd and are making the old PS1 group have to spend an 'extra' cert in order to get back to the way things 'use' to be (the way 'we' liked it).

[Pyreal]

Makeing the driver also the gunner by 'default' is going to remove tank on tank 'fighting', and make it more of a 'mobile artillary vs mobile artillary' fight. Were two tanks see each other, stop, and just fire rounds at each other till one blows up without moving any direction but forwards or backwards a few feet.

That scenario is very unlikely. In [get ready for it..] BF3 the tank fights are very mobile, and the artillery barrage you're envisioning only lasts happens at long range, and only until one of them gets hit and then the game is on. This isn't an outcome you need to worry about.

Players are used to manning the main gun on their tanks. It's how all modern and most games featuring tanks operate.
If it was drastically different, as it was in PS, there be would be more players annoyed or upset about the set up then cheered it. I know I would be because I don't like to rely on strangers to play the game how I want to play it.

[Stardouser]

@Figment, another thought I had, tell me what you think.

The anti-air batteries at bases should be so deadly to aircraft(of all kinds) that until they are taken out by ground forces, aircraft would be insane to attack a base(and if an engineer gets a couple of AA turrets repaired in the middle of a fight and aircraft have moved into attack, they are in trouble).

This would cause aircraft to focus on trying to intercept vehicles between bases.

Thoughts? Note that I am talking about making fixed base AA far more powerful than infantry or vehicle based AA would ever ever be.

[Rhapsody]

Players are used to manning the main gun on their tanks. It's how all modern and most games featuring tanks operate.
If it was drastically different, as it was in PS, there be would be more players annoyed or upset about the set up then cheered it. I know I would be because I don't like to rely on strangers to play the game how I want to play it.

The first part is a misconception. In most 'multi-player' games with tanks in them, such as PS, Aces High 2, WWII online. Tanks required mutli-crews in order to be fully effective. In PS1, this was handled by needing a 'gunner' to use the main gun. In Aces High 2, 1 person could operate the tank AND gun by themselves, but they had to jump from position to position (change from driver to gunner and back again), I think there was a way to set the tank in a sort of 'cruise' mode and make small adjustments right or left while also in the gunner seat but you didnt have 'full' control of the tank while in the gunner position. And WWII Online had a similar system to Aces High 2.

The key difference in these vs games such as CoD, and such, is that they were 'multi-player' focused games. CoD, BF, MW,... they are 'single player focused' games. Which is why you have the feeling of not wanting to rely on a 'stranger' to play the game as 'you' like to play it. Thats why all of their vehicals are 'driver is gunner' with the 2nd seat being an 'option'. Their designed for a single player experience with the multi-player being an option.

PS1 and PS2 (as well as Aces High 2, and WWII Online) are designed as 'multiplayer' games from the ground up, which implies team-work. Even the BFR's when they first came out required 2 people to use fully, and the 'single-seater' variant was the 'unlock', not the Default.

[ArmedZealot]

The first part is a misconception. In most 'multi-player' games with tanks in them, such as PS, Aces High 2, WWII online.

What?

[Stardouser]

The key difference in these vs games such as CoD, and such, is that they were 'multi-player' focused games. CoD, BF, MW,... they are 'single player focused' games. Which is why you have the feeling of not wanting to rely on a 'stranger' to play the game as 'you' like to play it. Thats why all of their vehicals are 'driver is gunner' with the 2nd seat being an 'option'. Their designed for a single player experience with the multi-player being an option.

Have to disagree with you there. Battlefield never even had single player until Bad Company and BF3, so that's simply not true.

Instead, you should be focused on the even less admirable trait of Battlefield's developer, which is that they simply don't care about teamwork as much as those games you listed as being true multiplayer games.

See, it's not that BF is single player focused, it isn't, but instead they want to empower every player to do everything with no consequences for choosing the wrong class, etc. And to me, that's even worse.

[Rhapsody]

What?

Every time people think of multiplayer games with tanks, its the console gamers that bring up the 'but 1 person should be the driver and gunner, thats the way its always been'. PC gamers who've played the 'multi-player' modeled games, or even Tank simulator games are use to the different 'seats' being seperated, not all thrown into 1 like the console gamers are use to. ;)

[Rhapsody]

Have to disagree with you there. Battlefield never even had single player until Bad Company and BF3, so that's simply not true.

Instead, you should be focused on the even less admirable trait of Battlefield's developer, which is that they simply don't care about teamwork as much as those games you listed as being true multiplayer games.

See, it's not that BF is single player focused, it isn't, but instead they want to empower every player to do everything with no consequences for choosing the wrong class, etc. And to me, that's even worse.

Hmm i thought the early BF's did have a short single-player campaign.. but its been so long since i played the early ones i guess i forgot :)

Still though, even BF1942 had the 'driver is gunner' in just about everything except the jeeps.

[ArmedZealot]

Every time people think of multiplayer games with tanks, its the console gamers that bring up the 'but 1 person should be the driver and gunner, thats the way its always been'. PC gamers who've played the 'multi-player' modeled games, or even Tank simulator games are use to the different 'seats' being seperated, not all thrown into 1 like the console gamers are use to. ;)

Yeah, I don't think you know what 'multi-player' means. Tribes: Ascend in every aspect is a 'multi-player' game, never developed for the console, and has MBT driver-gunners. It is more team orientated, arguably, than even Planetside.

Don't apply your own definitions to what 'multi-player' means.

[Stardouser]

Hmm i thought the early BF's did have a short single-player campaign.. but its been so long since i played the early ones i guess i forgot :)

Still though, even BF1942 had the 'driver is gunner' in just about everything except the jeeps.

Yes, but that doesn't support your statement that multiplayer games have historically focused on multi-crewing.

For the most part, reality sim games or MMO-ish games like Aces High and WW2OL do the multicrewing, and reality sim games always have lesser playerbases, whereas high sales titles like Battlefield use single crew. I don't remember but I think the tank games prior to BF1942 were mostly reality focused sims, if I had to guess? The thing for me is, it was refreshing to see Planetside 1, which is not a reality sim, break the mold and use multicrewing of tanks, but I guess they are taking inspiration from the high sales games now.

[Rhapsody]

Yes, but that doesn't support your statement that multiplayer games have historically focused on multi-crewing.

For the most part, reality sim games or MMO-ish games like Aces High and WW2OL do the multicrewing, and reality sim games always have lesser playerbases, whereas high sales titles like Battlefield use single crew. I don't remember but I think the tank games prior to BF1942 were mostly reality focused sims, if I had to guess? The thing for me is, it was refreshing to see Planetside 1, which is not a reality sim, break the mold and use multicrewing of tanks, but I guess they are taking inspiration from the high sales games now.

Yea, which to me sucks. If they want to take inspiration from the console-war games, they should make that the 'option' not the default, and stick with their original design that worked.

*Edit*
Yeah, I don't think you know what 'multi-player' means. Tribes: Ascend in every aspect is a 'multi-player' game, never developed for the console, and has MBT driver-gunners. It is more team orientated, arguably, than even Planetside.

Don't apply your own definitions to what 'multi-player' means.

Tribes was designed as a TDM/CTF game, people with guns shooting at people with guns. The Vehicals were thrown in as 'extras' not an integeral part of the combat as it is in PS1 and PS2. As for the 'team oriented' part. There's realy not as much 'team' orientation behind grabbing a flag and skiing/hopping across a map as fast as you can, vs attacking a well defended facility. Or Defending one.

[ArmedZealot]

As for Tribes which someone mentioned. Tribes was designed as a TDM/CTF game, people with guns shooting at people with guns. The Vehicals were thrown in as 'extras' not an integeral part of the combat as it is in PS1 and PS2.

Ignorance.

Vehicles and good pilots are just as important, if not more, to finishing a match as infantry are. If you think differently you have not played Tribes.

TEAM death match/ TEAM ctf. PS is just one big match of both of these things.

[Stardouser]

Yea, which to me sucks. If they want to take inspiration from the console-war games, they should make that the 'option' not the default, and stick with their original design that worked.

*Edit*


Tribes was designed as a TDM/CTF game, people with guns shooting at people with guns. The Vehicals were thrown in as 'extras' not an integeral part of the combat as it is in PS1 and PS2. As for the 'team oriented' part. There's realy not as much 'team' orientation behind grabbing a flag and skiing/hopping across a map as fast as you can, vs attacking a well defended facility.

Well, the thing about making it optional is, not only is multicrewing tanks beneficial for teamwork, but it also affects balance. I mean, let's just say we had a battle between 2 all-tank armies in PS1, of 100 people each. That would be 50 tanks on one side and 50 on the other. But now, that could be 100 tanks on each side. Or, if it's optional, it could be 100 tanks on one side and 50 on the other. And frankly, speaking purely of the power of multicrew teamwork, I really believe that 50 multicrew tanks is only going to be the equal of about 60 single crew tanks. 100 single crew tanks will obliterate the 50 multicrew. That's why multicrewing needs to be the only way.

[roguy]

The thing for me is, it was refreshing to see Planetside 1, which is not a reality sim, break the mold and use multicrewing of tanks, but I guess they are taking inspiration from the high sales games now.

I suspect it's more due to the fact that so many people found that driving a tank was incredibly boring, controls were too simplistic, the only fun thing (being able to run over people) got nerfed into oblivion pretty early on and usually the most efficient way to use them was to sit back afk and let the gunner do the work.

I'd think this since the PS2 havn't really changed the gunner/driver mechanics of the sunderer/galaxy. The Libby changed to some extent because of the weird either/or situation where you could'nt bomb and strafe with the 30mm at the same time.

PS: For the record I'm more of a <driver should work the secondary gun> solution, but IMHO the PS1 system didn't work well enough to keep in the same state in PS2.

[Rhapsody]

Ignorance.

Vehicles and good pilots are just as important, if not more, to finishing a match as infantry are. If you think differently you have not played Tribes.

TEAM death match/ TEAM ctf. PS is just one big match of both of these things.

I played the Original Tribes, played Tribes 2, Played Tribes Vengeance, and played a little of the New 'freemium' Tribes game. In almost every match i played in (mostly i played in CTF maps), Vehicles were hardly ever used. I think the aircraft were used for transportation (as well as the bikes), but people hardly ever used 'tanks' as its a bit hard to hit a person skiing across the map at 150kph with a slow moving shell + vehicle. It was eaier and more efficient to chase them down while skiing yourself, or having someone with a sniper rifle and good 'leading' skills shoot them.

[Pyreal]

I myself have an impression that the new system is better there are however several conditions presumed.

Conditions:

1. Main tank gun isn't actually the strongest (DPS wise) gun on the tank, it has large blast radius requiring less accuracy and it must have limited movement so drivers can actually focus on driving (so even if he isn't shooting at all he could still make a great team if paired up with a good gunner).

2. Gunner's gun should actually be primary weapon of that tank making the most DPS in consideration to it's class (AI, AA or AV). AV gunner's gun actually be more powerful than the main cannon itself, however gunner's guns should require great deal of precision (no blast radius) and should have 360 free movement radius independent of the direction the vehicle itself is facing.

The Main Gun damn well better do the most DPS!
I'm focusing on being a Tanker in PS2 to blow stuff up, not to be a chauffeur!

Really, how can you even suggest such a thing? Did you forget the one pulling the vehicle customized the weapons it has, its speed, its armor? The one pulling the vehicle has to cert all those things, not the passenger!
Why would all that personal effort not benefit the driver, rather than whoever (unless your working with an Outfit) happened to hop in the passenger seat?

[ArmedZealot]

I played the Original Tribes, played Tribes 2, Played Tribes Vengeance, and played a little of the New 'freemium' Tribes game. In almost every match i played in (mostly i played in CTF maps), Vehicles were hardly ever used. I think the aircraft were used for transportation (as well as the bikes), but people hardly ever used 'tanks' as its a bit hard to hit a person skiing across the map at 150kph with a slow moving shell + vehicle. It was eaier and more efficient to chase them down while skiing yourself, or having someone with a sniper rifle and good 'leading' skills shoot them.

Would you argue that Tribes was modeled for it's 'single player' experience?

[Rhapsody]

I suspect it's more due to the fact that so many people found that driving a tank was incredibly boring, controls were too simplistic, the only fun thing (being able to run over people) got nerfed into oblivion pretty early on and usually the most efficient way to use them was to sit back afk and let the gunner do the work.

Thats what the Lightning was for. For the people who wanted to run-n-gun on their own in their own tank. And PS2 still has the lighting, so those that want to be a driver and a gunner already have a tank to use, and this time around its likely even more usefull than the MBT's as it's given the 'AA' gun from the skyguards.

Why 'dumb-down' the MBT's to a single-crew vehicle, to cater to the CoD crowd, when you already have one?

Would you argue that Tribes was modeled for it's 'single player' experience?
In all honesty i had forgotten about Tribes *shrugs* but again, vehicles were extras in that one. Just like their extras in the multiplayer modes for CoD and such.

[Reapter]

Eh, i can see how it would be an 'improvement' over the single-seat option to unlock the driver/gunner option. But on the flip-side, unlocking the 'driver is gunner' option would be 'different and desirable' to the CoD crowd.

I guess it depends on which crowd their trying to cater the most to, the old PS1 players, or the CoD crowd. With the MBT's, it seems like their trying to cater more to the CoD crowd and are making the old PS1 group have to spend an 'extra' cert in order to get back to the way things 'use' to be (the way 'we' liked it).

If you want to try and play it off like this, then your less important then the CoD crowd as they make up the vast majority of players while PS1 vets have mainly died off or switched games at this point. Multi-Person vehicles which the drivers do not man the main gun at this point are more towards the Sim Shooter type gamers which Planetside 1/2 isn't basically and won't grab the same players most likely.

They have just made good decisions which are good for the majority of the player base who will be trying it is all. Have to remember a healthy player base even with some compromise is a good trade for all the players for the game as longer longevity and more mass appeal benefits us all. I think default driver as main gunner with an unlock to swap that is as good of a compromise as any. Although I think it would be nice to just be a toggle from the start although I think it will be vastly not used.

[ArmedZealot]

Why 'dumb-down' the MBT's to a single-crew vehicle, to cater to the CoD crowd, when you already have one?

Because MBT's hit harder and have much more survivability than the lightning does.

[Rhapsody]

Because MBT's hit harder and have much more survivability than the lightning does.
And something that requires 2 people to 'fully' use should die faster, and do less damage to specific targets, than something that takes only 1? :P

[Serpent]

I think TTK for vehicles will be a big deciding factor in this. If an MBT dies in 3 or 4 hits then the fact that a fully crewed Prowler will have more firepower and more versatility won't mean much. In fact in that case it'd be much better to have 3 solo Prowlers, or a Prowler and 2 Lightnings, or whatever. On the other hand, if tanks can withstand a lot of punishment then that extra edge for being fully crewed could make a huge difference.

And lets not forget you're rarely going to find yourself in a 1 vs 1 against any kind of vehicle. You're going to be in a melee, with aircraft, infantry and other tanks all firing at you. If a solo Prowler can take you down to 25% health before your fully manned Prowler can kill it then what solace is that? Something will just pick you off right afterward and again you've wasted 2 people on gunning when they'd have been a lot more effective driving their own tanks.

So to me vehicle TTK is the more important issue here. A fully crewed MBT has to be able to survive long enough for those extra gunners to make a difference.

This is part of what I was saying before. Using the theory we have about the Blitzkrieg, having 3 tanks with one person in them will be so much better than a fully manned tank.

It's common sense to not allow your tanks (since they aren't exactly resistant to focus-fire) to be destroyed, and 3 people with that one tank. Better to spread them out.

[ArmedZealot]

And something that requires 2 people to 'fully' use should die faster, and do less damage to specific targets, than something that takes only 1? :P

An enforcer died faster than a lightning and could do less damage to aircraft in PS1. No complaining there.

[Rhapsody]

An enforcer died faster than a lightning and could do less damage to aircraft in PS1. No complaining there.

Your also comparing a buggy which was designed as AI/AV to a 'tank'. Its going to be easier to kill than the tank by the simple fact that its a buggy. :)

[roguy]

Thats what the Lightning was for. For the people who wanted to run-n-gun on their own in their own tank. And PS2 still has the lighting, so those that want to be a driver and a gunner already have a tank to use, and this time around its likely even more usefull than the MBT's as it's given the 'AA' gun from the skyguards.

Why 'dumb-down' the MBT's to a single-crew vehicle, to cater to the CoD crowd, when you already have one?


1-) I never said i disagreed with you aside to what I believe to be the devs reason for doing this.
2-) The gal and lib havn't been "dumbed down" in this way, so not only can you use those instead, but there must be another reason as to why the MBTs got "dumbed down".
3-) MBT driving in PS1 was indeed boring, and ALOT of players voiced their concerns back in the day, long before development started on Modern Warfare. Admittedly the solution proposed was to give all MBT drivers a gun like the MagRider, wich is what I'm still advocating.
4-) COD doesn't have vehicles.

[Pyreal]

The first part is a misconception. In most 'multi-player' games with tanks in them, such as PS, Aces High 2, WWII online. Tanks required mutli-crews in order to be fully effective. In PS1, this was handled by needing a 'gunner' to use the main gun. In Aces High 2, 1 person could operate the tank AND gun by themselves, but they had to jump from position to position (change from driver to gunner and back again), I think there was a way to set the tank in a sort of 'cruise' mode and make small adjustments right or left while also in the gunner seat but you didnt have 'full' control of the tank while in the gunner position. And WWII Online had a similar system to Aces High 2.

The key difference in these vs games such as CoD, and such, is that they were 'multi-player' focused games. CoD, BF, MW,... they are 'single player focused' games. Which is why you have the feeling of not wanting to rely on a 'stranger' to play the game as 'you' like to play it. Thats why all of their vehicals are 'driver is gunner' with the 2nd seat being an 'option'. Their designed for a single player experience with the multi-player being an option.

PS1 and PS2 (as well as Aces High 2, and WWII Online) are designed as 'multiplayer' games from the ground up, which implies team-work. Even the BFR's when they first came out required 2 people to use fully, and the 'single-seater' variant was the 'unlock', not the Default.

Well spoken. I understand where you're coming from.

Is PS2 a multi-player game in the same vein as PS1? Or is it a single player focused game?

If certing allowed both styles, how would they be balanced?
Rewarding teamwork (multi-player emphasis) with a base increase in power or mobility would render the other objectively weaker and basically seal its fate.

[roguy]

Oh and Rhapsody,

Read this before blaming the COD crowd:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=35978&highlight=tank+driving+boring

It's from before SOE announced "Planetside" Next afaik.

[Rhapsody]

1-) I never said i disagreed with you aside to what I believe to be the devs reason for doing this.
Not 'arguing' with you either :) just discussing.

3-) MBT driving in PS1 was indeed boring, and ALOT of players voiced their concerns back in the day, long before development started on Modern Warfare. Admittedly the solution proposed was to give all MBT drivers a gun like the MagRider, wich is what I'm still advocating.

I think i mentioned in my original post that they could have simply given the driver some sort of AI weapon mounted on the front part of the tank with a 120deg or so firing 'arc'. Though, personally, i loved being the 'driver'.. Especially as most of the time i was playing with my Outfit and on VOIP with them + the gunner.

4-) COD doesn't have vehicles.
The single player missions (if i remember correctly) at times had you take control of some vehicles, in which case you were driver and gunner. :)

[Reapter]

I think i mentioned in my original post that they could have simply given the driver some sort of AI weapon mounted on the front part of the tank with a 120deg or so firing 'arc'.


The single player missions (if i remember correctly) at times had you take control of some vehicles, in which case you were driver and gunner. :)

The problem with that is now the driver will be doing the same as being the driver/gunner in the first place so you just solved absolutely nothing other then made a lot of players not want to cert tanks since they don't gain the main benefit. Driving around only isn't as fun as many of you are making this out to be.

Also were talking about multiplayer focused game and your using a singleplayer aspect in a game most probably played online without any vehicles as an example of it being CoDs fault.

[ArmedZealot]

Your also comparing a buggy which was designed as AI/AV to a 'tank'. Its going to be easier to kill than the tank by the simple fact that its a buggy. :)

And you are comparing the lightning a 'light tank' designed as AA exclusively or AI exclusively or AV exclusively to a tank (AV without a gunner, with it is AV/(AA+AI). Which will be easier to kill by the simple fact that its a 'light tank'.

They have different roles. Which is why people would sometimes choose the lightning over the MBT or the MBT over the lightning. The choice of a gunner gives even more flexibility to the MBT.

While someone who chooses an AA lightning is boned no matter what if an MBT or infantry come along.

No one in their right mind would always choose a lightning over a MBT.

[Immigrant]

The Main Gun damn well better do the most DPS!
I'm focusing on being a Tanker in PS2 to blow stuff up, not to be a chauffeur!

Really, how can you even suggest such a thing? Did you forget the one pulling the vehicle customized the weapons it has, its speed, its armor? The one pulling the vehicle has to cert all those things, not the passenger!
Why would all that personal effort not benefit the driver, rather than whoever (unless your working with an Outfit) happened to hop in the passenger seat?

Who said that the driver has to be the one pulling out an vehicle? If you pair up with someone (gunner or driver or even you can change roles if you wish) you can alternate in pulling the vehicle out. And that's only the first thing you got wrong. Next gunner shouldn't be just little more than passenger like you suggested, he should be vital to tank's performance imo. If you wanna play single-man tankist grab a Lightning since that is the vehicle designed for such playstyle, MBTs should require teamwork.

Edit: I think we have a misunderstanding since by DPS i mean "damage per second" and you probably thought I meant "damage per shot". If that's the case then I agree that main cannon should have highest "damage per shot" but secondary AV gun should have higher "damage per second" value than main gun.

[Gandhi]

Oh and Rhapsody,

Read this before blaming the COD crowd:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=35978&highlight=tank+driving+boring

It's from before SOE announced "Planetside" Next afaik.
What's this supposed to show? I only saw one person mention the word "boring" and his suggestion was to give the driver the ability to call targets for the gunner, which would be great, and to say giving the driver the main gun would be a bad idea.

I would LOVE to see more tools available to drivers to call targets and direct their gunners. And the addition of Vivox will make communicating with random passengers so much easier. If you absolutely have to then give the driver a machine gun or something to play with, but not the main gun for gods sake.

[Rhapsody]

And you are comparing the lightning a 'light tank' designed as AA exclusively or AI exclusively or AV exclusively to a tank (AV without a gunner, with it is AV/(AA+AI). Which will be easier to kill by the simple fact that its a 'light tank'.

They have different roles. Which is why people would sometimes choose the lightning over the MBT or the MBT over the lightning. The choice of a gunner gives even more flexibility to the MBT.

While someone who chooses an AA lightning is boned no matter what if an MBT or infantry come along.

No one in their right mind would always choose a lightning over a MBT.

Single seat Lighting = single player, smaller vehical, less lethal, easier to kill.

Two seater Tank = 2 people, larger vehicle, more lethal when fully crewed, harder to kill.

That balances out. If it was the other way around, and the Lighting was more lethal, did more damage, and was harder to kill than the 2 seater tank, that would be a problem.

*quick edit*

And as for AA lighting being boned if a MBT comes along, or an Infantry toating a rocket launcher. He's no more boned than if a MBT with no AA support had a liberator or Reaver show up, or even that same exact trooper with the rocket launcher.

[ArmedZealot]

Single seat Lighting = single player, smaller vehical, less lethal, easier to kill.

Two seater Tank = 2 people, larger vehicle, more lethal when fully crewed, harder to kill.

That balances out. If it was the other way around, and the Lighting was more lethal, did more damage, and was harder to kill than the 2 seater tank, that would be a problem.

As far as I know all of this true when PS2 is concerned with MBT's and the Lightnings. Except for aircraft which would have an easier time hitting a MBT than a lightning and if the MBT has a gunner he can fend off aircraft as well.

[Reapter]

Who said that the driver has to be the one pulling out an vehicle? If you pair up with someone (gunner or driver or even you can change roles if you wish) you can alternate in pulling the vehicle out. And that's only the first thing you got wrong. Next gunner shouldn't be just little more than passenger like you suggested, he should be vital to tank's performance imo. If you wanna play single-man tankist grab a Lightning since that is the vehicle designed for such playstyle, MBTs should require teamwork.

In order for that to work that requires a reliable teammate who is fine with doing that. You have to remember there are a lot of solo players out there. Also a gunner will always have a benefit as long as it can literally do anything at all. Team focused players will stick around in vehicles and rack up kills at what there specialized in. It shouldn't be required to have a teammate or else you lose out on using some things all together.

[Stardouser]

Single seat Lighting = single player, smaller vehical, less lethal, easier to kill.

Two seater Tank = 2 people, larger vehicle, more lethal when fully crewed, harder to kill.

That balances out. If it was the other way around, and the Lighting was more lethal, did more damage, and was harder to kill than the 2 seater tank, that would be a problem.

I assume you mean it will only be harder to kill and more lethal when fully crewed because of the extra gunner's ability to pay full attention to shooting; the addition of the extra crew member should not make shots do more damage or give the tank more hit points.

[Rhapsody]

As far as I know all of this true when PS2 is concerned with MBT's and the Lightnings. Except for aircraft which would have an easier time hitting a MBT than a lightning and if the MBT has a gunner he can fend off aircraft as well.

Its true, to a point.

Only now, you have:

Lighting = single crew, lethal on his own, easier to kill.

MBT = single crew, more lethal than Lithing, Harder to kill.

Whats the point in ever useing/having the lighting if you can solo-drive something thats more lethal, and harder to kill? By youself, just like you could/can the Lighting?

I assume you mean it will only be harder to kill and more lethal when fully crewed because of the extra gunner's ability to pay full attention to shooting; the addition of the extra crew member should not make shots do more damage or give the tank more hit points.

Yea, thats what i was implying, he could focus solely on doing damage, while the driver focuses solely on keeping the tank in one piece.

[ArmedZealot]

I assume you mean it will only be harder to kill and more lethal when fully crewed because of the extra gunner's ability to pay full attention to shooting.

Again this is still true as far as PS2 is concerned. Except the gunner isn't shooting vehicles but swatting at aircraft and picking of infantry, while the driver is positioning to kill other tanks.

[Rhapsody]

It shouldn't be required to have a teammate or else you lose out on using some things all together.

In that case then Liberators should be single seat aircraft were the pilot has controle of both the bombing/ground attack gun, tail gun, and forward gun. Isnt requireing that to have a 'full crew' also makeing you lose out on useing some things?

The more powerfull vehicals require teamwork, as it should.

[ArmedZealot]

Its true, to a point.

Only now, you have:

Lighting = single crew, lethal on his own, easier to kill.

MBT = single crew, more lethal than Lithing, Harder to kill.

Whats the point in ever useing/having the lighting if you can solo-drive something thats more lethal, and harder to kill? By youself, just like you could/can the Lighting?

Because the lightning will be able to dedicate itself completely to shooting down aircraft, while a tank is handicapped without a gunner. Not only this but the lightning will be more faster and quicker, better able to get behind enemy lines and run away when the big guns show up.

If you want to kill a lot of things and have more survivability get into a MBT.

If you want to be the cloaker of vehicles, or shoot down aircraft, choose the lightning.

[Rhapsody]

Not only this but the lightning will be more faster and quicker, better able to get behind enemy lines and run away when the big guns show up.

That pretty much describes a 'scout' dosnt it? Thats a 'single-player' playstyle. Just like the quad (and arguably also the single-seat aircraft).

If you want to kill a lot of things and have more survivability get into a MBT.

Which, with more power, should also include teamwork.

[Reapter]

In that case then Liberators should be single seat aircraft were the pilot has controle of both the bombing/ground attack gun, tail gun, and forward gun. Isnt requireing that to have a 'full crew' also makeing you lose out on useing some things?

The more powerfull vehicals require teamwork, as it should.

It has a main gun on it in ps2 which you can equip with different functions, you can fly solo if you wanted. It isn't required to have a full crew at all and you still get quite a bit of use. The other slots just give it an extra edge/purpose. Most others I am sure want the extra AA capabilities though.

[ArmedZealot]

That pretty much describes a 'scout' dosnt it? Thats a 'single-player' playstyle. Just like the quad (and arguably also the single-seat aircraft).

The quad can't kill, and aircraft are easily spotted and shot down with lock on weapons. The lightnings new role will be that of the skyguard and harasser of PS1.



Which, with more power, should also include teamwork.

Which it will. I don't see your point. If you don't have a gunner you are food for infantry and aircraft.

[Rhapsody]

It has a main gun on it in ps2 which you can equip with different functions, you can fly solo if you wanted. It isn't required to have a full crew at all and you still get a great benefit out of it.

But it severly limits it as that nose-gun dosnt do anywere near the damage the belly gun does. Just as it limited it in PS1 when people solo-flew it.

Giving the driver of the MBT control of the gun without need of a second player dosnt limit anything except its self-defence against aircraft.

[ArmedZealot]

Giving the driver of the MBT control of the gun without need of a second player dosnt limit anything except its self-defence against aircraft.

And against infantry. The turret of a tank can be easily kited and avoided if you are close enough, and if the driver sucks at driving. Without the gunner you are boned.

[Reapter]

But it severly limits it as that nose-gun dosnt do anywere near the damage the belly gun does. Just as it limited it in PS1 when people solo-flew it.

Giving the driver of the MBT control of the gun without need of a second player dosnt limit anything except its self-defence against aircraft.

You forgot also against infantry. We don't have damage values for the main gun yet but since its a gunship now I am sure it does quite a bit more now. For the most part all they did with MBT was shift weapon focus a bit and gave the driver the main benefit for what he invests in it and aren't a driving simulator in the least.

[Rhapsody]

The quad can't kill, and aircraft are easily spotted and shot down with lock on weapons. The lightnings new role will be that of the skyguard and harasser of PS1.

Its ironic that you mentioned 2 vehicles which both required 2 people to use effectively right there. :)

Which it will. I don't see your point. If you don't have a gunner you are food for infantry and aircraft.
True, no 2nd gunner = aircraft will have a easier time with you, but no 2nd gunner in no way diminishes the impact you'll have with the primary gun against other vehicles and infantry.

Makeing both the MBT and the Lighting single-seaters means there's realy only 1 reason to chose one over the other, if you want to shoot down planes, or shoot at tanks.

Were befor, if you wanted to be a 'danger' on the field, you needed to grab a buddy and work together. With PS2's current system (were the tanks are concerned) its turned away from the 'cooperative' playstyle, to the 'everyone for themselves' playstyle.

[DDSHADE]

I think you're right, I loved just being a dedicated tank driver in PS! The off chance a friend would want to drive instead, I would get tons of kills as the gunner, but half the time the driver wouldn't go where I wanted him to, and I couldn't hit the targets because he would block my LoS at the wrong times. The skill required to drive so that your gunner can line up his shot right is something I'd like to see return in PS2.

Zekeen started up a thread in the PS2 Idea Vault about having a chassis mod for the MBT's allowing them to have dedicated drivers.

Check it out here:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=41477

I think it merits consideration! :)

[Immigrant]

In order for that to work that requires a reliable teammate who is fine with doing that. You have to remember there are a lot of solo players out there. Also a gunner will always have a benefit as long as it can literally do anything at all. Team focused players will stick around in vehicles and rack up kills at what there specialized in. It shouldn't be required to have a teammate or else you lose out on using some things all together.

If you want to play a MBT you shouldn't have a problem finding a partner (at least a temporary one, there'll alway be enough people there to fill in the various roles) among possibly 332 other players in your faction. Only true reason would be that you don't want to play with someone else and if you choose to play solo that's your problem. Every undermanned MBT is simply a waste of resources and such playstyle shouldn't be encouraged. Yes you should be required to have a partner to have fully functional MBT.

[Rhapsody]

And against infantry. The turret of a tank can be easily kited and avoided if you are close enough, and if the driver sucks at driving. Without the gunner you are boned.

And a PS1 Vanguard without a driver was boned against Infantry as the tank couldnt 'move'. Thats sorta the same situation there. Only now, since the gunner is ALSO the driver, he 'can' move and avoid getting shot at. Youve given a single player more power with 0 penalties. (baring the no AA thing as im speaking about the tank itself, not what is designed to counter it)

[Reapter]

True, no 2nd gunner = aircraft will have a easier time with you, but no 2nd gunner in no way diminishes the impact you'll have with the primary gun against other vehicles and infantry.

Makeing both the MBT and the Lighting single-seaters means there's realy only 1 reason to chose one over the other, if you want to shoot down planes, or shoot at tanks.

Were befor, if you wanted to be a 'danger' on the field, you needed to grab a buddy and work together. With PS2's current system (were the tanks are concerned) its turned away from the 'cooperative' playstyle, to the 'everyone for themselves' playstyle.

Even from what you said yourself in this, you can focus on one particular role alone but with multiple you are still adding benefits while its not a requirement in the least. Just now everyone can enjoy being in there particular role. People who feel like manning the secondary gun will to get to and enjoy the benefits without it being forced in the least. There is still tons of teamwork without any forced requirements.

[Pyreal]

Its ironic that you mentioned 2 vehicles which both required 2 people to use effectively right there. :)


True, no 2nd gunner = aircraft will have a easier time with you, but no 2nd gunner in no way diminishes the impact you'll have with the primary gun against other vehicles and infantry.

Makeing both the MBT and the Lighting single-seaters means there's realy only 1 reason to chose one over the other, if you want to shoot down planes, or shoot at tanks.

Were befor, if you wanted to be a 'danger' on the field, you needed to grab a buddy and work together. With PS2's current system (were the tanks are concerned) its turned away from the 'cooperative' playstyle, to the 'everyone for themselves' playstyle.

The MBT is not a single seat vehicle.
Why do people keep saying this?

To objectively possess more efficiency, lethality, and longevity a MBT will need two players!

[ArmedZealot]

Its ironic that you mentioned 2 vehicles which both required 2 people to use effectively right there. :)

I don't think you know what irony means. The skyguard and harasser are no longer in the game. There has to be a harassment role and an anti aircraft role for ground vehicles. The lightning is the closest platform capable of providing these things.


True, no 2nd gunner = aircraft will have a easier time with you, but no 2nd gunner in no way diminishes the impact you'll have with the primary gun against other vehicles and infantry.

It does against infantry, and it does against vehicles as well. The turret has a cooldown and the second gun can provide more dps against vehicles as well. A 2 man MBT will still beat a lightining or a 1 man MBT.

Makeing both the MBT and the Lighting single-seaters means there's realy only 1 reason to chose one over the other, if you want to shoot down planes, or shoot at tanks.

There are plenty of reasons to choose between the vehicles. You just refuse to acknowledge them for some reason.

Were befor, if you wanted to be a 'danger' on the field, you needed to grab a buddy and work together. With PS2's current system (were the tanks are concerned) its turned away from the 'cooperative' playstyle, to the 'everyone for themselves' playstyle.

You can be a danger solo and more of a danger as a team. Teamwork has not taken a hit but solo play has been buffed to make the game more entertaining. If this makes you weep with nostalgia for the good ole days then it is time to move on. They have mentioned certs to allow dedicated tank pilots to change this around. If that doesn't satisfy you then you are not willing to meet compromise. This discussion would be pointless.

[Reapter]

If you want to play a MBT you shouldn't have a problem finding a partner among possibly 332 other players in your faction. Only true reason would be that you don't want to play with someone else and if you choose to play solo that's your problem. Every undermanned MBT is simply a waste of resources and such playstyle shouldn't be encouraged. Yes you should be required to have a partner to have fully functional MBT.

There still contributing to counter a role completely. As for resources it still is getting benefits but not to its max possibility. But the resources are a whole other issue as I think people should have there own personal pool to spend rather then a team pool for the faction(Correct me if this isn't how it functions currently, and if it currently has a personal pool then it shouldn't matter how they spend there personal resources). We really don't know how that will currently play out, but if there is so many resources that it doesn't matter who spawns what then its in a who cares situation as it isn't hurting the team. Frankly its also a waste of resources when a bad player buys a vehicle on about the same level or if they drive in a random direction not to enemies.

[Rhapsody]

The MBT is not a single seat vehicle.
Why do people keep saying this?

To objectively possess more efficiency, lethality, and longevity a MBT will need two players!

Its a single seater because you dont 'need' that 2nd persone. He's an option.

In PS1 the MBT's were 2 seaters, excluding the VS Magrider, you needed 2 people to fight with it. With PS2, you dont. 1 persone, single-seating in a MBT is just as dangerious against anything it shoots at as one with 2 people in it. All that 2nd persone does is give it a 'little' extra fire-power and protection from Air if you equip the 2nd gun with AA.

Aside from that little bit of 'extraness', the MBT's in PS2 are effectivly single-seaters.

[EVILoHOMER]

I'm glad because sometimes you just want to play on your own with a group of other people playing on their own. I was always put off certing the tanks because you needed another person and it felt like a wasted cert so went for the lightning instead. It ended up most people not even bothering with the tanks because when you don't have friends on it was useless. Hopefully this encourages people to cert and play together....

[Rhapsody]

I don't think you know what irony means. The skyguard and harasser are no longer in the game. There has to be a harassment role and an anti aircraft role for ground vehicles. The lightning is the closest platform capable of providing these things.

The irony is that your showing how a 'role' that use to require 2 people is being replaced by the ability for 1 player to do the same role.

Skyguard/Harraser = 2 seaters. Replaced by Single-seater Lighting.

PS1 MBT = 2 seaters, Replaced by single-seater MBT.

Two roles which required teamwork, both turned into 'every man for himself' single-seater/player roles.

[ArmedZealot]

1 persone, single-seating in a MBT is just as dangerious against anything it shoots at as one with 2 people in it.

False.


All that 2nd persone does is give it a 'little' extra fire-power and protection from Air if you equip the 2nd gun with AA.

This is a big deal when aircraft are going to be more prevalent in PS2 than in PS1. Tanks are fresh meat and XP sacks to aircraft. If you don't have a gunner you won't make it between bases without extra support.
The 'little' part is false.

Aside from that little bit of 'extraness', the MBT's in PS2 are effectivly single-seaters.
False

[Immigrant]

As for resources it still is getting benefits but not to its max possibility.

That's why I called it a waste. And by the way undermanned tank's performance should be s the highest at roughly 60% effectiveness of fully manned tank with equally skilled crew.

But the resources are a whole other issue as I think people should have there own personal pool to spend rather then a team pool for the faction(Correct me if this isn't how it functions currently, and if it currently has a personal pool then it shouldn't matter how they spend there personal resources).

Pools are personal but are given depending on Empire's current territorial hold of particular resource types. Every resource you waste and don't use to the max can be regarded as a waste (especially if the opposing force makes the most of their resources). The devs said that the resource will be very important. If one guy wastes a tank it won't and shouldn't matter at all but if a throng of soloers wastes their resources on using an undermanned tank that will and should reflect greatly on Empire's overall success.

[Rhapsody]

This is a big deal when aircraft are going to be more prevalent in PS2 than in PS1. Tanks are fresh meat and XP sacks to aircraft. If you don't have a gunner you won't make it between bases without extra support.
The 'little' part is false.

Im fairly certain that the AA gun on the lighting will do alot more damage to aircraft than that little 'pintle' turret ontop of the MBT's. So yea.. he's 'extra' not 'needed' As im sure there will be plenty of Lightings driving around to shoot at the Birds. :)

[Pyreal]

Its a single seater because you dont 'need' that 2nd persone. He's an option.

In PS1 the MBT's were 2 seaters, excluding the VS Magrider, you needed 2 people to fight with it. With PS2, you dont. 1 persone, single-seating in a MBT is just as dangerious against anything it shoots at as one with 2 people in it. All that 2nd persone does is give it a 'little' extra fire-power and protection from Air if you equip the 2nd gun with AA.

Aside from that little bit of 'extraness', the MBT's in PS2 are effectivly single-seaters.

Unless it happens to be infantry.
Your statement assumes that the secondary gun will be worthless against other vehicles. I doubt that.

TB's C4s a Magrider in his video. If that player had a 2nd scanning his rear for infantry that wouldn't have happened.

A two manned MBT will have more longevity than a single, and thus be more of a danger on the field.

[Stardouser]

I think we SERIOUSLY need to look at a pilot kit, with pistol, med pack and repair kit only, for pilots of Mosquitoes, Liberators, and Reavers, in order to prevent people from taking 200 Reavers to a battle, blasting the area clear of all ground vehicles and then all bailing and continuing to fight effectively on foot, perhaps even taking the base before the enemy can respawn. I know this would be a feat of organization but that doesn't mean it should be possible.

[ArmedZealot]

The irony is that your showing how a 'role' that use to require 2 people is being replaced by the ability for 1 player to do the same role.

Skyguard/Harraser = 2 seaters. Replaced by Single-seater Lighting.

PS1 MBT = 2 seaters, Replaced by single-seater MBT.

Two roles which required teamwork, both turned into 'every man for himself' single-seater/player roles.

Yes, teamwork is the holy grail of gaming. Perhaps we should make shooting require two people. One to aim and one to pull the trigger.

These roles were superfluous for one a single unique vehicle to be dedicated to and and required too many extra assets to be created for the benefit they would give in PS2. It makes sense from a dev standpoint to merge their roles with another vehicle to save work. The lightning was the closest vehicle for that to happen.

They weren't droped because they required teamwork to operate, but because they simply weren't needed anymore.

[Rhapsody]

Unless it happens to be infantry.
Your statement assumes that the secondary gun will be worthless against other vehicles. I doubt that.

TB's C4s a Magrider in his video. If that player had a 2nd scanning his rear for infantry that wouldn't have happened.

A two manned MBT will have more longevity than a single, and thus be more of a danger on the field.
The persone he C4'd was also sitting still, Its a bit hard to C4 a moving vehical. When your having to split your attention between shooting 'and' driving, you tend to stop and sit in one spot alot because if you dont, you risk ramming into a tree or something while your turned 80deg's to the side.

When you have a dedicated gunner, the driver can focus on makeing sure their not sitting still for to long, and avoiding those c4 carrying infantry.

[ArmedZealot]

Im fairly certain that the AA gun on the lighting will do alot more damage to aircraft than that little 'pintle' turret ontop of the MBT's. So yea.. he's 'extra' not 'needed' As im sure there will be plenty of Lightings driving around to shoot at the Birds. :)

If there is an infantry around with lock on then the lightning is also extra.

An MBT with a gunner alone on the road will be OK against any singular threat besides a liberator or a galaxy. Not only this but the gunner could be an engineer, so while he repairs you could still be able to shoot and move if needed.

An AA lighting alone on the road will have problems against anything that would share that road. And if he has to stop to repair he is a sitting duck.

[Reapter]

That's why I called it a waste.



Pools are personal but are given depending on Empire's current territorial hold of particular resource types. Every resource you waste and don't use to the max can be regarded as a waste (especially if the opposing force makes the most of their resources). The devs said that the resource will be very important. Iif one guy waste a tank it won't and shouldn't matter at all but if a throng of soloers wastes their resources on using an undermanned tank that will reflect greatly on Empire's overall success.

It is waste on a minor level, however, what some are trying to propose is forced teamwork rather then people being encouraged to work together as a team for added benefits. With this on top the distribution of soloers probably average out between the factions so the negatives are balanced. A lot of soloers will pick up the extra teammate more then likely anyway. You can't force people to use the resources to there best no matter what you do. That guy who takes a transport and crashes it into the floor full of teammates is far more damaging then the guy using it as a quick travel more then likely.

Even a fully manned tank with players won't always equal it being better then a single person when it comes to tank vs tank.

[Rhapsody]

They weren't droped because they required teamwork to operate, but because they simply weren't needed anymore.

Thats the part thats up for debate.

Why did they drop them both instead of simply dropping the harasser and keeping the skyguard? The skyguard had the same AI gun on it the Harasser had, only it also had the AA Flak gun on it as well. Both carried 2 people, and both were fast.

So why drop both?

Honestly, looking at what they did with the Lighting, and what they did with the MBT's: 'droping because they required teamwork' is exactaly what they did.

They scraped the Skyguards because it required 2 people, and gave its AA ability to the Lightning (which requires only 1 person and no teamwork).

They scraped the old MBT's because they required 2 people, and gave the new MBT's driver controle of the main gun. (which now makes the MBT only require 1 persone and no teamwork).

[SgtMAD]

The irony is that your showing how a 'role' that use to require 2 people is being replaced by the ability for 1 player to do the same role.

Skyguard/Harraser = 2 seaters. Replaced by Single-seater Lighting.

PS1 MBT = 2 seaters, Replaced by single-seater MBT.

Two roles which required teamwork, both turned into 'every man for himself' single-seater/player roles.

since when did one set of eyes become better than two sets of eyes all on the same target/goal?

there is no way in hell that the Lightning will a more effective AA platform then the SkyGuard was,you won't be able to effectively maneuver the Lightning while fighting the A2G fire like you could with a SG,I have always had the Light Scout cert in PS and spent years driving the SG, it worked perfectly as intended

and the same will be true of MBT's once ppl see how hard it is to "fight" and drive at the same time

[Rhapsody]

An AA lighting alone on the road will have problems against anything that would share that road. And if he has to stop to repair he is a sitting duck.

Thats the price you pay for playing 'alone' and as a single person. When i was the driver for my Vanguards, 'i' was the one who got out and repaired, i made my gunners stay inside so that we were 'not' a sitting duck while we repaired up.

And a single lightning on a road would only have to worry about what he isnt carrying a gun to fight against. If he's got AA and a reaver or lib shows up, he's going to be a threat to them, if a tank shows up he'll be in trouble, but, thats the same situation a MBT runs into solo. Runs into a tank, he's a threat, runs into a Reaver or Lib, he's in trouble.

Both are now single-seaters. neither requires teamwork anymore.

[ArmedZealot]

They scraped the Skyguards because it required 2 people, and gave its AA ability to the Lightning (which requires only 1 person and no teamwork).

They scraped the old MBT's because they required 2 people, and gave the new MBT's driver controle of the main gun. (which now makes the MBT only require 1 persone and no teamwork).

They scrapped the skyguard and the harasser because their roles could be added the lightning. Allowing for only 1 vehicle to be modeled and balanced rather than 3.

The haven't scrapped the "Old" MBT's. You can have a cert letting you play like the "Old" versions.

[Immigrant]

It is waste on a minor level........

Even a fully manned tank with players won't always equal it being better then a single person when it comes to tank vs tank.

It should be more than a "minor" waste. No, tank with secondary AV gun should always come on top (except in case it's crew is utterly incompetent or in case of ambushes).

10 one-person-crew tanks shouldn't be better than 5 fully manned AV-equipped tanks. That's only encouraging solo-play and making teamwork redundant.

[Rhapsody]

They scrapped the skyguard and the harasser because their roles could be added the lightning. Allowing for only 1 vehicle to be modeled and balanced rather than 3.

If thats truely the case then why didnt they modify the lighting so it required 2 seaters to balance out its new 'power' instead of keeping it as a 'single-seat' vehicle?

The haven't scrapped the "Old" MBT's. You can have a cert letting you play like the "Old" versions.

Which i believe is backwards, it should require a cert to play the 'new' version, not the other way around. Allowing the driver, if he chooses, to use the main gun himself should be an 'upgrade'. (just like allowing BFR's to be a single-seater with a jump-jet was an upgrade). Going from a tank which requires only 1 person, to being a tank that requires 2 is a 'downgrade', not an 'upgrade'.

[ArmedZealot]

Thats the price you pay for playing 'alone' and as a single person. When i was the driver for my Vanguards, 'i' was the one who got out and repaired, i made my gunners stay inside so that we were 'not' a sitting duck while we repaired up. That is still the case.

And a single lightning on a road would only have to worry about what he isnt carrying a gun to fight against. If he's got AA and a reaver or lib shows up, he's going to be a threat to them, if a tank shows up he'll be in trouble, but, thats the same situation a MBT runs into solo. Runs into a tank, he's a threat, runs into a Reaver or Lib, he's in trouble.

I don't get what you are saying here. Why would an AA lightning driver alone on the road get out to use his AA? Why would anyone in a 2 manned MBT get out to shoot a Reaver down?


Both are now single-seaters. neither requires teamwork anymore.

You aren't really listening to anyone here are you?

[Reapter]

It should be more than a minor waste. No, tank with secondary AV gun should always come on top (except in case it's crew is utterly incompetent).

10 one-person-crew tanks shouldn't be better than 5 fully manned AV tanks. That's only encouraging solo-play and making teamwork redundant.

It is impossible for them to balance it that a tank isn't a minor waste with 1000 people without making them literally a super rare battle sight which I have full doubts to that occurring.

That 5 fully manned vehicles will eat infantry/air far better then those 10 one person ones. It has teamwork that comes out on top by being specialized. As for resources you have 2x the value of just pure anti ground vehicles fighting only on anti ground terms of course they will win on average. Plus having a dedicated driver isn't always more efficient, some people can drive and shoot very well.

If you really want them to be more effective you should really be asking for secondary gunners to be able to be equipped with anti-tank weapons in which case they will get eaten alive by infantry or air due to being duo anti tank weapons vs tanks.

[ArmedZealot]

If thats truely the case then why didnt they modify the lighting so it required 2 seaters to balance out its new 'power' instead of keeping it as a 'single-seat' vehicle?

Because the lightning was likely already modeled and designed before that decision was made. It wasn't until fairly recently that we knew buggies weren't going to be included at launch.



Which i believe is backwards, it should require a cert to play the 'new' version, not the other way around. Allowing the driver, if he chooses, to use the main gun himself should be an 'upgrade'. (just like allowing BFR's to be a single-seater with a jump-jet was an upgrade). Going from a tank which requires only 1 person, to being a tank that requires 2 is a 'downgrade', not an 'upgrade'.

2 man tank driver-driver > 2 man tank driver-gunner > 1 man tank driver-gunner.

And this is by your reasoning. A 2 man tank driver-driver can more easily evade being destroyed and have an easier time killing.

To be more successful you would need another cert. I don't see the problem here.

[sylphaen]

3-) MBT driving in PS1 was indeed boring, and ALOT of players voiced their concerns back in the day, long before development started on Modern Warfare. Admittedly the solution proposed was to give all MBT drivers a gun like the MagRider, wich is what I'm still advocating.


What I liked about PS1 driving was the target rich environment and high armor values. It was both challenging and fun to charge into the enemy areas, trying to position in a way to mitigate damage received while offering the best shots possible for my gunner. Receiving a ton of damage, dealing a lot and getting out alive was always a great feeling.

I always felt bored to death by vehicle play in BF2142 while it was my favorite activity in PS1.

[Reapter]

Which i believe is backwards, it should require a cert to play the 'new' version, not the other way around. Allowing the driver, if he chooses, to use the main gun himself should be an 'upgrade'. (just like allowing BFR's to be a single-seater with a jump-jet was an upgrade). Going from a tank which requires only 1 person, to being a tank that requires 2 is a 'downgrade', not an 'upgrade'.

The 1 driver 1 gunner is better versus ground in general on a 1 for 1 fight. So that would be positive progression needing a cert for a designated driver.

What I liked about PS1 driving was the target rich environment and high armor values. It was both challenging and fun to charge into the enemy areas, trying to position in a way to mitigate damage received while offering the best shots possible for my gunner. Receiving a ton of damage, dealing a lot and getting out alive was always a great feeling.

I always felt bored to death by vehicle play in BF2142 while it was my favorite activity in PS1.

Good news, there is a cert that fits you then. Its an unlock just some here think it should be forced rather then an option.

[Immigrant]

It is impossible for them to balance it that a tank isn't a minor waste with 1000 people without making them literally a super rare battle sight which I have full doubts to that occurring.

Quit playing silly word (relative meaning) games. Of course on absolute overall scale it will be a minor waste, but it should be aprox. little less than double the waste of fully manned tank. And that's relatively big waste .

Edit: actually it won't be a waste at all since tank with basic load-out won't cost any resources. However that's even more of an argument to make tanks with secondary AV guns pack more than double the firepower that basic tanks have. If aircrafts and infantry will be able to choose to have AI, AV (AT) or AA weapon load-outs I don't see why would tank's secondary gun be restricted to AI or AA only.

That 5 fully manned vehicles will eat infantry/air far better then those 10 one person ones. It has teamwork that comes out on top by being specialized. As for resources you have 2x the value of just pure anti ground vehicles fighting only on anti ground terms of course they will win on average. Plus having a dedicated driver isn't always more efficient, some people can drive and shoot very well.

If you really want them to be more effective you should really be asking for secondary gunners to be able to be equipped with anti-tank weapons in which case they will get eaten alive by infantry or air due to being duo anti tank weapons vs tanks.

Yes, I was talking about tanks with secondary AV (anti-vehicle equipped tanks, or anti-tank if you wish) what should and I believe will definitely be one of the possibilities.

Question: what kind of weapons can we expect as secondary guns on MBTs? Light weapons like in ps1 or something more substantial?
kevmo0: For the medium battle tanks, the secondary weapons are more substantial.

Why would AV tanks necessarily be eaten by infantry or air units (that would be only the case if they attacked alone and not supported by infantry and their own air forces)? I think you don't grasp the scale this game will be able to operate on.

[sylphaen]

Good news, there is a cert that fits you then. Its an unlock just some here think it should be forced rather then an option.

Yeah, I'm really glad they had a thought for crew players and really happy about it even though it's somewhat sad that it took so many 15 page threads to see the point come across.

However, to be honest, I may not even play tanks in PS2 as much as I did in PS1 even with the dedicated gunner cert. I've been saying it for a while but they seemed to have changed the armor values on tanks and the whole gameplay will be very different (it seems to be more a "I'm here, shoot me" than "tanks hold ground" now). I'll see how it plays but I'm afraid I won't be choosing to play as a tank pinata in PS2.

So yeah, forgetting the whole debate about how tanks should play dor a second, Id say that I'm on wait & see mode for PS2 ground vehicles.

[Reapter]

Quit playing silly word (relative meaning) games. Of course on absolute overall scale it will be a minor waste, but it should be aprox. little less than double the waste of fully manned tank. And that's relatively big waste .

Yes, I was talking about tanks with secondary AV (anti-vehicle equipped tanks, or anti-tank if you wish) what should definitely be one of the possibilities.

Why would AV tanks necessarily be eaten by infantry or air units (that would be only the case if they attacked alone and not supported by infantry and their own air forces)? I think you don't grasp the scale this game will be able to operate on.

Because if were talking about resources and single person tanks don't effect the overall team in the least then they are irreverent. It has no impact at all on anyone else so what would it matter if someone solos as they do nothing to effect your play experience for the overall team. Basically then resources play no part in this, they just don't matter. It is more you want to force people to have full tanks rather then any other concern, it is you just want to limit solo players then basically. Resources shouldn't have been mentioned at all.

We don't know how a secondary AV gun will play out. For all we know the 5 manned tanks can beat the 10 solo. Even if they are fully equal in power the there's not really any issue since they are paying more, taking up more room, having more issue with risk of ramming each other, less stealth in general for more cost. Multiple people in 1 vehicle is always better then 1 vehicle with 1 person, no one asked against that. The single manned has an advantage it just doesn't make them god mode versus 2 tanks against there 1 if that is what you want.

Then with the last thing said there is no issue at all as lone tanks are supporting others.

[Lonehunter]

I think this one one of the "Updated FPS Mechanics" that didn't really need to be changed. I think SOE's point of view is that having a second gunner will be more powerful then a lone driver/gunner, and now people can actually try a tank solo. In PS1 you HAD to have at least 2 people, 3 if you're TR.

So while it does encourage more people to be able to pull a tank since it can be effective with 1 person, multi crew vehicles are a main feature of the unique cooperative experience Planetside brings.

I really think the Tank Driver should have some kind of specialization that removes his control of the main turret, and adds a 3rd seat, or gives the gunner control of both weapons. I'd even love for them to toss in a camera feed of the direction my gunner is looking, and maybe some kind of unique spotting feature. Something the driver can mark targets with that is unique to the gunner.

[Rhapsody]

That is still the case.
Not really, while the tank couldnt move, it could still fight while i was fixing it.

I don't get what you are saying here. Why would an AA lightning driver alone on the road get out to use his AA? Why would anyone in a 2 manned MBT get out to shoot a Reaver down?

Umm he wouldnt. What i was pointing out is that a lighting, piloted by 1 person, equipped with an AA gun is a threat to air, but food for a ground vehicle. Just like a MBT, also piloted by 1 person, is a threat to ground vehicls but food for aircraft.

The difference is that the MBT's are no-longer 2-seater required vehicles. And the AA 'buggy' has been replaced by the Lighting. While the Skyguards have been turned into 1 seaters, the MBT's are now 1 seaters with the 'option' to have a 2nd person.

You mentioned that they scrapped both the Harassers and the Skyguards, to cut down on development time + it was easier to just give their abilities to the Lightings. I can see that.

BUT, what it also did was 'dumb-down' the teamwork as the lighting still only requires 1 person. Now, instead of aircraft having to fear a 2 person buggy, they now have to fear single-seater tanks. which means there will be 2x the AA as befor as all of the dedicated Skyguard crews will now 'both' be in their own individual AA 'tanks'. Only the drawback is they will be less manuverable due to the 'driving + gunning'.

The same thing has happend to the MBT's, theyve been 'dumbed down' from being a 2 person vehicle, to being an oversized Lighting with a bigger gun. So now instead of seeing ranks of tanks with 'paired' drivers and gunners, we'll see 2x the number of tanks, only now thei'll end up being largely immobile artillary guns as its alot harder to be mobile + focus on shooting at someone when your facing a different direction than your tank is going.



You aren't really listening to anyone here are you?

if i wasnt listening i wouldnt be responding?

[Reapter]

The same thing has happend to the MBT's, theyve been 'dumbed down' from being a 2 person vehicle, to being an oversized Lighting with a bigger gun?

Its more of a you refuse to acknowledge the fact that 2 people in a tank are still superior to one. You just throw out a general 2 people aren't required to fill 1 counter yet 2 can counter 2 things at once so now there a single man tank and no teamwork is required.

Really you should just say in my opinion I think people should be forced to have multiple people in a tank. It doesn't stop peoples ability to work together as a team, all the teamwork is still there, your just against the idea of a solo player impacting the battle in anything other then infantry. One guy in a tank, and one guy in AA working together is still teamwork. Regardless of what we do we are still working together. If one guy drives and one shoots and no communication is said at all, it is still less teamwork then one tank and one aa coordinating together.

Which I am sure there are less hardcore team only players then solo so you want to alienate a lot of the player base rather then incentavise teamwork without it being forced.

[Rhapsody]

Its more of a you refuse to acknowledge the fact that 2 people in a tank are still superior to one. You just throw out a general 2 people aren't required to fill 1 counter yet 2 can counter 2 things at once so now there a single man tank.

Im not refusing to acknowledge the fact that 2 people in the 'current' PS2 tank is 'slightly' superior. I just dont agree with a single-person MBT being as effective against its dedicated targets (other thanks/ground vehicles), as they are when it use to require 2 people to do that.

Your also forgetting the fact that the only tank that really had decent AA protection in PS1 is the TR tank with the dual chainguns on top (which took its own gunner to use). Mag-riders were decent, but the firering arc of their main guns limited them in that regard, the TR's top turret had a much wider Firering Arc, so it acted as an 'aa' gun of sorts.

In PS2 1 single person in a MBT is a threat to every ground vehicle out there. He's a little weak to AA, but as far as the targets its designed to take out? He'll have no problems. In PS1, for a MBT to be a threat to its designated targets (ground vehicles) it required a dedicated Gunner. This was the trade-off between the lighting and the MBT's. Lightings were single-seat tanks, which could engage other ground vehicles, but they traded out lower damage and lower armor as well as lower manuverability due to looking a different direction than your tank was diving.

With PS2, we now have 2 person skyguards replaced by single seater lightnings, and 2 person MBT's replaced by single seater oversized Lightings with an 'optional' 2nd gunner.

[Immigrant]

Because if were talking about resources and single person tanks don't effect the overall team in the least then they are irreverent. It has no impact at all on anyone else so what would it matter if someone solos as they do nothing to effect your play experience for the overall team. Basically then resources play no part in this, they just don't matter. It is more you want to force people to have full tanks rather then any other concern, it is you just want to limit solo players then basically. Resources shouldn't have been mentioned at all.

We don't know how a secondary AV gun will play out. For all we know the 5 manned tanks can beat the 10 solo. Even if they are fully equal in power the there's not really any issue since they are paying more, taking up more room, having more issue with risk of ramming each other, less stealth in general for more cost. Multiple people in 1 vehicle is always better then 1 vehicle with 1 person, no one asked against that. The single manned has an advantage it just doesn't make them god mode versus 2 tanks against there 1 if that is what you want.

Yes, I missed the resources part and corrected myself already above. I don't want to limit soloers I just think multi-crew tanks should be preferable option (if you make them almost equal and gunner little more than just a passenger than there's no reason to multi-crew tanks at all since both cost and effectiveness wise 2 guys in 2 basic tanks will always be better than 2 guys 1 in one specialized AV tank).

If they choose AV secondary gun that gun should pack at very least twice the firepower (armor penetration) or better double the damage per second ability against vehicles if not more if. Otherwise there's really no strong reason to multi-crew tanks. If they are fully equal, that would be a huuuge problem.

[Stardouser]

Its more of a you refuse to acknowledge the fact that 2 people in a tank are still superior to one. You just throw out a general 2 people aren't required to fill 1 counter yet 2 can counter 2 things at once so now there a single man tank and no teamwork is required.


If multicrewing is optional, 2 one man tanks will, 75% of the time, be superior to 1 two man tank.

And this means on a squad level, instead of 5 two man tanks there will be 10 one man tanks. That's double the firepower even if there's a slight situational awareness delay.

And while I think there should definitely be some limitations on C4, even if there aren't, being C4'd for not having a 2nd crewman isn't going to happen enough to make up for this, AND, with 10 tanks instead of 5, that's 5 more tanks that can cover each other.

[ArmedZealot]

If multicrewing is optional, 2 one man tanks will, 75% of the time, be superior to 1 two man tank.

And this means on a squad level, instead of 5 two man tanks there will be 10 one man tanks. That's double the firepower even if there's a slight situational awareness delay.

And while I think there should definitely be some limitations on C4, even if there aren't, being C4'd for not having a 2nd crewman isn't going to happen enough to make up for this, AND, with 10 tanks instead of 5, that's 5 more tanks that can cover each other.

Except when aircraft come along you have 10 easy pickins tanks. Where 5 2 man tanks would eat anything in the air, ground, and walking.

[Reapter]

Im not refusing to acknowledge the fact that 2 people in the 'current' PS2 tank is 'slightly' superior. I just dont agree with a single-person MBT being as effective against its dedicated targets (other thanks/ground vehicles), as they are when it use to require 2 people to do that.

Your also forgetting the fact that the only tank that really had decent AA protection in PS1 is the TR tank with the dual chainguns on top (which took its own gunner to use). Mag-riders were decent, but the firering arc of their main guns limited them in that regard, the TR's top turret had a much wider Firering Arc, so it acted as an 'aa' gun of sorts.

In PS2 1 single person in a MBT is a threat to every ground vehicle out there. He's a little weak to AA, but as far as the targets its designed to take out? He'll have no problems. In PS1, for a MBT to be a threat to its designated targets (ground vehicles) it required a dedicated Gunner. This was the trade-off between the lighting and the MBT's. Lightings were single-seat tanks, which could engage other ground vehicles, but they traded out lower damage and lower armor as well as lower manuverability due to looking a different direction than your tank was diving.

With PS2, we now have 2 person skyguards replaced by single seater lightnings, and 2 person MBT's replaced by single seater oversized Lightings with an 'optional' 2nd gunner.

According to Immigrant you can outfit the 2nd slot with an AT gun, something ps1 didn't have as far as I am aware of. So a single guy in a tank isn't as much of a threat to others in a tank, so it is still true in ps2. Does that mean your issue is resolved?

[Stardouser]

Except when aircraft come along you have 10 easy pickins tanks. Where 5 2 man tanks would eat anything in the air, ground, and walking.

Well, that's assuming aircraft come, but, with one man tanks, you can basically have a squad of 6 one main MBTs, and 4 AA vehicles. I would say that 5 two man tanks are probably only going to be equal to about 6-7 one man tanks, so 6 one man tanks and 4 AA vehicles should be far superior to 5 two man tanks(unless AA vehicles can't even scratch the paint on a MBT).

And the way everyone wants infantry to be 1 to 1 matches for aircraft, I have to wonder - can infantry carry AA weapons and drive a tank? If so, they will do that too, and if they get engaged by aircraft while not engaged on the ground, they will hop out and fire AA.

[ArmedZealot]

It also means that 10 people will need to cert tanks, sacrificing diversity. If only 5 people had to, then the other 5 could use those cert points to increase effectiveness in other area's. I agree though, 1 two-man tank should rival 2 1-man tanks. The obvious solution is to give the weakest gun to the driver (like the Magrider in PS1).

I don't see why this should be true. 2 players dedicated cert point to have 2 tanks on the field. They should be stronger than 1 player dedicating cert points with a gunner.

[SniperSteve]

If you watch the videos you will see that you need the top gunner for situational awareness and for defending against air/ground/armor. Being a solo tank driver is possible, but will get you killed.

[Stardouser]

The gun that a one man tank controls and the gun that a main gunner of a two man tank should be exactly the same. No artificial weakening of 1 man tanks. Either SOE should force 2 man tanks, or not.

[Immigrant]

Except when aircraft come along you have 10 easy pickins tanks. Where 5 2 man tanks would eat anything in the air, ground, and walking.

That's only if you persume 10 soloers will all go for tank. But if 5 take airplanes and 5 took tanks they still best 5 fully crewed AA tanks and that would mean soloing vehicles is way better than multi-crewing, and even possibly could cost less if soloers took basic vehicle types that cost no-resources.

[ArmedZealot]

Well, that's assuming aircraft come, but, with one man tanks, you can basically have a squad of 6 one main MBTs, and 4 AA vehicles. I would say that 5 two man tanks are probably only going to be equal to about 6-7 one man tanks, so 6 one man tanks and 4 AA vehicles should be far superior to 5 two man tanks(unless AA vehicles can't even scratch the paint on a MBT).

I don't get what you are saying here. Out of 10 people how would you best optimize them with tanks.



And the way everyone wants infantry to be 1 to 1 matches for aircraft, I have to wonder - can infantry carry AA weapons and drive a tank? If so, they will do that too, and if they get engaged by aircraft while not engaged on the ground, they will hop out and fire AA.

From the TB video he couldn't 1 to 1 a Reaver with lock on weapons, I'm not going to give up all my tank HP to bet that I could kill a Reaver.

[roguy]

What's this supposed to show? I only saw one person mention the word "boring" and his suggestion was to give the driver the ability to call targets for the gunner, which would be great, and to say giving the driver the main gun would be a bad idea.


It's supposed to show (and it does) that before the COD-Hate crowd joined the forums, that people had big issues with the PS1 driver+gunner implementation.

Wich I then reasoned that since the liberator, galaxy and sunderer remain untouched by this change (as in, they still require multiple crew and are arguably MORE team orientated than the PS1 tank), probably means that the dev team made 1-man tanks based on those complaints rather than "It was in COD (wich it freakin' wasn't in the first place) therefore we've added it to PS2".

[ArmedZealot]

If you watch the videos you will see that you need the top gunner for situational awareness and for defending against air/ground/armor. Being a solo tank driver is possible, but will get you killed.

This is what it all boils down to. Everything else is just theorycrafting for a game that we can't even play yet.

[Reapter]

The gun that a one man tank controls and the gun that a main gunner of a two man tank should be exactly the same. No artificial weakening of 1 man tanks. Either SOE should force 2 man tanks, or not.

What was wrong with moderation in this case where both are viable so it is just down to player preference both with advantages/disadvantages or equal where it really just ends in player skill?

[Rhapsody]

According to Immigrant you can outfit the 2nd slot with an AT gun, something ps1 didn't have as far as I am aware of. So a single guy in a tank isn't as much of a threat to others in a tank, so it is still true in ps2. Does that mean your issue is resolved?

Depends on how you look at it.

Think of the 'current' PS2 MBT's as a 2 seater BFR from PS1. Only instead of the driver having controle of the two dinky guns up front, he has controle of the powerfull Gun up on the back. And the 'gunner' instead of having controle of whats basicaly the 'main gun', now is relagated to only controling the two less powerfull front/side guns. A 2 seater BFR with only a driver in it was still a threat yea, but nowere near a threat as he'd be if he had a gunner controling that upper gun.

With the change they made to the MBT's. You now have the equivilant of a 2 seater BFR in which the driver has control of the main gun instead of the less powerful side-guns. Since he now has control Why would he even need or care to have a back-seater? It might add a little bit of survivabilty, give him a little more versatility, but he now controles the 'main' gun. Why would he wait or even 'team up' with anyone else?

[Stardouser]

I don't get what you are saying here. Out of 10 people how would you best optimize them with tanks.




From the TB video he couldn't 1 to 1 a Reaver with lock on weapons, I'm not going to give up all my tank HP to bet that I could kill a Reaver.

What I am focusing on is not how you would optimize with 1 man tanks, but how you would cripple your forces by two manning. If a squad is running 5 two man tanks, 7 one man tanks ought to be able to win against them for sure. And if we're talking about a 10 man squad, that leaves 3 spaces to bring along AA vehicles. Those 3 AA vehicles combined with the tank drivers hopping out to fire AA would add up.

[Reapter]

What I am focusing on is not how you would optimize with 1 man tanks, but how you would cripple your forces by two manning. If a squad is running 5 two man tanks, 7 one man tanks ought to be able to win against them for sure. And if we're talking about a 10 man squad, that leaves 3 spaces to bring along AA vehicles. Those 3 AA vehicles combined with the tank drivers hopping out to fire AA would add up.

We don't know damage values at all currently so that is basically unknown currently. To compound this certs are an issue in effectiveness.

Depends on how you look at it.

Think of the 'current' PS2 MBT's as a 2 seater BFR from PS1. Only instead of the driver having controle of the two dinky guns up front, he has controle of the powerfull Gun up on the back. And the 'gunner' instead of having controle of whats basicaly the 'main gun', now is relagated to only controling the two less powerfull front/side guns. A 2 seater BFR with only a driver in it was still a threat yea, but nowere near a threat as he'd be if he had a gunner controling that upper gun.

With the change they made to the MBT's. You now have the equivilant of a 2 seater BFR in which the driver has control of the main gun instead of the less powerful side-guns. Since he now has control Why would he even need or care to have a back-seater? It might add a little bit of survivabilty, give him a little more versatility, but he now controles the 'main' gun. Why would he wait or even 'team up' with anyone else?

Because not everyone has it unlocked and it still adds combat ability and survivability. Especially if the main gun can't hurt air/infantry for the most part but the secondary gun can. If you happen to have a second person fully certed in the right spot such as AA it will probably come more down to player skill then anything. That or if you have two extras who are uncerted in certain roles they can still contribute by manning the other guns.

[Rhapsody]

What I am focusing on is not how you would optimize with 1 man tanks, but how you would cripple your forces by two manning. If a squad is running 5 two man tanks, 7 one man tanks ought to be able to win against them for sure. And if we're talking about a 10 man squad, that leaves 3 spaces to bring along AA vehicles. Those 3 AA vehicles combined with the tank drivers hopping out to fire AA would add up.

The problem with the 7, 1 man tanks vs 5, 2 man tanks scenario, is that your not factoring in the mobility that a dedicated driver brings to bare against someone who has to split his time between shooting AND driving. Sure numerical numbers would make you 'think' you had the advantage. But if 3 of your tanks smacked into each other, or a tree.. or something else, while trying to manuver, they turn themselves into sitting ducks and easier to hit targets. While the tanks with dedicated drivers have the advantage in being able to 'dodge' alot easier.

[SgtMAD]

What I am focusing on is not how you would optimize with 1 man tanks, but how you would cripple your forces by two manning. If a squad is running 5 two man tanks, 7 one man tanks ought to be able to win against them for sure. And if we're talking about a 10 man squad, that leaves 3 spaces to bring along AA vehicles. Those 3 AA vehicles combined with the tank drivers hopping out to fire AA would add up.

5 two manned tanks easily kill 7 one manned tanks as long as the gunner is playing "with" the gunner and not some stray picked up at the end of the veh spawn ramp,you get those 7 tanks in a situation where they have to turn and defend at the same time they are done.
when you have a separate gunner for the main gun along with an outfit on vent/TS you then have the ability to drive and focus fire, which will result in solo tanks being targeted and killed very quickly while the driver is able to keep the tank moving while avoiding rocks,trees and finding hills to use for cover.

any decent outfit could pull that shit as long as they played together and had half a brain when it comes to picking the ground to fight over

[Stardouser]

The problem with the 7, 1 man tanks vs 5, 2 man tanks scenario, is that your not factoring in the mobility that a dedicated driver brings to bare against someone who has to split his time between shooting AND driving. Sure numerical numbers would make you 'think' you had the advantage. But if 3 of your tanks smacked into each other, or a tree.. or something else, while trying to manuver, they turn themselves into sitting ducks and easier to hit targets. While the tanks with dedicated drivers have the advantage in being able to 'dodge' alot easier.

that's just it - I was factoring those things in, otherwise I would have said they would match up 5 equal to 5. But since the two man tanks have extra mobility and attention, 5 two man tanks should be equal to about 7 one man.

And; I can tell you now...people smacking into trees or each other is probably not a concern. EXCEPT for one little thing...BC2/BF3 tankers are not so unskilled as to run into trees and stuff, BUT, BF's Destruction does have them accustomed to being able to just roll through trees and knock them down. Since that can't be done in PS2(that we know of), that might, early on, cause some issues. But it would only be temporary.

[Reapter]

The problem with the 7, 1 man tanks vs 5, 2 man tanks scenario, is that your not factoring in the mobility that a dedicated driver brings to bare against someone who has to split his time between shooting AND driving. Sure numerical numbers would make you 'think' you had the advantage. But if 3 of your tanks smacked into each other, or a tree.. or something else, while trying to manuver, they turn themselves into sitting ducks and easier to hit targets. While the tanks with dedicated drivers have the advantage in being able to 'dodge' alot easier.

On top of this your harder to spot and have a smaller area to hit and less clutter, the 7 tanks if they all had 100hp would have 200hp difference more in the least. In order for the 7 to fire though effectively they would all have to be spread out more.

[Immigrant]

To conclude my discussion here I'd like to say that I really don't care how exactly they resolve these issues as long as they make multi-crewing more preferable.

Soloers aren't really a problem at all since they won't organize their efforts to pose a serious problem, however I wouldn't like to see outfits practicing single-crewing vehicles besting those outfits that practice multi-crewing (what would make multi-crewing useless). That would be really bad for the game imo and that's why multi-crewed vehicles need to have their overall power increased proportionally to their crew size..

[Rhapsody]

that's just it - I was factoring those things in, otherwise I would have said they would match up 5 equal to 5. But since the two man tanks have extra mobility and attention, 5 two man tanks should be equal to about 7 one man.

You said that the 7 1-man tanks 'would win for sure'. And thats simply not true :). 7 tanks who have to split their attention between manuvering + shooting will miss their shots (and likely run into things) alot more ofthen than the dedicated gunners of those 5 tanks with 2-man crews in them will. Having 2 extra guns wont mean much if only 3 of those 7 shots land, vs 4-5 of the shots fired by the 5 2-man tanks.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

The second gun on an MBT is pointless unless you pick up a random zerger to fill it.

Why?

You and an outfit mate want to run a tank. You grab 1 with an AV second turret because the enemy is using a lot of ground vehicles. It would be better for him to grab another MBT and run together than man your second turret. They have said the main gun will be stronger than the second gun, so you're increasing your fire power by pulling a second tank instead. You are now also 2 targets with more combined HP/armor than 1 tank.

What if the enemy is running a good mix of armor and air?

Its better for your outfit mate to pull a Lightning instead of gunning your secondary AA turret. They have said the Lightning will have the strongest AA in the game, so again you are increasing your fire power and hp/armor by grabbing 2 tanks instead of 1.

[Immigrant]

The second gun on an MBT is pointless unless you pick up a random zerger to fill it.

Why?

You and an outfit mate want to run a tank. You grab 1 with an AV second turret because the enemy is using a lot of ground vehicles. It would be better for him to grab another MBT and run together than man your second turret. They have said the main gun will be stronger than the second gun, so you're increasing your fire power by pulling a second tank instead. You are now also 2 targets with more combined HP/armor than 1 tank.

What if the enemy is running a good mix of armor and air?

Its better for your outfit mate to pull a Lightning instead of gunning your secondary AA turret. They have said the Lightning will have the strongest AA in the game, so again you are increasing your fire power and hp/armor by grabbing 2 tanks instead of 1.

Exactly what you've said.

[Shamrock]

I enjoyed driving and gunning, and some of the best tank fights have been in 3 man prowlers talking to my outfit mates on ventrilo. There is no way in hell a driver - gunner will be any match for dedicated driver and main gunner, the second they have to rotate the turret to hit anything flanking them or coming up behind them they will lose focus on what's in front of them increasing the odds of hitting any obstacle, tree, rock, you name it. And once he is stationary he's dead meat, because he's a sitting duck that you can land easy hits on while your dedicated driver keeps you a moving target.

I think the driver-gunner set up is pandering to solo lone wolf types; in PS1 these would be the guys that certed MBT and would park it on a ridge overlooking a base, jump onto the main gun and use it as artillery. They were great reaver bait.

But im hopeful that the dev's as some of you have already mentioned will implement the option to cert a dedicated main gunner.

[Mechzz]

If there is an infantry around with lock on then the lightning is also extra.



Don't agree. Most pilots will quickly cert flares and learn to afterburner away from lock on. The lightning has a flak gun and can't be so easily countered. It will have a useful role on the battlefield, I'm sure.

[Serpent]

I think the driver-gunner set up is pandering to solo lone wolf types; in PS1 these would be the guys that certed MBT and would park it on a ridge overlooking a base, jump onto the main gun and use it as artillery. They were great reaver bait.

Not meaning to sound like a jerk, but it's hard to be a lone wolf in an MMO... though I get what you're saying I find it hard to believe people would play PS2 over CoD if they want to lone wolf around.

People may just like PS2 a lot better or something, but still.

[Rhapsody]

Not meaning to sound like a jerk, but it's hard to be a lone wolf in an MMO... though I get what you're saying I find it hard to believe people would play PS2 over CoD if they want to lone wolf around.

People may just like PS2 a lot better or something, but still.

I think what he meant with the term 'lone wolf' are those players who want to be able to use everything, do everything, and play as everything, by themselves, with no need to get 'help' from anyone.

The BF crowd who hop in the Tanks then run off to some hill during a Conquest map just to 'score kills' while completely ignoring the actual objectives.

If that tank they hopped into required a gunner to operate the main gun, they'd be sorta forced to work as part of 'some' sort of team in order to 'score kills'.

I think thats what he meant by stating that the driver/gunner as 1 person was 'catering' to the "Lone Wolf" crowd. :)

[Xyntech]

13 pages. Wow.

I'm actually okay with this dead horse being dragged out and beaten now and then. Keeps it fresh in the developers minds that a dedicated gunner variant would be a welcome addition.

Aside from that, wait until beta before getting too carried away.

[Blackwolf]

Honestly the idea is kind of growing on me.

I doubt I'll drive a tank, but if you think about it, tanks are going to be a lot more vulnerable in PS2 then they were in PS1. Having a second gunner might really be a requirement in order to stay alive. Particularly when it comes to squaring off against aircraft.

And when you think about it, the PS1 tanks had serious flaws in their design. Either the secondary gun (the one that actually had a lot more viable target rich environments) was either controlled by the driver, was more or less optional, or was controlled by the gunner in addition to the main gun. In all situations the secondary gun wasn't used for what it was meant for really.

Prowler gunners just shot infantry with the main gun, that secondary was virtually useless. Vanguards did the same, switching to the machineguns for AA work. Magriders couldn't shoot infantry and I suspect most Mag drivers pretended that the gun didn't exist since it was virtually worthless against aircraft and really only useful when chasing enemy vehicles.

Now since the main driver uses the big gun, tank battles will slow down speed wise. Drivers will have to multi-task a little when engaging tanks and likely WON'T be engaging infantry quite so much, as aiming at a tank while driving is hard enough. Infantry will have a better chance at survival outside unless they come across tanks with secondary gunners (geared for AI).

I didn't like the idea at first but hey, I'm just happy PS2 is no longer a pipe dream.

[Serpent]

I think what he meant with the term 'lone wolf' are those players who want to be able to use everything, do everything, and play as everything, by themselves, with no need to get 'help' from anyone.

The BF crowd who hop in the Tanks then run off to some hill during a Conquest map just to 'score kills' while completely ignoring the actual objectives.

If that tank they hopped into required a gunner to operate the main gun, they'd be sorta forced to work as part of 'some' sort of team in order to 'score kills'.

I think thats what he meant by stating that the driver/gunner as 1 person was 'catering' to the "Lone Wolf" crowd. :)

I see what you mean. Maybe PC/360 terminology is different (I don't have a PC atm, so I have to use my 360 for now :P )

And I know what you mean, Zoom optics on BF3 MBTs = these "Lone wolves"

[Mechzz]

Assuming 10 players in a squad who want to have a "tank evening", what vehcs should we spawn for an outpost assault (seems fair that a 10 man squad can attempt an outpost?). My thoughts:

2 x 2-man AA MBT (Medic/engy crew for rez/repair/defences)
2x 2-man AV MBT (medic/engy crew for rez/repair/defences)
1 x 2-man AI MBT (LA/LA crew for jump jet ability)
1 x ATV for recon (infil/sniper)
1 x Sunderer with Max/HA passengers and Engy driver to make up 10

Would be fun imo with that sort of mix. You could duke it out in the field with enemy MBTs but still have the firepower to take an outpost defended by similar numbers.

What other mixes would be good?

[Figment]

Basically what this discussion comes down to is that those against driver-gunner being one role can do basic optimization maths as they would apply it themselves, while the other party cannot conceive what that is or is in denial that players would apply it or that it magically wouldn't be applied. Waiting for beta is irrelevant when every optimalization math answer you can get says two tanks of some kind is better than one.

It is naivity, nothing more.

On top of that, the quality of tank battles goes down by being less dynamic and more stationary. Look at world of tanks to see how everyone being a singleplayer tank affects combat: short sprints, corner camping, driving into friendlies and obstructions, swifter deaths making logistics more annoying (more frequent spending time to get to the battle), potential motion sickness if no third person (may not affect all), less situational awareness (dumber opponents/worse decisions). And that is not even considering you may be able to switch to a gunnerposition instantly, which would mean you would want it to be empty so you can use it yourself at the cost of maneuvring, but would have double the firepower if a buddy would as well.

PS1 simply had the best tank combat experience I ever had as a driver. I don't mind infantry being more effective (mainly in use of cover by expanding amount of cover and effective defense measures like emp grenades). I don't mind AA tanks, I do mind tank spam and mindless and simple gameplay where players become less dependant on one another.

[Mechzz]

^
but the math depends on assumptions, it's not "hard/concrete" maths in that sense. Only really playing the game will determine whose assumptions were best.

[Figment]

The math only assumes a tank has hitpoints and deals damage. Nothing more. There are no advanced assumptions made at all.

[Atheosim]

I definitely think that the "lone wolf" type player will quickly realize that he/she is fodder for air/infantry if they're without a gunner. They'll see that fully crewed tanks last a lot longer and get more kills and as a result they won't want to leave home without somebody in the gunner seat.

[Slib]

I completely agree with the OP's sentiment.

I understand that the person driving the MBT will be the person who is spending the resources to get the vehicle, but so what?

You're part of a TEAM. If your role in the team is to be a bad-as-fuck tank driver, you're doing it because you love doing it.

If the driver only drives and leaves the shooting to the gunner, we'll see less killwhores rolling around in tanks with just themselves in it.
Less vehicle spam means individual tanks and their dedicated, skilled, crews make more of a difference on the battlefield, and the tanks themselves won't have to be nerfed into pointlessness (they WILL be nerfed when SoE realizes how many people are driving around in them because they get easy kills all day).

[Figment]

I definitely think that the "lone wolf" type player will quickly realize that he/she is fodder for air/infantry if they're without a gunner. They'll see that fully crewed tanks last a lot longer and get more kills and as a result they won't want to leave home without somebody in the gunner seat.

STOP THINKING IN LONE WOLF TERMS.


TWO TANKS IS NOT A LONE WOLF, IT IS TWO LONE WOLFS AND THEY CAN HAVE A COMBINATION OF ANY TYPE OF WEAPON SYSTEMS THEY WANT. TWO TANKS WILL LAST LONGER THAN ONE TANK BECAUSE IT HAS MORE TOTAL AND MORE EFFICIENT ENDURANCE.


Sheesh how hard is that that after around 70 pages or more on this discussion, you STILL think the argument is around SINGLE lone tanks? As I said a few posts earlier, you don't get the maths. At all. Stop pretending you do.



What I find strange, is that those that tell the people that see issues here to wait for beta, do not tell that to those that think there's no issues. In fact, they're typically the ones that see no issues. They make assumptions as well, they just make the mistake of narrowminded and limited gameplay user scenarios under benevolent circumstances too without stress testing it. Often even just considering one single scenario.

Meanwhile, those who are against look at all kinds of ways to combine these units to be as effective as possible in different situations and how to deal with different circumstances and apply different tactics because you can (with more tanks). Big difference.

[Atheosim]

STOP THINKING IN LONE WOLF TERMS.


TWO TANKS IS NOT A LONE WOLF, IT IS TWO LONE WOLFS AND THEY CAN HAVE A COMBINATION OF ANY TYPE OF WEAPON SYSTEMS THEY WANT. TWO TANKS WILL LAST LONGER THAN ONE TANK BECAUSE IT HAS MORE TOTAL AND MORE EFFICIENT ENDURANCE.


Sheesh how hard is that that after around 70 pages or more on this discussion, you STILL think the argument is around SINGLE lone tanks? As I said a few posts earlier, you don't get the maths. At all. Stop pretending you do.

We are all sure glad you used caps lock to describe that point, otherwise none of us would have understood it. Take a nap or something, cheer up.

[Zekeen]

The real issue is that it is a departure from the old PS1 teamwork style of things, and if a designated variant exists, it still wouldn't technically be much better than basic solo operation tanks. Really, they need to make some better different for a designated position tank than just separating the roles, the firepower stays the same either way at the expense of more manpower.

[Figment]

We are all sure glad you used caps lock to describe that point, otherwise none of us would have understood it. Take a nap or something, cheer up.

You on the other hand, should wake up and stop sleepwalking in your perfect dreams.

[Mechzz]

We had this discussion (driver = main gunner) for the first time back in March or so, I believe. We won the concession that the devs would look at allowing a cert for the driver to give up the main gun. We still have had no details on that. Is it in? How will it work for the magrider with its fixed main gun?

So those of us who prefer driver = secondary gunner (I count myself in that group) are still waiting to see what makes it into the first version of the game that we get our hands on. I think that is what makes it frustrating for peeps with, like, super-strong views. Hard as it may be, though, venting on peeps who like the proposed system doesn't make the time pass any quicker. So before one of us blows a fuse, let's hope they announce Beta and let us put our theories to the ultimate test.

[Atheosim]

You on the other hand, should wake up and stop sleepwalking in your perfect dreams.

Because without doing that I would seriously damage my own reality, which, unlike yours, lies outside of this videogame, correct?

[Figment]

Because without doing that I would seriously damage my own reality, which, unlike yours, lies outside of this videogame, correct?

Another ad hominem and no actual argument that counters someone else, as usual, nice.

You are a lovely person in reality I'm sure.

[Atheosim]

Another ad hominem and no actual argument that counters someone else, as usual, nice.

You are a lovely person in reality I'm sure.

Oh tish tosh Figgy, fun among friends right?

[Figment]

We had this discussion (driver = main gunner) for the first time back in March or so, I believe. We won the concession that the devs would look at allowing a cert for the driver to give up the main gun. We still have had no details on that. Is it in? How will it work for the magrider with its fixed main gun?

So those of us who prefer driver = secondary gunner (I count myself in that group) are still waiting to see what makes it into the first version of the game that we get our hands on. I think that is what makes it frustrating for peeps with, like, super-strong views. Hard as it may be, though, venting on peeps who like the proposed system doesn't make the time pass any quicker. So before one of us blows a fuse, let's hope they announce Beta and let us put our theories to the ultimate test.

I think they made that compromise. Don't agree with the argumentation for it though. :)

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

Even if you cert to be the driver only, it's still 1 tank vs 2 tanks.

[Mechzz]

Even if you cert to be the driver only, it's still 1 tank vs 2 tanks.

or 1 tank vs 1 reaver and 1 AV grunt

or 1 tank vs 1 reaver and 1 tank

or 1 tank vs 1 liberator and 1 ATV

there are many scenarios that play out every minute of a game like this. The scenarios are also affected by what previously happened (did I start the fight at 80% health?)

So only by getting our hands dirty will we know what really works. I understand the 2 tanks vs 1 tank bit, I just don't think we can draw hard conclusions on zero evidence?

We all have our preferences, but for now they are just that - preferences.

[Figment]

or 1 tank vs 1 reaver and 1 AV grunt

or 1 tank vs 1 reaver and 1 tank

or 1 tank vs 1 liberator and 1 ATV

there are many scenarios that play out every minute of a game like this. The scenarios are also affected by what previously happened (did I start the fight at 80% health?)

So only by getting our hands dirty will we know what really works. I understand the 2 tanks vs 1 tank bit, I just don't think we can draw hard conclusions on zero evidence?

We all have our preferences, but for now they are just that - preferences.

It's not so much what you're fighting that's the vs bit, it's what you can field yourself. The comparison is not about what strength you have with respect to the opponent, but how you can optimise your own strengths.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

It's not so much what you're fighting that's the vs bit, it's what you can field yourself. The comparison is not about what strength you have with respect to the opponent, but how you can optimise your own strengths.

This. Why stick both people in a tank when you can have the second person grab something else that can do the same job as the secondary gun, but better?

[Mechzz]

This. Why stick both people in a tank when you can have the second person grab something else that can do the same job as the secondary gun, but better?

The idea is that 2 people in 1 tank is more effective than 1 person trying to drive and gun at the same time in 2 tanks/vehcs. The secondary gunner can fully concentrate on keeping the vehicle alive while the driver makes sure trees etc. don't bring the run to an abrupt halt.

I understand the hit-point argument for 2 tanks vs 1, but the effectiveness argument is based on imponderables, so it's wait and see imo.

[Rozonus]

This. Why stick both people in a tank when you can have the second person grab something else that can do the same job as the secondary gun, but better?

It might come down to resources then. Spending them will probably have to be thought out tactically, and you might not want to spend a large chunk of resources on a new tank if there are already enough tanks being used, or perhaps you might not have enough resources to spend on a new MBT or Lightning.

In that scenario you could still help by jumping into the spare seat of an MBT and provide AA support. For example. We'll have to wait to see how fast resources build up.

[HellsPanda]

I would have liked a compromise. Move the main gun to the gunner slot, keeping it customisable. Then giving the driver a forward locked gun of somekind basen on empire ( like oversized shotgun for the vanguard)

[Figment]

@Rovonus: The problem with that is that it's a balance that can mean that an empire with more territory gains more resources, thus can field more vehicles and more appropriate types, while you're forced to work with less units, which individually take more heat and get a shorter life time (more concentrated rather than dispersed fire), meaning the drain on your resources becomes higher as you lose more units at a higher rate, as well as a few other disadvantages if you're the losing empire as well and/or are numerically disadvantaged by sheer player numbers.

You'd get a lot of extra drawbacks from being in a disadvantaged position in multiple ways... They should take extra care that battles do not become too one sided until the third empire intervenes and the pressure is let off.

This does illustrate quite well why a third empire is not just extra, but required in an ongoing game.

[Stardouser]

I just had a thought about the possibility of making multicrew tanks an option. PS1 historically had multicrew tanks. Driver drives, gunner guns. Battlefield has historically had driver/gunner tanks. If this is successful in PS2, do you think other games with tanks in them might copy it and make this an option?

I just think it would be funny if Battlefield 4 suddenly had this option.

[ArmedZealot]

I just had a thought about the possibility of making multicrew tanks an option. PS1 historically had multicrew tanks. Driver drives, gunner guns. Battlefield has historically had driver/gunner tanks. If this is successful in PS2, do you think other games with tanks in them might copy it and make this an option?

I just think it would be funny if Battlefield 4 suddenly had this option.

Oh my.... You do have fantasies don't you.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

The idea is that 2 people in 1 tank is more effective than 1 person trying to drive and gun at the same time in 2 tanks/vehcs. The secondary gunner can fully concentrate on keeping the vehicle alive while the driver makes sure trees etc. don't bring the run to an abrupt halt.

If you just pay attention to your surroundings you wont run into trees ect. I had no problem running and gunning in a Lightning in PS1, and now in PS2 I get a bigger gun!

[Baneblade]

The easier thing to do in my mind would have been to simply give all kills shared credit between the gunner who got it and the driver. I'm not terribly happy about having to be my own gunner either, in fact I suspect I'll spend more time in a Sunderer for that very reason.

[Hyiero]

PAX East 2012 - Planetside 2 Interview with Matt Higby - FPSGuru.com - YouTube

At like 8:30 or something matt talk's about the certs that you will be able to unlock to make it so you can have a dedicated driver and a dedicated gunner,if that is how you want to play it

[Stardouser]

Oh my.... You do have fantasies don't you.

Here's another fantasy. A Galaxy...but not a gunship, or a troop transport...but...the Galaxy Minespreader! Carries a load of 100 mines with variable spread patterns.

Also, if appropriate, 45 second arm time so you can't simply drop them onto an existing convoy.

[Rhapsody]

Some people have brought up the "we had this discussion before and SOE said they 'might' look at creating a cert to allow the 2nd gunner to take control of the main gun". While this is a nice concession, i still think it should be that way by 'default' and that the 'concession' should be allowing a cert to be gotten that gave the driver control of the main gun.

To me it just seems like SOE is dumbing down the 'teamwork' aspect of PS. They remove the 2 person skyguard and instead give the single seat lighting its AA ability. And with the MBT's they give the driver control of the main gun. Both of these are 2-person 'teamwork' vehicles, that have been 'dumbed down' into single person 'zergling' roles.

In PS1 you had buggies that were multi-seat / designated job vehicles. You had the separate seat MBT's, You had the Skyguard, The transport vehicles, the gal-gunships, and the Liberators. All of these took teamwork to use, and each 'seat' had a designated job (driver, gunner, passenger).

In PS2, theyve completely scrapped the buggies, removing an entire line of 'team-work' oriented vehicles and the MBT's are now effectively Single-seat, 1 man army, vehicles. The only vehicles that still seem to have a 'separation of jobs' seems to be the transport craft, and the liberator, and i honestly wouldnt be surprised if we learned that the driver of the transport veh's now suddenly has control of a weapon as well.

It honestly just feels like their dumbing down the game to try to 'pull in' the console FPS gamers who are use to being able to 1-man army every vehicle.

And for those that keep bringing up the "well 2 tanks are better than 1" argument. Your correct.... but only in one situation. If all 3 tanks are sitting still and not moving. When you start adding movement into the mix, the 'winner' will be the one that can avoid fire the best while still landing the majority of their shots. While there may be some excellent lightning drivers from PS1 around, for the most part, the tank with a dedicated driver will out-perform any single-seat tank. The one with the dedicated driver can move threw a wider area of the fight-zone than the single-seater as the one in the single seat is having to mentally keep track of what 'was' around him and were he is within that mental picture. At some point he will forget were a tree or bush is, or even not realize another vehical/grunt has moved into his path. Then you have a stopped, and vulnerable, tank.

[Gandhi]

And for those that keep bringing up the "well 2 tanks are better than 1" argument. Your correct.... but only in one situation. If all 3 tanks are sitting still and not moving. When you start adding movement into the mix, the 'winner' will be the one that can avoid fire the best while still landing the majority of their shots. While there may be some excellent lightning drivers from PS1 around, for the most part, the tank with a dedicated driver will out-perform any single-seat tank.
But even in that situation it's only true if the 2 tanks combined miss twice as often as the crewed tank, and I would guess that's not likely to happen. In fact, both the 1 man tanks could sit still and fire at the moving crewed tank and still take it out before it can dispatch both of them, solely because they have twice the firepower.

Obviously this is the "ideal" scenario, where only these 3 tanks meet each other on the field. In reality you'll have tons of other factors in play, from terrain advantages to air support to infantry and other vehicles. But I would still guess that on the whole having 2 solo tanks is more effective than one tank with dedicated driver and gunner. You could help offset this by giving the dedicated tank more survivability, say a flat HP boost, but that doesn't make much sense and makes balancing more difficult.

[SgtMAD]

If you just pay attention to your surroundings you wont run into trees ect. I had no problem running and gunning in a Lightning in PS1, and now in PS2 I get a bigger gun!

I remember you and you were far and above the "average" player in PS,

both you and I know that 90% of the ppl that ever pulled a Lightning in PS sucked at driving and firing the veh and would usually be farmed by reavers

I have had armor certed on both NC/TR and never had a lightning that lasted more than one or two runs whereas I have had MBT's that seemed to last for hours due to the ability to dodge fire while fighting back and being able to retreat with the gunner covering our six as we ran away.

as for AA lightnings,that is going to be goddamn funny when you see ppl trying to run away while trying to keep the air above them targeted LOL

when we get to beta I think we are going to find that these veh ideas weren't very well thought out.

I think the air looks great but the gameplay of the ground vehs,especially the armor, seems off in execution

[Rhapsody]

I think the air looks great but the gameplay of the ground vehs,especially the armor, seems off in execution

Yea, i love what they did with the Air vehicles.. but the ground. It just seems like they threw away the 'mobile war' and instead made things stagnant. We'll see alot less of the 'moving and gunning' and more of the 'park next to a hill, tree, building, and shoot'.

I mean, go back and watch the GDC video were he's driving the Vanguard. He never looks more than 45deg's off center while following everyone else nearly single-file. Granted it was a demonstration, but still.

[SpcFarlen]

I dont really like the idea of it being a cert to spec into. If im playing and see a tank with one person in a MBT, if by default driver can man the gun, i may not go and hop in because i dont want to man a turret. So how am i do know they are using that cert and NEED a gunner? I think that just adds more confusion.

I always like tactics and teamwork. So i fully agree that by default they should be separate. There is already a one man tank, so i feel it is redundant to not have the seats split.

[Rozonus]

It honestly just feels like their dumbing down the game to try to 'pull in' the console FPS gamers who are use to being able to 1-man army every vehicle.

Unfortunately this is probably right. More potential players = more potential purchases in the in-game store. As much as the devs would like to keep the PS1 veterans happy, making money will be a bigger concern for their bosses at SOE.

In a way it's a good thing! The game should get more players, and we should get more people to shoot.

So how am i do know they are using that cert and NEED a gunner? I think that just adds more confusion.

If this becomes a problem in the beta, we can ask them to add a symbol above the tank which indicates that they need a gunner.

[Rhapsody]

I actualy just thought of something. A 'answer' to the "well what about the VS MBT" problem. And its actually lore related, with a slight modification.

What are the 3 sides traditionally focused on?

NC = Bulky, squared, vehicles with the biggest gun they can find mounted on it.
TR = Overly obsessed with circles and curves, and cramming as many 'different' weapons/people into each vehicle as they possibly can.
VS = Sharp Edges you can dice your dinner on, combined with alien technology and 'hover' tech.

Ok... so the above is roughly how the 3 sides were described in PS1. Here's my 'idea' on the MBT's based on the old lore.. and how i'd like to see them done.

NC - 2 person MBT (as before), dedicated driver, dedicated gunner. Driver is given a forward racing 90-120 arc firing gause or shotgun type weapon mounted near the driver hatch/front 1/4 of the tank's top. Gunner has control of the main cannon.

TR - 3 person MBT (as before), Dedicated driver, Dedicated Main gunner, dedicated secondary gunner. Driver, just like the NC, has controle of a forward facing 90-120deg arc MCG/Thumper. Primary Dedicated gunner has the main gun. Secondary gunner gets controle of that AA/AI/AV 2nd gun.

VS - (and here is were my idea comes in). 2 person MBT. Driver + Main gunner, Secondary gunner. Instead of a 90-120deg forward facing weapon such as the TR or NC drivers have, the VS driver is given control of the main gun due to two things. Advances in weapon controles due to the alien tech combined with the fact that the tank has to 'face' its target to shoot it, it would be redundant to have the 'gunner' rely 95% on the driver to 'aim'. So, combining the Alien tech with standard controls, the Main gun is now linked with the Driver and aims were he looks, so-long as the tank itself is pointed in a direction which allows the main gun to line up a shot. The secondary gunner is now focused solely on defense of the tank itself from other threats and is given an AI/AV/AA type weapon.

This'll put the MBT's back the way they were in which they required a dedicated 'gunner' for the main guns (except for the VS who get the bonus of shooting their own gun due to it being 'fixed' + alien Tech). The drivers are given a weapon which they can use to help defend themselves with. And the tanks 'defensability' goes back to being in line to how they use to be. The NC focus on raw power so they forgo a 3rd 'defense' weapon. The TR follow their 'put as many guns as possible on it' routine which gives them the added 'defense' with the 3rd AA/AI/AV weapon. And the VS as usual make use of Alien Tech with linking their primary gun into their drivers as well as make use of the hover-tech which lets them use the whole tank as a 'turret' in a way that while still less-useful than having a 'turret', isnt as bad as if they'd tried the same system with a 'tracked' chases.

Now, with this 'extra cert' thing. Give the NC and TR the ability to 'cert' into the option for the drivers to drop their forward-facing weapon and take direct control of the main gun. And since theyve dropped the forward-facing weapon, their now 'secondary' gunner gets a new, smaller, turret to use. Or, barring that, they simply no-longer HAVE that extra gunner. IE the Vanguard would be a over-sized lighting and the TR would drop from 3 people down to 2.

Thoughts?

*edit*

And not to leave the VS out of the 'extra cert' option. Give them the ability to cert a varient of the Magrider which gives them a 'turret' instead of the fixed gun (still controlled by the driver), but they drop their extra gunner, or keep him, either way.

[roguy]

Thoughts?


I like the idea in theory (especially the van and prow) but giving the VS a tank that remains functional with only the driver is a balancing nightmare waiting to happen. Better just have the magrider the way it was in PS1.

[Rhapsody]

I like the idea in theory (especially the van and prow) but giving the VS a tank that remains functional with only the driver is a balancing nightmare waiting to happen. Better just have the magrider the way it was in PS1.

Not realy. The main thing with the VS is they always focused on maneuverability over protection. They didnt have 40 tones of armor (they probably couldnt have as much due to limitations on how much weight they could 'float'). They use the fact that they can simply fly over lakes and rivers and such to escape/evade fire. And as their focused mainly on maneuverability, their cannons dont do as much damage as the monster the Vanguard carries. (which is how it was back in the day anyway). Also, they have to turn the entire tank to fire. which leaves them dangerously exposed if their going up against two other people who are cooperating (i.e: Forcing to VS to expose his rear to the 2nd guy while the first acts as bait)

I'd much rather see a system similar to what i just posted put in place so we'd actually be playing "Planetside 2" and not "Battlefield 4: Auraxis".

[Blackwolf]

Not realy. The main thing with the Vs is they always focused on maneuverability over protection. They didnt have 40 tones of armor (they probably couldnt have as much due to limitations on how much weight they could 'float'). They use the fact that they can simply fly over lakes and rivers and such to escape/evade fire. And as their focused mainly on maneuverability, their cannons dont do as much damage as the monster the Vanguard carries. (which is how it was back in the day anyway)

I'd much rather see a system similar to what i just posted put in place so we'd actually be playing "Planetside 2" and not "Battlefield 4: Auraxis".

TR often complained about needing 3 people to make their tank effective. I don't think the TR should be forced into a 3 man vehicle again unless buggies came out, at which point I think ALL ES buggies should have 3 person crews.

The other glaring problem with your idea is the same problem as it started with. Magrider has to point it's gun and body at the enemy vehicle at all times, terrain like hills and such will make this very difficult particularly while trying to drive and aim. And if the side/reverse speed of the magrider isn't equal to it's forward speed, the thing will fail.

[Mechzz]

If you just pay attention to your surroundings you wont run into trees ect. I had no problem running and gunning in a Lightning in PS1, and now in PS2 I get a bigger gun!

Yeah, unfortunately for me I fall into the "sucks at driving and gunning category". Honest question to you though, will you be able to drive and gun without third person view, which is not planned to be in the game for ground vehicles and infantry.

[Serpent]

I actualy just thought of something. A 'answer' to the "well what about the VS MBT" problem. And its actually lore related, with a slight modification.

What are the 3 sides traditionally focused on?

NC = Bulky, squared, vehicles with the biggest gun they can find mounted on it.
TR = Overly obsessed with circles and curves, and cramming as many 'different' weapons/people into each vehicle as they possibly can.
VS = Sharp Edges you can dice your dinner on, combined with alien technology and 'hover' tech.

Ok... so the above is roughly how the 3 sides were described in PS1. Here's my 'idea' on the MBT's based on the old lore.. and how i'd like to see them done.

NC - 2 person MBT (as before), dedicated driver, dedicated gunner. Driver is given a forward racing 90-120 arc firing gause or shotgun type weapon mounted near the driver hatch/front 1/4 of the tank's top. Gunner has control of the main cannon.

TR - 3 person MBT (as before), Dedicated driver, Dedicated Main gunner, dedicated secondary gunner. Driver, just like the NC, has controle of a forward facing 90-120deg arc MCG/Thumper. Primary Dedicated gunner has the main gun. Secondary gunner gets controle of that AA/AI/AV 2nd gun.

VS - (and here is were my idea comes in). 2 person MBT. Driver + Main gunner, Secondary gunner. Instead of a 90-120deg forward facing weapon such as the TR or NC drivers have, the VS driver is given control of the main gun due to two things. Advances in weapon controles due to the alien tech combined with the fact that the tank has to 'face' its target to shoot it, it would be redundant to have the 'gunner' rely 95% on the driver to 'aim'. So, combining the Alien tech with standard controls, the Main gun is now linked with the Driver and aims were he looks, so-long as the tank itself is pointed in a direction which allows the main gun to line up a shot. The secondary gunner is now focused solely on defense of the tank itself from other threats and is given an AI/AV/AA type weapon.

This'll put the MBT's back the way they were in which they required a dedicated 'gunner' for the main guns (except for the VS who get the bonus of shooting their own gun due to it being 'fixed' + alien Tech). The drivers are given a weapon which they can use to help defend themselves with. And the tanks 'defensability' goes back to being in line to how they use to be. The NC focus on raw power so they forgo a 3rd 'defense' weapon. The TR follow their 'put as many guns as possible on it' routine which gives them the added 'defense' with the 3rd AA/AI/AV weapon. And the VS as usual make use of Alien Tech with linking their primary gun into their drivers as well as make use of the hover-tech which lets them use the whole tank as a 'turret' in a way that while still less-useful than having a 'turret', isnt as bad as if they'd tried the same system with a 'tracked' chases.

Now, with this 'extra cert' thing. Give the NC and TR the ability to 'cert' into the option for the drivers to drop their forward-facing weapon and take direct control of the main gun. And since theyve dropped the forward-facing weapon, their now 'secondary' gunner gets a new, smaller, turret to use. Or, barring that, they simply no-longer HAVE that extra gunner. IE the Vanguard would be a over-sized lighting and the TR would drop from 3 people down to 2.

Thoughts?

*edit*

And not to leave the VS out of the 'extra cert' option. Give them the ability to cert a varient of the Magrider which gives them a 'turret' instead of the fixed gun (still controlled by the driver), but they drop their extra gunner, or keep him, either way.

Not to be rude, but a lot of the VS idea is basically how BF3 system works. I realize PC gamers generally hate Console gamers ( :( ) but seriously, I never see a main gunner winning a battle against engineers. There must be a person manning the MBT's machine gun, which is extremely effective at killing infantry. The Driver basically focuses on flanking enemy vehicles, and the secondary gunner defends the tank from literally everything else, even helicopters sometimes have problems with tanks.

That's just how I see it.

[Rhapsody]

TR often complained about needing 3 people to make their tank effective. I don't think the TR should be forced into a 3 man vehicle again unless buggies came out, at which point I think ALL ES buggies should have 3 person crews.

The other glaring problem with your idea is the same problem as it started with. Magrider has to point it's gun and body at the enemy vehicle at all times, terrain like hills and such will make this very difficult particularly while trying to drive and aim. And if the side/reverse speed of the magrider isn't equal to it's forward speed, the thing will fail.

For the first part (the TR), that 'extra cert' would remove the need for that 3rd person. And the same for the VS as the 'extra cert' would give them a 'turret' rather than forcing them to always point their tank.

Not to be rude, but a lot of the VS idea is basically how BF3 system works. I realize PC gamers generally hate Console gamers ( :( ) but seriously, I never see a main gunner winning a battle against engineers. There must be a person manning the MBT's machine gun, which is extremely effective at killing infantry. The Driver basically focuses on flanking enemy vehicles, and the secondary gunner defends the tank from literally everything else, even helicopters sometimes have problems with tanks.

That's just how I see it.

Your not being rude :). What i wrote is basically a 'compromise' between us old PS1 players and the BF3 crowd that SOE is apparently trying to cater to that also stays true to the original PS1 lore.

If a BF3 newcomer wants to jump into a tank and one-man-army the thing, he has 3 choices. Drive a lighting, Roll VS (which gives him a driver-is-gunner tank off the start, or Spend time needing a 'gunner' before 'certing up' into the ability to use his own gun.

It gives the BF3 crowd what they want without force-feeding the old PS1 players the one-man-army mechanics most Console FPS's have.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

Yeah, unfortunately for me I fall into the "sucks at driving and gunning category". Honest question to you though, will you be able to drive and gun without third person view, which is not planned to be in the game for ground vehicles and infantry.

You had to be in first person to drive and gun as a lightning. You didn't get a reticule to line up your shots in 3rd person.

On the subject of dedicated driver or not, I really don't care as I never drove an MBT in PS1 (but <3ed gunning them), and most likely wont grab one often in PS2. I was just pointing out why with the current stated mechanics the secondary gun on MBTs was useless (unless you grab a random zerger to fill it). So if you want 2 man tanks to be the norm in PS2, you need to either have a dedicated driver like PS1, or give the gunner the main cannon and the driver the weaker secondary.

[2coolforu]

Not to be rude, but a lot of the VS idea is basically how BF3 system works. I realize PC gamers generally hate Console gamers ( :( ) but seriously, I never see a main gunner winning a battle against engineers. There must be a person manning the MBT's machine gun, which is extremely effective at killing infantry. The Driver basically focuses on flanking enemy vehicles, and the secondary gunner defends the tank from literally everything else, even helicopters sometimes have problems with tanks.

That's just how I see it.

I tanked basically all the time I could in BF3 and I'd say I ran at about 90% without a secondary gunner, seriously. I'd only ever pick up a secondary gunner if I was in VOIP with them, because their random fire just attracts attention and is not too effective. The main reason I carried another person was so they could jump out and blowtorch the ass of my vehicle if we ever ran into a close range slugfest with another tank.

Let me put it this way, if you lose a tank in BF3 it's because you used it stupidly, you drove it in too fast or you allowed yourself to go into a chokepoint were 3-4 engineers could just rain fire down on you.

But there are some flaws with the logic anyway

1) BF3 had limited vehicles, maybe 3-4 tanks, therefore having an engineer was just a raw advantage. It meant that tank had 250% survivability compared to a non-repaired tank.

2) BF3 is a relatively low-pop environment, tanks are maybe engaged with 3-5 targets at any one time.


In Planetside anyone can spawn a tank and drive it, there's no limit to their numbers. That means your gunner has to be more valuable than the both of you just grabbing two tanks, an AA secondary has to be more effective than your gunner just grabbing a lightning Flak variant, you see where this is going? Having 2 tanks is 4 times more effective than having one, you have double the HP and double the damage, its a square relationship. In other words if the gunners secondary weapon is AS DAMAGING as a tanks main cannon you are still at a serious disadvantage.

Now if you get to the point where the secondary weapon is doing the same damage, or 2.5 x times as much as the main gun why the hell is it a secondary weapon. Why don't we just give the gunner the main cannon and give the driver the secondary as a 'bonus'. The secondary weapon will be a small advantage, a 15-20% damage increase or a weak AA weapon that is effective en-masse against aircraft. That way we can make the MBT's powerful as they were in Planetside 1 so they can fill in their role. We can also eliminate some of the serious role overlap too.

[Raymac]

While this is a very good discussion, I can't help but think it's just a bit of a circle jerk. I believe the ship has already long sailed on this subject and it won't be changed. I think the only thing that is possible is that they give an option to have a dedicated driver, but that's as close as you'll get.

[2coolforu]

We'll see how it works but I just don't see how secondary guns are ever going to be worth losing another Vanguard/Magrider/Prowler/Lighting AA for.

Let's just say your 32 man team on Battlefield 3 spawns in on Operation Firestorm, you have the option of getting 16 tanks with secondary gunners or having 28 tanks and 4 AA vehicles. The choice is obvious right?

[Raymac]

We'll see how it works but I just don't see how secondary guns are ever going to be worth losing another Vanguard/Magrider/Prowler/Lighting AA for.

Let's just say your 32 man team on Battlefield 3 spawns in on Operation Firestorm, you have the option of getting 16 tanks with secondary gunners or having 28 tanks and 4 AA vehicles. The choice is obvious right?

I just think the ease of coordinating in 1 tank versus coordinating in multiple tanks shouldn't be underestimated.

[Tarconus]

Maybe I am confused but won't you be able to just go in third person view and drive and fire in the tank? That would be just like World of Tanks. I drove and fired the main cannon in that game just fine didn't hit rocks or trees.

[SKYeXile]

We'll see how it works but I just don't see how secondary guns are ever going to be worth losing another Vanguard/Magrider/Prowler/Lighting AA for.

Let's just say your 32 man team on Battlefield 3 spawns in on Operation Firestorm, you have the option of getting 16 tanks with secondary gunners or having 28 tanks and 4 AA vehicles. The choice is obvious right?

there is the possible resource cost involved of spawning double the vehciles, but yea. bam double the hitpoints and unless the gunners gun hits harder than the main gun, alot more firepower too.

[Haro]

I think TotalBiscuit best addressed these types of claims in his video explaining Planetside to his followers unfamiliar with the franchise. One thing he pointed out was how the experience of the game could change drastically from a player without an outfit to a player with an outfit. Typically, the experience was a lot worse, because you couldn't really experience the main benefits of coordination from an outfit, especially with multi-person vehicles. Relying on random strangers for that can have very mixed results, and can lessen the fun of driving as a result.

A lot of changes in PS2 seem to address the issue of non-outfit players, which I think could be very important given that we may be getting a lot of fps players who have little to no experience with mmo mechanics. Joining an outfit is obviously a good thing, but I don't think players who can't or won't join an outfit should suffer such a serious loss of gameplay. Most people on this forum will probably disagree with me on this, but I think it's vital that ps2 tries to cater to a wider, more casual audience to survive. I know a lot of people don't really care for COD or Halo players (save that discussion for another forum and another time) but the game needs high levels of success to receive high levels of attention.

I can understand the OP's concern, and I like the idea of a sidegrade for a dedicated main gunner, but I don't think we should return to the old model from PS1. A lot of things about the mbt system were pretty broken, and the lightening had absolutely no purpose when the most popular land vehicle, and thus the one a lightening would have to fight, was the mbt, vastly superior in every way.

Tanks largely fought independently, with high levels of defense from heavy armor and great offense from dedicated gunners and powerful weapons. They could take many rocket hits, retreat, repair, and return with ease. They rarely needed support or coordination with other types of vehicles except against aerial threats. Outside of bases, they dominated combat.

If losing a dedicated gunner makes MBTs more vulnerable, I think thats great. They need to be brought back in line with other areas of gameplay. Tanks in PS2 will probably need to coordinate with infantry and other vehicles, including the lightening, in order to survive many threats. Secondary gunners will be needed to aid against infantry, which looks to be a serious counter against them this time around. They will also need to pay more attention to where they go and what's around them due to their added vulnerability. No more rolling into base courtyards without a care in the world.

It's still far too early to judge the merits or problems these changes will bring. After all, none of us have played it. You might find yourself really enjoying the new design, I may hate it, who knows. Discussion is good, but it should be done with an open mind. Like I said, I'd be totally fine with some tanks side-grading for dedicated gunners. As long as my tank actually has a chance in combat and has the same level of stats, I'm fairly confidant that I can put up a serious fight even by myself (years of playing MechWarrior and Spectre may finally start paying off.)

TLDR version:

1. PS2 looks to address issues concerning players that don't have outfits or groups of friends to play with. 1-man capable tanks seems to be a part of this.

2. Tanks are also part of a huge new style of play, one that seems to balance offensive power with vulnerability.

3. I think the same tank should have both 1-man and 2-man main gun capability, with the same statistics. If I can multitask better than you coordinate, I should win. If you win, it should be solely because you drive/gun/coordinate better, not because your tank is bigger than my tank.

[2coolforu]

there is the possible resource cost involved of spawning double the vehciles, but yea. bam double the hitpoints and unless the gunners gun hits harder than the main gun, alot more firepower too.

Here's the even funnier part, it's actually MORE efficient resource wise too! You don't have to put a secondary gun on your tank, which adds cost and you also save all the customisation of putting it on there. Those certs can buff driver specific areas like armor or speed. Not only that but you also use your resources waaaay more efficiently.

If you rely on a gunner/driver combo then that driver is burning through his resources to get that improved two man tank. If those two guys go for two seperate tanks then they both make use of their resources. Assuming the rate is a per-player deal then that means you have effectively twice the resources, that bloke in the gun is now actually using his resources to maximum effect on the Battlefield, at the same time he's saving Mr.Tankdriver a load of resources too. Not only are they making their resources twice as effective as the driver/gunner pair just by merit of having two tanks they are also getting a cheaper tank that is more effective.



Tanks largely fought independently, with high levels of defense from heavy armor and great offense from dedicated gunners and powerful weapons. They could take many rocket hits, retreat, repair, and return with ease. They rarely needed support or coordination with other types of vehicles except against aerial threats. Outside of bases, they dominated combat.



The only time tanks could manage this was if they were used En Masse. Even then unless you buggered out pretty ASAPish once you started taking damage you were in trouble in a large fight, a tank with flickering headlights or sparking armor was a missile magnet.

Saying 'The only thing they are weak against is aerial threats' seems a bit boorish. I mean, that's a huge dynamic of Planetside, aerial, it's not this tiny niche threat. It's a big part of the whole rock-paper-scissors gameplay, after the reaver buff you can pretty easily take down a 2-3 man MBT on your own if it's stupid enough to get far away from supporting troops.

The brilliant thing about Planetside was that a tank was a goddamn tank, it wasn't the Battlefield style vehicle. I need to explain what I mean by that, in Battlefield a tank isn't really that much different from an infantryman. Everything dies at pretty much the same rate to a degree of approximation. Just watch a Battlefield 3 fight, the people who drive tanks straight in to combat, or even to the front line, will last a few seconds. In the close-up maps like River Seine the tanks get chewed into pieces and spat out unless you use them very, very carefully. In Battlefield 3 the tank is a powerup Quake-Style, it's a wild card to play and you use it as if its disposable. One heli in the spawn with TV Missiles or 2 guys with Javelins and a soflam can neutralize every tank on a 2 kilometre map.

But in a game like Planetside the objective is to capture territory, not get a KDR or what not. For this to work people need to push forward, if they are to push forward they need to survive a long time in a battle that can have 2000 people all shooting each other up. That's a serious amount of firepower that can be rained down upon you which means that tank is gonna have to take a lot of punishment if it's going to be pushing the front lines forward. I'd liken this to Operation Metro on BF3 64 player servers. There's a high density of players in a small area and it's one of the few areas where you are very likely to die if you push forward to capture B. Everyone on the US team is too scared to move up because they are more worried about padding their stats, so even though a sacrifice of short term stats to take B would be massively advantageous noone ever moves up and they just sit at the stairs and get shot up a lot.

Tanks in Planetside where the guys that could get shot up a lot so that the battle could actually have some flow to it rather than just being guys sitting on hills shooting each other until one side gets bored. They could be that powerful because you had to have a driver to just sit and move the tank around and a gunner who wasn't pants-on-head retarded. In other words one person had to sacrifice getting kills in order to benefit the common Empire, that kind of person is one in a million in online FPS gaming so the tanks were pretty balanced in numbers and pay off. The majority of people didn't want to drive all day so they periodically drove tanks and footzerged so that they could get kills. If a large portion of a tanks DPS lies with the driver then that balancing part flies out of the window and they curve more towards the 'Infantry powerup' area that Battlefield 3 has which I don't see working with 300 people having a clusterfrak fight.

We'll see how it works on beta, I'll reserve my judgement until then. I just think that tanks were a vital part of the game as you needed their armor to win battles and they forced people to communicate as driver/gunner pairs. It really lightened some of the killwhoring and zerging and actually got people talking to one another rather than being one-man-armies a-la BF3.

[Figment]

Maybe I am confused but won't you be able to just go in third person view and drive and fire in the tank? That would be just like World of Tanks. I drove and fired the main cannon in that game just fine didn't hit rocks or trees.

Yeah but in wot you don't fire on the move unless at very close range. Ps1 tank combat was far more fun and didn't give you distance and height compensation in the gun angle so you only need to lead ahead. Tank combat in ps1/2 is more demanding with more targets at more extreme angles and with less handicap aids. And a dedicated driver means more dynamic fights too as you continuously drive rather than move from bush to bush and take your time aiming or backing up a few meters while reloading.

Dynamic one player combat in tanks is inferior to dedicated drivers. Not to gunner drivers though. Stationary in Ps is much worse for a tank and it is stupid that you may end up dead because you have to stop to fire because your AV/AA tank can't fire at another tank cause you need to look elsewhere to dodge bullets.

IMO it dumbs down and slows down tank combat too much and makes it less fun and less rewarding and too solo oriented for this game. It just doesn't fit PS2 As it does wot.

[Figment]

To the person staging solo play is being encouraged... Lightning suffice for that, why should mbts too be single player viable?

Note, a dualboxing Prowler in ps1 had a main av gun or a dual 15mm. (Thus AV). A dualboxing Prowler in PS2 has both main gun and AA.

[Captain1nsaneo]

http://i48.tinypic.com/34nobvt.jpg

Are there issues with 2 tanks being better than 1 with gunner? Yes.
Are there issues with 1 man tanks and encouraging teamplay? Yes.

We've had no new information on this front for several months and I've seen no new arguments about it.

If you want to read a 47 page thread on this same thing here it is:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=37346

And if you don't think that's enough here's more tank related threads:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=39778
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=39791
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=39724
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=37352
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=41478
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=41333
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=41332
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=41306

Everything save the last 2 have over 10 pages. We've written a short novel about MBTs.

[Xyntech]

Everything save the last 2 have over 10 pages. We've written a short novel about MBTs.

But there's no ending. I hate stories with cliffhangers... ;)

[Mechzz]

http://i48.tinypic.com/34nobvt.jpg

Are there issues with 2 tanks being better than 1 with gunner? Yes.
Are there issues with 1 man tanks and encouraging teamplay? Yes.

We've had no new information on this front for several months and I've seen no new arguments about it.

If you want to read a 47 page thread on this same thing here it is:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=37346

And if you don't think that's enough here's more tank related threads:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=39778
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=39791
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=39724
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=37352
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=41478
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=41333
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=41332
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=41306

Everything save the last 2 have over 10 pages. We've written a short novel about MBTs.

Great post! But it's not a short novel - it's the same 3 paragraphs repeated over and over and over.

[Rhapsody]

Everything save the last 2 have over 10 pages. We've written a short novel about MBTs.

Have you ever thought that the more a topic is brought up and talked about the more the Dev's will think about changing things?

Tanks largely fought independently, with high levels of defense from heavy armor and great offense from dedicated gunners and powerful weapons. They could take many rocket hits, retreat, repair, and return with ease. They rarely needed support or coordination with other types of vehicles except against aerial threats. Outside of bases, they dominated combat.

Thats BF thinking. Tanks didnt fight independantly if they wanted to actualy be effective or accomplish something. Every time i pulled a Vanguard durring a battle and i was seperated from my outfit, i did one of two things.

1. Found a random persone who's also in a tank and followed them around (or got them to stick with me)
2. Scooted up towards the front line and tried to act as 'fire-support' to help the front line move up.

I never dived into a fight single-handedly as thats just asking for trouble. Tanks are bullet magnets. Why? Because their sapose to be dangerious, their sapose to be a threat. But in order to be that threat, it required atleast 2 people working together. That was the 'balance' to the power the MBT's in P1 gave.

As for tanks being vulnerable to Aircraft. Um, thats the way its been all threw history. Tanks are built to attack other tanks as well as 'bash threw' fortified defenses. Their not built to attack planes, they dont have wings =P And if they werent vulnerable to aircraft people would scream that they were to powerful.

For the argument that makeing MBT's 'single-seaters' in order to make it more enjoyable for people who are not in outfits. Most people who dont ever join an outfit, or never think to atleast join a squad, are likely going to be those people who are from the BF group. Those people who are use to being a one-man-army, use to having direct controle over everything they get into. Their simply going to have to learn that PS1/2 isnt a 'one-man-army' game, its a Teamwork oriented game. And that means 2+ people cooperating in order to use the big-toys. If they are dead-set on one-man-army'ing everything, well then they have the lightning to play with.

[Graywolves]

Great post! But it's not a short novel - it's the same 3 paragraphs repeated over and over and over.

So we collective wrote Twilight as a community?

[Mechzz]

For the argument that makeing MBT's 'single-seaters' in order to make it more enjoyable for people who are not in outfits. Most people who dont ever join an outfit, or never think to atleast join a squad, are likely going to be those people who are from the BF group. Those people who are use to being a one-man-army, use to having direct controle over everything they get into. Their simply going to have to learn that PS1/2 isnt a 'one-man-army' game, its a Teamwork oriented game. And that means 2+ people cooperating in order to use the big-toys. If they are dead-set on one-man-army'ing everything, well then they have the lightning to play with.

No-one can force a player to play a game. If a game I was interested in playing was to treat me the way you suggest then I would soon stop playing the game. Remember PS1, that used to be a game......

I'm not saying I think it's right but if PS2 wants to be successful, it needs to find a way to cater to the one man army because that's where the numbers are. That's why I thought we did well to get the Devs to say they would even consider allowing dedicated drivers via the cert system, even if they haven't yet confirmed it is in.

[Slib]

Have you ever thought that the more a topic is brought up and talked about the more the Dev's will think about changing things?


This.
A million times this.
Thank you, Rhapsody.

I know it can be annoying to see basically the same thread again and again, but the fact that it's constantly popping up should be a red flag in the eyes of the devs.

And I'm sure they already see it like that.
People care about this topic (myself included) because it has a huge impact on game-play and balance.

The best thing to do when you see the 47th thread on the same topic is to just ignore it. Don't drop a sarcastic comment that will start a flamewar and just keep the redundant thread bumped to the first page. Don't tell people there's no point in discussing something that's already been discussed.
Let them talk about it, if they still feel the desire. Why would you want to stop them, even if you think they're wasting their time?

Thread consolidation is nice, but once a thread gets to a certain size, it inevitably gets derailed or turned into a flamewar.

[Figment]

No-one can force a player to play a game. If a game I was interested in playing was to treat me the way you suggest then I would soon stop playing the game. Remember PS1, that used to be a game......

I'm not saying I think it's right but if PS2 wants to be successful, it needs to find a way to cater to the one man army because that's where the numbers are. That's why I thought we did well to get the Devs to say they would even consider allowing dedicated drivers via the cert system, even if they haven't yet confirmed it is in.

But you are a bit hypocritical here, for nobody says there shouldn't be any catering to solo players. You on the other hand, basically monopolise tank gameplay for the Remi's among us. Where then are the team tanks? A solo player tank with optional gunner is not a teamtank. Even if you use the much discussed cert compromise, that will leave a teamplayer underperforming for no reason: they would feel they'd need to become solo players in order to compete.

Much like how Prowler users used to hate the idea of requiring a third crewmember, but then the opposite, ironically.

[Rhapsody]

I'm not saying I think it's right but if PS2 wants to be successful, it needs to find a way to cater to the one man army because that's where the numbers are. That's why I thought we did well to get the Devs to say they would even consider allowing dedicated drivers via the cert system, even if they haven't yet confirmed it is in.

Thats were the Lightnings come into play. They are single-seater tanks. Granted their not as powerful as the MBT's (at least against ground vehicles) but their still a single seat tank, they can one-man-army in those.

And for the MBT's. Yes, the Dev's have stated that their considering makeing a 'cert' which allows a dedicated 'gunner'. But, as i said earlier in this thread, this should be the other way around. It should be a cert that allows the driver to 'take control' of the gun, not let the 'gunner' take control of the gun. This will let the MBT's be available for those one-man-army people to use, but require them to either spend time as a 'team-player' in a 2 person MBT prior to unlocking it, or spending time in the lighting until they unlock the cert which allows them to take control of the MBT's cannon.

Yes, SOE can cater to the Console FPS crowd, and i think thats just what their doing with the weapon customizing and vehicle customizing (both of which even PS1 players like). I just dont agree with taking part of the 'major' combat experience/gameplay from PS1 and 'down-gradeing' it to fit the pre-existing Console FPS players expected one-man-army playstyle.