Driver/Gunners... NO! [Archive] - Page 2

Azren

2012-07-11, 03:12 PM

See you're already forcing people to be in outfits and on TS. You cannot think of gameplay design with such limitations. That's the problem everybody here is having. They are taking their gameplay design ideas from their own perspective.

I just said that the game's pace has increased quite a bit in Planetside 2. Typing barely works in Planetside 1, especially when you're in a heated battle against multiple opponents and you're doing the best to drive the tank (im usually the driver). It's going to be even more difficult in Plantside 2 as the pace has been increased and there will be far more armor on the map just because the scale has increased.

I know there is built in VoiP, but you cannot force people to use it. There is never a guarantee people are going to use these communication mechanics. You hope they do, but there is no way to guarantee it. Therefor, because of the increased scale and pace, the driver/gunners make sense. They are more in line with what non Planetside vets expect from games of this genre, and they can still be incredibly balanced.

The balance is simple, tanks are easier to kill now. So you will need more tanks working together to support attacks and defenses. Lone wolf tanking won't get you anywhere. It's a different kind of teamwork. It's not removing teamwork.

You are complaining about others having design ideas from their perspective, while you are no different.

You base your idea on the concept that the players will not want to use communication and such throw the idea of teamwork away by default. Only because some players do not want to communicate with others, there is no reason to reduce the main tanks to solo vehicles. The game has a great selection of those already.

Besides, there will be constant communication in organised teams, their teamwork should be rewarded accordingly. The drivergunner setup for mbt is not a reward, it is a drawback.

You should not want a game designed for soloers who are not even sociable enough to communicate or join an outfit and work in a group.

SgtExo

2012-07-11, 03:20 PM

You are complaining about others having design ideas from their perspective, while you are no different.

You base your idea on the concept that the players will not want to use communication and such throw the idea of teamwork away by default. Only because some players do not want to communicate with others, there is no reason to reduce the main tanks to solo vehicles. The game has a great selection of those already.

Besides, there will be constant communication in organised teams, their teamwork should be rewarded accordingly. The drivergunner setup for mbt is not a reward, it is a drawback.

You should not want a game designed for soloers who are not even sociable enough to communicate or join an outfit and work in a group.

I do believe that soloers will consist of the majority of the population, and thus you should not punish soloers, but reward teamwork to encourage soloers to join an outfit.

Think of it like this, instead of forcing ppl to get a gunner which could lead to bad initial gaming session and turn off the interest of a new player who has not had the chance to meet anyone in the game. The tanks allow you to control the main gun and have an extra gunner that could potentially double your lethality and that is a better encouragement to continue playing with ppl and join an outfit.

So it will still be better to work with ppl, but it wont punish new players.

sunzen

2012-07-11, 03:21 PM

In short, just let the driver decide. Let him set the gun free to symbolise he wants someone join the vehicle. Whys that so difficult ?

Zedek

2012-07-11, 04:29 PM

In short, just let the driver decide. Let him set the gun free to symbolise he wants someone join the vehicle. Whys that so difficult ?

Sounds good to me.

Littleman

2012-07-11, 04:54 PM

In short, just let the driver decide. Let him set the gun free to symbolise he wants someone join the vehicle. Whys that so difficult ?

Honestly? Magrider most likely. Though that depends on how well it maneuvers.

In general: We really shouldn't discourage solo play. Yes, there are people out there that have a hard time "breaking the ice" and I mean, a REALLY hard time. At least they'll have something in common with other players they meet: they like Planetside (coming up with interesting conversation topics is another hard part.)

I have not once found a guild/clan with people I meshed well with or even at all, and I've joined a lot across multiple games. I'm a pretty jaded soloist right now...

Encourage team play through organized tank columns, gal drops, gunship bombardments, squad play, etc, but don't unnecessarily hinder a player from experiencing something on their own just because you feel a certain device MUST have two people to run it, when in actuality it really can work with just one person. MBT's are in a league of their own over lightnings. Delegating soloists to the lightning isn't the answer: it's more of a heavy buggy than a tank. People will want to pilot MBT's without hassling for a gunner.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-11, 05:48 PM

In general: We really shouldn't discourage solo play.

I disagree. Most games encourage solo approaches. The whole idea behind Planetside, was I thought, WAS to discourage solo and encourage team. Gal drops, armor columns, etc, that you cite, are examples of team play, yes.

I understand all the different views. I just don't see why so many feel that everything needs to be accessible to everyone. In a way, to me, it is similar to playing an RPG, where they make you wait 'til your such and such level before you can cast "Bigby's Giant Hand of PWNage" (and yes... I did just reference THAT:P).

Having multiple items/vehicles/whatever the REQUIRE multiple people to use is almost like saying "your social skills must be THIS high to use this" :)

The compromise of a cert that allows the two roles to be divided is what we'll wind up with, of that, I'm sure. So, those rooting for that, don't worry :) I just disagree on the implementation of the mechanics behind the whole thing in the first place.

KaB

2012-07-11, 05:50 PM

Sephirex

2012-07-11, 05:53 PM

At the beginning of the worl... of the games, we got solo games. Then later we discovered multiplayer games, which allowed us to play with other players.

Why don't you just go back to solo games in order to... play solo ?

I didn't realize having single driver tanks completely destroys/circumvents all the benefits of this game being multiplayer.

Having a fleet of 1000 ships, and having 1000 men work together to run one ship are both multiplayer. They just require different kinds of tasks/coordination, and it's really coming down to personal preference.

PS: Not that it matters but I prefer the original two man system, but I won't be deeply offended by the switch.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-11, 05:55 PM

Nonsense. We had multiplayer games thousands of years ago. I'm sure throwing rocks at your neighbors was kind of the pre-cursor to that Newspaper Boy game Nintendo made :)

KaB

2012-07-11, 05:56 PM

I didn't realize having single driver tanks completely destroys/circumvents all the benefits of this game being multiplayer.

It was supposed to speak to people tellling that we shouldn't discourage solo play [in multiplayer games].

Steambot

2012-07-11, 05:56 PM

Personally, I plan on playing solo, to start out with at least. The game should encourage team play, but it shouldn't discourage solo.

On the subject of tanks, I don't care. Either way, I plan on trying to shoot aircraft out of the air with the main gun. I enjoy doing this in other games, (most notably Warhawk, although I know it has a completely different gameplay style) and although I was generally driving the tank and firing at the same time, I don't mind if it's immobile while I'm doing it.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-11, 06:04 PM

Littleman

2012-07-11, 06:12 PM

I do like the increased projectile speeds. You might actually be able to hit something with them now!

Without first aiming at the sky!

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-11, 06:14 PM

Without first aiming at the sky!

The tank tutorial should start with the phrase :

"In order to hit something 100 feet away, aim like it's a mile away" :)

Raymac

2012-07-11, 07:01 PM

At the beginning of the worl... of the games, we got solo games. Then later we discovered multiplayer games, which allowed us to play with other players.

Why don't you just go back to solo games in order to... play solo ? And let us having a full profit from the multiplayer games. Thanks.

Or you could not be an elitist jerk and let people play the way they want to play.
-You want to spend hours raiding with your outfit? Have at it.
-You want to just jump in for 20 mins and have a good time shooting things? Have at it.

Planetside has never been about 1 style of play. Plus, we all know that simply being in an organized group gives you a clear advantage. Letting a driver shoot a tank cannon isn't going to change that.

Figment

2012-07-11, 07:14 PM

Hands up those players that go "NANANANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU I HAVE BLIND TRUST IN THE DEVS YOU SHOULD FOLLOW OUR NEW GODS".

For you are testament to humanity's state in past, present and future. Good job. Keep up the good work lads!

Criticasters are by definition wrong! Columbus was wrong! Copernicus was wrong! WHAT DID THEY KNOW? They hadn't been on the other side of the world yet! They hadn't been on the sun and checked if the earth rotated around it rather than the other way around!

After all, what could consistent observers, testers and field experts possibly have that people that ignore all sensory input have not?

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-11, 07:18 PM

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9903/splosion.png

Raymac

2012-07-11, 07:19 PM

Sephirex

2012-07-11, 07:20 PM

SnipeGrzywa

2012-07-11, 07:38 PM

Nonsense. We had multiplayer games thousands of years ago. I'm sure throwing rocks at your neighbors was kind of the pre-cursor to that Newspaper Boy game Nintendo made :)

Love this.

Or you could not be an elitist jerk and let people play the way they want to play.

Like most internet threads we are WAY off topic. (BTW, it should be mandatory for these types of threads to have polls, therefore no matter how sidetracked the comments get we still have a base line what players think).

This question isn't about the way YOU want to play. It should be about the way the GAME is played IMO. So all this arguing over playstyles is a waste.

As far as balancing gameplay - MBTs (Vanguard, Prowler, and Magrider) are the biggest land vehicles in game. To balance this, it should require more to utilize it. This game is all about trade-offs. Want most armor and firepower, get a team. Don't, then get a weaker vehicle.

Now, my opinion is that the problem isn't so much that the driver is a gunner, its that the driver is the MAIN gunner. I got no problem with the driver having a smaller gun (like Magrider from PS1). But the fact the driver is controlling the main gun is a little disconcerting.

And I know this game isn't 100% realistic, but with it being a full blown war I think it should be more realistic then it is. There isn't a vehicle in the world that the driver controls a weapon (to be safe gonna say a non-fixed place weapon lol).

Xyntech

2012-07-11, 07:47 PM

Especially now that secondary guns aren't going to be worthless, I really am kind of surprised that they don't just go with giving the driver control of the secondary gun.

I guess it will depend how powerful the secondary gunner AV gun variants are (I believe there has been mention of the option of a TOW missile?). If the gunners AV gun is just as strong as the drivers gun (or stronger) against vehicles, then this really may be a moot point. Dedicated tank killers will want an AV gunner to ensure swift victory, while everyone else will want AA or AI turrets to help defend against threats that the driver can't deal with as effectively.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-11, 07:50 PM

Like most internet threads we are WAY off topic. (BTW, it should be mandatory for these types of threads to have polls, therefore no matter how sidetracked the comments get we still have a base line what players think).

True. I thought of that well after I started the thread. I can see if I can add a poll, though I'm sure it's been done before, it was before my time. Obviously, people are still interested in arguing about it, so... Why not?

-edit

I don't think I can change that now. On that note, from closely watching, it seems about 45/45 division with the remain 10% wanting both :) 'bout what you'd expect, I suppose.

Sephirex

2012-07-11, 07:55 PM

Especially now that secondary guns aren't going to be worthless, I really am kind of surprised that they don't just go with giving the driver control of the secondary gun..

If the secondary gun is quite powerful, I no longer have a problem with the driver having the main cannon. A one man tank will then be quite gimped when it meets a 2 man tank.

mintyc

2012-07-11, 07:57 PM

my main two problems with the driver guning a MBT is, number 1 the Lightning. why take an AV lightning onto the battlefield when you can just get a MBT and main gun it all by yourself, it may cost a little more to get one out but you will have a bigger gun, more armour and you wont have to run away like a little girl when you meet one of the big tanks out in the field.

number 2, if i want to see wher i am going i am going to have to take the main gun off what i am shooting at and point it forward, however i would be fine with the driver gunning the secondery wepon, this would mean that the driver can focus on driveing without loseing the main gun when the driver needs to look at whats in front so he can avoid the trees, rocks and cliffs. also the driver will still have a way to kill things without haveing to wait for a cloker to wander in front of him.

i realy hope the driver main guning changes befor launch. if not we will be seeing very few AV lightnings and more than a few MBT's driveing into and off things during fire fight's.

Bobby Shaftoe

2012-07-11, 07:58 PM

Well, you certainly are a Planetside vet. You are bitching about balance on the forums before you even touch the game. Bravo, Nostradamus. :rolleyes:

Thanks.

Maybe if you guys actually wanted to use some gameplay/mechanical reasons for balancing this rather than 'what you think, the devs think, the BF/CoD players can manage.' Not only that, we actually have people in this thread saying they want people to be able to solo play, yet are happy with forcing Infantry to now have another 2 classes support them to be effective. You're apparently happy for this due to gameplay balance, yet this, for some bizarre reason, is not applicable to vehicles.

It's like you guys have some inverse belief, where the more powerful something is, the less people need to make it effective.

If you don't see a problem with this inconsistency regarding balance, mechanics and the problems this will bring up, then there's not really a lot I can help you with.

Sephirex

2012-07-11, 07:59 PM

forcing Infantry to now have another 2 classes support them to be effective. You're apparently happy for this due to gameplay balance, yet this, for some bizarre reason, is not applicable to vehicles.

Tanks need heals from engineers and ammo from vehicles specced for supplies, so it's not like they're fully independent.

The secondary turret is quite powerful, so it should encourage pairing up in the big tanks, while not discouraging players without an immediate gunner in the area from prepping a tank up for battle.

I really want to see Beta before making a decision on this though. My big fear is the Lightning will be pointless.

Figment

2012-07-11, 08:02 PM

Child, please. Your side are the ones that fear change. :lol:

Ehr no.

We don't fear change, we fear stupidity. And we can recognize stupidity whereas you embrace it under the pretends that all change is at all times probably good.

You know how much changes I approve or would approve of if they implemented them? MORE than you can think of. Why? Because I'm experienced and you're being a narrowminded, tunnelvisioned fool who despite of all the warning lights and pre-existing knowledge lemmings after the other lemmings down a cliff.

Great. A ravine is a change from solid rock under your ground. No need to "fear" change! Just experience that kinda suggests that standing on air doesn't quite work properly.

Raymac

2012-07-11, 08:04 PM

Like most internet threads we are WAY off topic. (BTW, it should be mandatory for these types of threads to have polls, therefore no matter how sidetracked the comments get we still have a base line what players think).

This question isn't about the way YOU want to play. It should be about the way the GAME is played IMO. So all this arguing over playstyles is a waste.

As far as balancing gameplay - MBTs (Vanguard, Prowler, and Magrider) are the biggest land vehicles in game. To balance this, it should require more to utilize it. This game is all about trade-offs. Want most armor and firepower, get a team. Don't, then get a weaker vehicle.

Now, my opinion is that the problem isn't so much that the driver is a gunner, its that the driver is the MAIN gunner. I got no problem with the driver having a smaller gun (like Magrider from PS1). But the fact the driver is controlling the main gun is a little disconcerting.

And I know this game isn't 100% realistic, but with it being a full blown war I think it should be more realistic then it is. There isn't a vehicle in the world that the driver controls a weapon (to be safe gonna say a non-fixed place weapon lol).

1) If there was a poll, it would end up the same as nearly every single poll on here. Most people vote to keep things exactly as they were in PS1. If this game was being designed by the polls on this site, they would have just done the Planetside Next reskin that they originally planned.

2) The point I was trying to make is exactly what you said. This shouldn't be about forcing a certain play style (only highly coordinated teams or only solo). The game should be big enough to encompass many different ways to enjoy it.

3) Yeah, 1 way to balance the MBT is to "require" more people to utilize it. I would prefer if the game "encouraged" more people to utilize it because I believe it makes it more fun for more people. Also, there are plenty of other ways to balance out the MBT like infantry AV weapons, terrain, speed, armor, etc. etc.

4) As for "there isn't 1 vehicle in the world"...how about the A-10?

Figment

2012-07-11, 08:05 PM

I loved the two seater tanks. But that being said, wait til Beta before getting the torches and pitchforks together. It's pretty much a whole new game, and we don't know what forces will be at play. This is not a Planetside patch.

Then why are some people here allowed to argue it can work? They don't know it "either".

In fact, they don't apply any pre-knowledge whatsoever and even claim we don't know things we can clearly see in footage.

How can we ever know something if we're not allowed to use observations?

Sephirex

2012-07-11, 08:10 PM

Then why are some people here allowed to argue it can work? They don't know it "either".

I'm not allowing/disallowing anything, just quoting arguments that strike me as false on both sides as I see them.
I personally want full two seaters. But I'm willing to wait to see actual full scale natural battles, not pre-prepared E3 battles.

Raymac

2012-07-11, 08:13 PM

Ehr no.

We don't fear change, we fear stupidity. And we can recognize stupidity whereas you embrace it under the pretends that all change is at all times probably good.

You know how much changes I approve or would approve of if they implemented them? MORE than you can think of. Why? Because I'm experienced and you're being a narrowminded, tunnelvisioned fool who despite of all the warning lights and pre-existing knowledge lemmings after the other lemmings down a cliff.

Great. A ravine is a change from solid rock under your ground. No need to "fear" change! Just experience that kinda suggests that standing on air doesn't quite work properly.

Child, please. Keep the ad hominum attacks to a PM to me.

Chad Ochocinco- Child Please - YouTube

Figment

2012-07-11, 08:32 PM

Child, please. Keep the ad hominum attacks to a PM to me.

Hey kid. Who used the first personal ad hominum rather than a parody on stupid behaviour? You.

I never named you explicitly, but apparently you felt summoned by the previous post that made you call me a "child". (That's an ad hominum, btw).

In fact, I asked to raise hands and only those would fall under the category of stupidity. Are you saying you raised your hand, kid?

For the record, this is how I envision ONE OPTION for an AMS Mk3. One option. Clearly, I don't want to change a single thing! Kid.

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Planetside%20Vehicle%20Concepts/AMS_Mk3_01.jpg
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Planetside%20Vehicle%20Concepts/AMS_Mk3_02.jpg
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Planetside%20Vehicle%20Concepts/AMS_Mk3_03.jpg
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Planetside%20Vehicle%20Concepts/AMS_Mk3_04.jpg
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=774877&postcount=27

See the thread for more thorough conversations on the whole, with plenty of critique regarding the PS1 designs. Also note that I do not support every customization option listed there, as I'm positive some of them would be heavily abused and make defense in particular extremely hard. I simply explored the options to see what effects they'd have.

Btw, see how annoying "Child"-trolling is and how little you actually know of my understanding and vision of the game? I'm not someone who "just wants PS1" as you're so foolishly claiming every time you lose the debate on lack of support for your case and constantly having to reach for the same argument theist grasp: faith and 'it's just theory'.

The devs designed PS2 based on theory. Please... Realise that.

Raymac

2012-07-11, 08:43 PM

Playing the "you started it card"? Really?

I'm not even going to engange in the rest of your typical wall of text rant because it is the very essence of off-topic. I've gone round and round with you on this topic enough on another thread that I don't think either of us want to rehash it. It sounds like this is already a settled issue for the devs anyways. I suggest you use your debating skills and try a thought experiment by genuinely arguing in favor of driver/gunner. Maybe that way you will be able to see my point of view instead of just saying I'm a mindless stupid lemming.

Aberdash

2012-07-11, 08:44 PM

This thread is some pretty compelling evidence that PS1 players are among the whiniest groups in pc gaming. You don't hate this because it's bad you hate it because it's different or because it's in battlefield 3. It also shows that a lot of them are idiots because they think saying it's in another game is proof it's bad.

Figment

2012-07-11, 08:44 PM

I'm not allowing/disallowing anything, just quoting arguments that strike me as false on both sides as I see them.

Fair enough.

But I'm willing to wait to see actual full scale natural battles, not pre-prepared E3 battles.

The E3 battles were telling mostly about primal and intuitive player behaviours.

Basically the majority of zerglings. As E3 progressed there was some evolution in the fighting's complexity. But all in all it was abysmal, certainly. That said, it gave tons of information about the weaponry, TTKs, endurance, weapon and capture systems and most importantly, terrain.

Even more information that's less prepared we've seen in around 20 hours of other footage.

The basics of all systems are more than known. To pretend we're oblivious to anything and everything like some people keep doing here is absolutely retarded. There's no other word for it.

I suggest you use your debating skills and try a thought experiment by genuinely arguing in favor of driver/gunner. Maybe that way you will be able to see my point of view instead of just saying I'm a mindless stupid lemming.

Oh like I've never done that before. Cheers. <3

Like here, in this thread on page 10?

Alright... here we go AGAIN...

I absolutely hate the idea of a driver/gunner in PlanetSide and will ALWAYS support driver + REQUIRED gunner over the first.

Wrote a huge rant about it, but the argumentation is known.

Basically the argumentation of the people in favour of solo MBTs:

"Just driving is not fun!"
BULL! Speak for yourself, not for everyone else! You're a tiny minority! I don't know anyone who I play with who thinks driving is boring. That's over 150 PS players on my list! Not one of them thinks it's boring! Weird, because the few supporters always try to make it seem an universal known fact.

"I can't find gunners!"
BULL! You just don't know where to look! HINT: NOT at the end of the vehicle terminal and stop driving Raiders! Don't wait behind a vehicle pad, but on the path from base to vpad! Because everyone assumes no ride is available and thus will first go for the term and by then they already summoned their own vehicle! If the base/CY is almost empty, look near towers, look near AMSes near the edge of a battlefield! Those people are in need of transportation and LOVE gunner positions because they don't have to go back and get their own vehicle!

"People from other games want solo vehicles!"
BULL! If that was true, we wouldn't be having this discussion! We're all originally from solo play games and we all grown accustomed to it! And we like it so much we have very heated, passionate debate over it!

"But multicrew vehicles will still be better when you got a gunner!"
BULL! Because why would you get a gunner, if you can get double the hitpoints by getting another tank with instant switch-multirole weapons that are even more powerful?

"But multicrew vehicles will be able to fend of aircraft better!"
BULL! Because in PS2 it appears you can instantly switch between driver and secondary gunner position! Which means that despite having to stand still, you have equal AA power if you brought the custom gun and if you brought another tank you have double the AA power, while both a single and multicrew tank die equally fast to hits, meaning two tanks is better again as when one dies the other still continues to fire.

"But the resource system will balance that!"
Probably bull! By the above argumentation, teamwork vehicles drain faster because they're underpowered in comparison to groups of solo-vehicles.

I've not heard a single even slightly convincing argument in favour of multicrew vehicles being driven solo.

Personally, I'm almost under the impression the entire goal of the change is to encourage people to drive as many vehicles solo as possible for three reasons:

1. The devs think in zerg play more than team game play and therefore intend to have as many vehicles out there as possible.

2. The more vehicles are out there, the more people will buy customized parts and skins.

3. More tanks means a larger drain on resources, so it might be in the hope that people go through their resources faster and thus either buy some boosters or have to gun or grunt after all.

None of those three arguments appeals to me.
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=777897&postcount=145

I think you missed them due to this:

I'm not even going to engange in the rest of your typical wall of text rant

So just because you do...

"NANANANANANANAANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"

...as per usual, you get to say I never say anything on the topic. Right. Got ya.

SnipeGrzywa

2012-07-11, 08:48 PM

4) As for "there isn't 1 vehicle in the world"...how about the A-10?

we were talking about tanks in this thread, thought it would be obvious i was referring to ground vehicles . . . No one is bitching that the attack aircraft are 1 seaters.

And also, all its guns are in fixed positions, he moves the plane, not the weapons, to do attacks. Or targeting for guided missiles/bombs, but again, that's the ammunition moving, not the guns. So my safety net disqualifies it anyways. :)

Aberdash

2012-07-11, 08:50 PM

Why exactly are some people fine with aircraft only requiring 1 person but throw a hissy fit when a ground vehicle only needs 1 person?

Figment

2012-07-11, 08:51 PM

4) As for "there isn't 1 vehicle in the world"...how about the A-10?

Oh yeah that single purpose niche vehicle that makes tons of design decisions based on one specific role. You mean the exact opposite of what the PS2 devs do. Gotcha.

Why exactly are some people fine with aircraft only requiring 1 person but throw a hissy fit when a ground vehicle only needs 1 person?

Who says we're all fine with that? I'm not fine with a solo jack of all trades aircav at all and a lot of others aren't either unless it makes serious concessions (is a true single purpose vehicle) and is significantly weaker than multi-crew vehicles. You probably missed the massive debates about the Reaver in PS1 (and aircav benefits in general)?

Aberdash

2012-07-11, 09:00 PM

Who says we're all fine with that? I'm not fine with a solo jack of all trades aircav at all and a lot of others aren't either unless it makes serious concessions (is a true single purpose vehicle) and is significantly weaker than multi-crew vehicles. You probably missed the massive debates about the Reaver in PS1 (and aircav benefits in general)?I didn't say everyone was fine with it. From what I've read, if I see call of duty or battefield I just move on to the next post, nobody is complaining about mosquitoes, reavers, or scythes requiring only 1 person. Those are certainly more effective than any ground based vehicle.

mintyc

2012-07-11, 09:07 PM

Why exactly are some people fine with aircraft only requiring 1 person but throw a hissy fit when a ground vehicle only needs 1 person?

one is a lightly armoured aircraft that can be taken down by a couple of missles the other is a tank with a large amount of armour and a gun that can kill troopers in one hit and makes any ground vehicle that isent a MBT, wet themselves.

everyone who played PS1 when BFR's got put in knows what can go wrong when you give a driver powerful wepons and large ammount of armour.

Figment

2012-07-11, 09:08 PM

I didn't say everyone was fine with it. From what I've read, if I see call of duty or battefield I just move on to the next post, nobody is complaining about mosquitoes, reavers, or scythes requiring only 1 person. Those are certainly more effective than any ground based vehicle.

Depends on the job. Certainly seems they're easier to take out or goat into a tree or rock with reduced TTK and more focus on keeping it airborn (loads of crashes on the slightest mistake).

I think that's why most aren't too worried about it. Plus the transportation role which was their main power is overruled by the new mission and respawn system: that's far more effective to relocate troops instantly to friendly held territory (right now, too effective, probably).

I'd be more concerned with that. Spec. Ops suffer on all counts.

Aberdash

2012-07-11, 09:10 PM

one is a lightly armoured aircraft that can be taken down by a couple of missles the other is a tank with a large amount of armour and a gun that can kill troopers in one hit and makes any ground vehicle that isent a MBT, wet themselves.I'm thinking you didn't see those rocket volleys during E3.

Depends on the job. Certainly seems they're easier to take out or goat into a tree or rock with reduced TTK and more focus on keeping it airborn (loads of crashes on the slightest mistake).Crashing seemed to be a problem for the NC more than anyone one else. TR and VS were typically shot out of the sky by other aircraft. As for being easier to take out if you get a lock on them they can just use their flares.

mintyc

2012-07-11, 09:20 PM

I'm thinking you didn't see those rocket volleys during E3.

no i did see it. did you see how fast they droped out of the sky when someone pulled an AA max or decided to do a little dog fighting?

Aberdash

2012-07-11, 09:22 PM

no i did see it. did you see how fast they droped out of the sky when someone pulled an AA max or decided to do a little dog fighting?Guess what. AV takes out tanks pretty fast too.

Raymac

2012-07-11, 09:25 PM

Oh like I've never done that before. Cheers. <3

Like here, in this thread on page 10?

Yeah. I actually did miss that. Thanks for taking the time to repost it. It's fair to say I disagree with all of your "Bull..." statements, but that's not a shock. What you did in that post wasn't exactly what I meant. I meant give it an honest chance instead of simply acknowledging the bullet points. Maybe you did give it an honest chance, I don't know. I know I'm not going to change your mind, but I don't think you are an idiot for having your point of view. I just don't think you should believe that people who disagree with you are idiots either.

mintyc

2012-07-11, 09:30 PM

Guess what. AV takes out tanks pretty fast too.

and do you think its going to stay that way after testing?

keep in mind players are going to be spending recorces on geting tanks out.

TheDAWinz

2012-07-11, 09:32 PM

Oh yeah that single purpose niche vehicle that makes tons of design decisions based on one specific role. You mean the exact opposite of what the PS2 devs do. Gotcha.

Who says we're all fine with that? I'm not fine with a solo jack of all trades aircav at all and a lot of others aren't either unless it makes serious concessions (is a true single purpose vehicle) and is significantly weaker than multi-crew vehicles. You probably missed the massive debates about the Reaver in PS1 (and aircav benefits in general)?

You're gay go die lolololololol :rofl:

-Decent argument. Thank you, thank you. +10 intewebz to me.

Thats all i hear when you try to debate.

Aberdash

2012-07-11, 09:34 PM

and do you think its going to stay that way after testing?

keep in mind players are going to be spending recorces on geting tanks out.With explosives, engineers AV turret, AV maxes and HA they'd have to make tanks stupidly overpowered to hold up for long against them. And that isn't including any air based AV.

mintyc

2012-07-11, 09:46 PM

With explosives, engineers AV turret, AV maxes and HA they'd have to make tanks stupidly overpowered to hold up for long against them. And that isn't including any air based AV.

you are right that is exactly what they will have to do or else no one is going to use tanks, why would they if they cant actualy survive for a reasonable ammount of time after spending recorces to get the damn thing in the first place. this is a combind arms game afterall, the devs will want us to use tanks.

so now we are in the position of haveing a stupidly overpowered tank with its most powerfull wepon all under the controll of one guy.

Littleman

2012-07-11, 09:48 PM

and do you think its going to stay that way after testing?

keep in mind players are going to be spending recorces on geting tanks out.

AV takes out tanks quickly striking from their sides and especially their rear. The front armor is highly mitigating, even towards other tank shells. This is mostly based off of Higby's stream. The Prowler looked like hell after taking a single shot from the vanguard to the rear, but it didn't seem fazed by a shot to the front.

The Vangaurd displayed the vice versa at the same time, nearly no damage from a shot to the front, and a lot when the prowler struck Higby's vanguard in the rear.

All in all, it doesn't seem to matter what you bring, attacking a tank's front is suicide, but flanking around and striking it's rear will bring it down near effortlessly. This knowledge on it's own encourages teamwork, either through close infantry support, the secondary gunner guarding against flanking infantry, or other tanks keeping watch from behind.

A lone tank would be easy pickings for an infil or LA with C4. Seems pretty much everyone but the medic has some anti-armor capability, even if some methods are riskier than others.

EightEightEight

2012-07-11, 10:00 PM

Why exactly are some people fine with aircraft only requiring 1 person but throw a hissy fit when a ground vehicle only needs 1 person?

if you want a single person vehicle there is the Flash and the Lighting go nuts stay away from the prowler magrider and the vanguard those should be multi-player

mintyc

2012-07-11, 10:05 PM

AV takes out tanks quickly striking from their sides and especially their rear. The front armor is highly mitigating, even towards other tank shells. This is mostly based off of Higby's stream. The Prowler looked like hell after taking a single shot from the vanguard to the rear, but it didn't seem fazed by a shot to the front.

The Vangaurd displayed the vice versa at the same time, nearly no damage from a shot to the front, and a lot when the prowler struck Higby's vanguard in the rear.

All in all, it doesn't seem to matter what you bring, attacking a tank's front is suicide, but flanking around and striking it's rear will bring it down near effortlessly. This knowledge on it's own encourages teamwork, either through close infantry support, the secondary gunner guarding against flanking infantry, or other tanks keeping watch from behind.

A lone tank would be easy pickings for an infil or LA with C4. Seems pretty much everyone but the medic has some anti-armor capability, even if some methods are riskier than others.

C4 will only work as a trap or if the tank is stoped and the LA or cloker is dead if the tank sees them coming.

the simple fact is the devs want us to use vehicles they are not going to make them an easy thing to kill, no one would use them if they did. especialy against infantry. given that one guy is going to make mince meat of small groups of infantry as he is both driver and main gunner of a MBT.

if i am going to be demolished on foot by a MBT i at lest want a minimum of 2 guys working as a team to do it in a MBT. if you want to main gun your own tank, thats what the lighting is for.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-11, 10:26 PM

1) If there was a poll, it would end up the same as nearly every single poll on here. Most people vote to keep things exactly as they were in PS1. If this game was being designed by the polls on this site, they would have just done the Planetside Next reskin that they originally planned.

Ummm.... If indeed that is true... That statement kind of speaks for itself. What happened to "majority rules"? Or does that only apply when it doesn't conflict with what YOU (not necessarily YOU you, YOU as in the reader) want?

I no longer care about the great debate, really. It is mostly out of our hands, and the mechanic has been settled on (1 man, with 2 as a certifiable option). I do find some of arguments to be idiotic, though...

-edit

I do think all the tank rambos to be quite laughable, though :)

maradine

2012-07-11, 10:39 PM

C4 will only work as a trap or if the tank is stoped and the LA or cloker is dead if the tank sees them coming.

There is empirical evidence that this is not the case. In Battlefield 3, where MBTs were driven and gunned by the same person, had a supplemental guy on the .50, and had an equip-able point defense motion tracker to boot, C4 was a deadly threat. If you were in tight quarters, you were inviting a steady stream of Support characters crawling out of the woodwork with plastic explosives in hand.

Yeah, you shot up more than half of them on the way in. They still got you if you kept close to cover.

Armor is dead in tight quarters - don't discount the boomers yet.

Arkanor

2012-07-11, 11:26 PM

I do think all the tank rambos to be quite laughable, though :)

Can you explain what there is to do in video game tanks if you're *not* manning the driver's seat and the gun? They're simple to drive and simple to shoot with, it's not rocket surgery. Most people will be less effective not manning both positions, imagine playing as infantry but you can only WASD and someone else has to use your mouse?

I see far more tanks in games (that require 2x tank crew) just being driven off solo to prevent people from using "their gun". With people paying for their MBT's with resources I think we'll see more people try to hog tanks than use them with a crew. Given the very broad F2P audience that's probably as likely as anything.

If I had to purchase a tank only to be able to drive, you bet your ass I'd be in the Lightning every single time, at that point it's just going to be better than an MBT. Call me Rambo if you want but it's extremely inefficient to try to link two brains through a VOIP chat compared to running the limited processing required in just one. Maybe if they actually put enough to driving the tanks so that each person is OCCUPIED in their role instead of just idling 97% of their brain it would make more sense, but most people don't want Planetside to be a tank simulator.

wOOtbEEr

2012-07-11, 11:34 PM

I'd like to have the option to give the main gun over to the gunner but i think too much of the design is already in place for the one man tank with optional secondary gunner. the Mag has a fixed gun now so no two man crew for the VS. And what are they going to do with the current secondary weapons? Give them to the driver?

I think our best bet is to hope for a nanite systems heavy tank sometime after release with a crew of 2 or more.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-11, 11:47 PM

@Arkanor

The primary reason most people who don't like driver/gunners don't like them (for MBTs) is that the concept of one man MBTs (even if it IS a video game) is ridiculous. It also alters how things need to be balanced.

To use an example that does not "take sides" the concept I mean about balancing is as follows:

If you have a one man "tank", it needs to be balanced so that it is not OP against other things. If that tank goes up against one infantryman, or a small group of infantrymen (depending on the balance leaning they give it) it needs to perform so-and-so, that those infantry have certain "odds" of survival/success.

If you have a two or three man "tank, the way in which it is balanced is going to be quite different, because it no longer represents "one person's firepower" it now represents "three people's combined firepower", resulting in a completely different "formula" for the balance.

I also see many people saying "most people don't want this-or-that" (in your case "tank simulator") when there is a very heated debate here, of which at least 50% of the people take the opposite side of your argument. You can consider the other side "foolish" or "stupid" or "over complicated" or whatever you want, but you cannot claim a majority opinion here.

I'm on the exact opposite side of the debate (I think one man battle tanks are completely retarded no matter how they're balanced or what the reasoning is. The idea itself is stupid) but I have not claimed a clear 'majority' of opinion. Although, one of my opponents has suggested that if a poll was run, my side of the argument would win.

I see lots of people complaining for the sake of complaining, I'll concede, on both sides of the arguments. Some people will argue about ANYTHING (go say it's a nice day). I will say, that even stepping back and ignoring my personal opinion, the arguments AGAINST 1-man MBTs (the ones that actually have some substance besides NO YOU, that is) at least "make sense", whereas most the arguments FOR 1-man MBTs are generally "because I want to be able to solo a BIG tank, not just a little one". Although "personal desire" is a legitimate reason to want something, it is not itself a "sound argument".

The ones with the most substance for 1-man MBTs are generally complaints about the sometime awkwardness involved in finding "good help". While potentially annoying, this breaks down to "involve yourself with the community and make a friend or two, it is a MMO, afterall". Likewise people presenting the time constraint or casual player argument, this, again, breaks down to "it's an MMO! If you don't or can't interact with other people, then why are you playing an MMO?" Or being "forced" to interact with others, or join an outfit... Yeah... Imagine an MMO that involves a majority of design choices revolving around people playing together. It's much like order a burger from McDonald's then complaining that it's fattening. Of course... A lot of people do that, too. A lot... and they win lawsuits over it, too... Sad... But I digress.

I am biased and am not necessarily trying to present a "balanced" argument, because I don't consider it a "balanced" topic. I consider it a stupid topic. It's a feature I don't like and want gone. It's not PS1/PS2 thing... It's an anything thing. I think the idea is dumb. Anyway, I hope during Beta the one or two nonsense issues like this get ironed out by my angry tanker brothers around the world :P

CorvicM

2012-07-12, 12:56 AM

RedOctober I think that was the most constructive and mostly neutral thing I have read here.

also do not get mad at me for this but those saying wait for beta, as a game design student myself and from the beta tests i have been in, thats the exact reason shit doesn't change. Because they then have everything "Set in stone" instead of listening to feedback and possibly changing things.

Also im all for the cert for it but from the sounds of it they kinda have said no to that....

Baneblade

2012-07-12, 01:21 AM

Third person in a MBT wasn't good in PS1. Two people including driver was the better way unless you are adding a third person's worth of firepower to the setup. People shouldn't be penalized for operating within the role of the vehicle, the MBT being that of a two person crewed tank that chews through whatever it has turrets slotted for.

I'm going to keep repeating the stuff lots of people have said here, it doesn't have to be one or the other. It can easily be both.

There is no reason the MG gun can't be as good against infantry as the main gun is against vehicles. Especially since these are no longer practically immune to infantry like they are in PS1. The 15mm Prowler gun sucked, sure it was damage, but it was terrible for hitting infantry. So are the Van's 20mms. Now that tanks can't laugh at infantry like in PS1, they should be able to do damage against infantry without having to make the main gun necessary for it.

Then we will have no trouble getting two gunners.

Azren

2012-07-12, 01:22 AM

I do believe that soloers will consist of the majority of the population, and thus you should not punish soloers, but reward teamwork to encourage soloers to join an outfit.

Think of it like this, instead of forcing ppl to get a gunner which could lead to bad initial gaming session and turn off the interest of a new player who has not had the chance to meet anyone in the game. The tanks allow you to control the main gun and have an extra gunner that could potentially double your lethality and that is a better encouragement to continue playing with ppl and join an outfit.

So it will still be better to work with ppl, but it wont punish new players.

Rest assured, soloers will not be the majority, players will be dependent on support for repair and healing. It will get frustrating when you see healers running past you just because you are not part of their platoon and they wont bother healing you. Just one example, but this can be applied to other parts of the game aswell.

How is turing MBT into a driver/driver setup punishing soloers? Currently there is only one vehicle in game where the gunner gets the bigger role and that is the liberator, while the soloers get the attack aircraft, light tank, flash (will see how good that one is).

Here is the question not answered before: why turn the MBT into a solo vehicle when there already is a solo tank avaiable?

Raymac

2012-07-12, 01:24 AM

Ummm.... If indeed that is true... That statement kind of speaks for itself. What happened to "majority rules"?

Fuck "majority rules" when it comes to designing something. I don't want a game (or anything for that matter) designed by committee. Now that doesn't mean you completely ignore what people have to say about design choices (i.e. Scythe vs. Dyson) but I'd rather see a book/movie/game that is a realized vision.

Now it may turn out that I'm wrong about the driver/gunner thing, but I see far more pros than cons, especially when you factor in the secondary gunner. I'm reminded of the impotence of prowlers with no chain gunner, and libs or gals with no tail gunner.

As great as Planetside is, and as much as I love the game, I'm thrilled that they are not just updating the graphics.

As for this particular issue, I think there is a middle ground to be found, and I'm certain the devs will take the players' opinions into account, just as they've done from the start.

Superbus

2012-07-12, 01:27 AM

Fuck "majority rules" when it comes to designing something. I don't want a game (or anything for that matter) designed by committee. Now that doesn't mean you completely ignore what people have to say about design choices (i.e. Scythe vs. Dyson) but I'd rather see a book/movie/game that is a realized vision.

Well said.

Ratstomper

2012-07-12, 01:30 AM

Here is the question not answered before: why turn the MBT into a solo vehicle when there already is a solo tank avaiable?

I'll say that the ONLY reason I didn't cert for Vanguard in PS1 was because I knew that I would have to tote some random jerk around so he could get all the kills and shoot all the targets and have all the fun. That was assuming it wasn't a drooling retard that got in the gunner spot. Too much resource and effort for not enough of a payoff.

Just because the drivers have control of the main gun now doesn't make them one-man tanks. They're still clearly 2-man vehicles. The only difference between PS1 MBTs and PS2 MBTs is that now the majority of the benefit is going to the guy who spent the resources and certs on the tank and BOTH guys in the tank are now actively attacking, because PS1 MBTs required you to only use one gun at a time. This makes MBTs much more offensively viable (and more fun).

Highwind

2012-07-12, 01:59 AM

Its really about having enough complexity the way I see it. Up to a point complexity adds challenge and depth to a game. Driver gunning adds positive complexity to tank driving by raising the skill cap required to operate a tank as best as humanly possible. In PS1 you could "max out" your driving skill easily I would say, learning all the ins and outs of the game and the game engine in not too much time. Then after mastering driving you are going to continue to drive that same way for 9 years and have fun? Maybe, but not for the majority of players.

All of this speaks only to the driver and HIS gun, but there will be the 2nd gunner TOO. Now taking into account the 2nd gunner and the driver as a team operating the tank there is now a much wider spectrum of skills to measure the tank's performance by. Under the new system a skilled TEAM of players both manning a tank and using good TEAMWORK can both utilize their skill at focusing targets and aiming, while also driving effectively to out perform any solo-tank out there and many 2 man ones through reliable skillful team play.

All of the rambo solo-tank talk is funny, because if the devs have done their job they have already provided an in game answer to it... making a skilled 2 man tank crush them, until they learn to get a gunner of their own.

My theory is classic PS1 drivers enjoy the simpler "driving only" game play and don't feel like rising to the new challenge of PS2 by adding a new trick to their skill set. Rise to the occasion guys and be positive... this is a chance for you to DO more, to PLAY more, and to show off your SKILL as a player while driving AND gunning. Teamwork isn't going away.

ThermalReaper

2012-07-12, 02:09 AM

Wait, how come when I suggested an option to give control of the gunner it was ignored and some elitist made fun that someone would be boring enough to be a dedicated driver?

Bobby Shaftoe

2012-07-12, 03:21 AM

All of the rambo solo-tank talk is funny, because if the devs have done their job they have already provided an in game answer to it... making a skilled 2 man tank crush them, until they learn to get a gunner of their own.

Do you honestly believe that stuff you typed out?

Why would you bother having 1 tank with 2 people when you can be 'skillful' and have 2 tanks with a person each?

Please tell me how well do you think your secondary armament is going to match up to another whole tank?

All this is doing is shifting 'teamwork' from within a single vehicle (ie Driver AND a gunner), to 'teamwork' starting at multiple vehicles (Driver/gunners)

It's bizarre how people rationalise the driver now being the main gunner too with PS1 anecdotes of never being able to find primary weapon gunners and now bizarrely think you're going to get people swarming your driver/gunner vehicles now to sit in the piddly secondary weapons position in PS2. You also somehow think your 'awesome teamwork' skills are going to match up to 2 people just pulling 2 solo MBTs.

You guys.:huh:

Figment

2012-07-12, 03:44 AM

Bobby, they're all hypocrites that just "don't want anything to change before beta" so it reaches beta unchanged as they know nothing significant will change in beta anymore, so they will continue to stall our feedback and pretend we're only here because we hate change. :/

"Nothing is as permanent as temporary."

Not because we actually simply weighed the alternatives and consider one thing that happened to be the way PS1 did it, to be better.

Take the people bringing up the Prowler's third crew member. They completely ignore that that entire balance issue is resolved if you either make the other two tanks require two gunners as well, OR if you make the Prowler require just one gunner as well.

No, instead they pretend it's only sorted if you create solo-mbts. Which is a solution out of left field that doesn't make any sense.

The same for people that think it's hard to get gunners, which I continuously question because I require two gunners (MORE than a heavy tank!) to be effective in a Thunderer and I never had issues. Never! Then how come they keep bringing this up? They just think that if you repeat it a lot, it suddenly becomes true, while indeed frogetting the context of PS2 where you have MORE potential gunners since there are more players, but all of those people are currently enticed to NOT gun but play solo.

They're enticed to both footzerg (respawning on squad in the middle of an enemy base) and drop directly on control points (as the latest longer stream showed: you can drop 5 feet away from a control point on the roof in some areas and bypass any and all defenses and nobody here complains about that - Skill my arse, exploiting game mechanics is what that is).

If we say people are going to solo most the time and this being visible in every piece of footage, then we're told to wait for Beta. Why wait for something we already can point out with substantial evidence, backed up further by the people here who just post about wanting to kill stuff themselves? Why should these ego-centrists that hate teamplay be catered to? Hate teamplay yes, because they keep complaining about the incompetence of their random gunners. Meaning they're not pro-active in training them, finding regular partners or even working with their own outfit. Meaning they're basically not worth listening too because they're lazy. Why should lazy players be catered to and teamwork players be worse off than lazy players?

And the "compromise" of handing out your gun later is still much worse, because of the balancing manpower aspect between units. So we might hand over the gun to someone else and suddenly we have one gun manned by two people (even if that one guy can switch) and solo tankers have two tanks with two guns manned by two people and double the armour. Plus any sidegrades you dumbed into that are off set by someone else dumping it in other things that make their stuff work better (for them) - which you won't have till some time later. >___> The compromise doesn't balance anything, it just skews power distribution further (it makes teamwork units require more manpower and gives them less guns to work with at a time without compensating in armour values) and therefore is a horrible non-compromise.

But hey. That's a reasoned argument. It'll be countered by "wait till it's completely set in stone in beta before you complain". Tbh, it probably already is.

fod

2012-07-12, 03:50 AM

yeah i dont get the "cant get gunner" thing also as i usually dont have any problems getting one or two or three
infact lately i have had people RUSHING to try and gun my magrider when i dont have my dedicated gunner around

all that said im quite happy as long as there is an OPTION for me to have a dedicated gunner - i dont mind at all that some people want to drive solo

Klockan

2012-07-12, 03:52 AM

Tanks aren't 1 man vehicles, they just aren't useless as 1 man vehicles. In most tanks you will have a secondary gunner for the machinegun, the machinegun is still worth more than an infantry player.

And the "compromise" of handing out your gun later is still much worse, because of the balancing manpower aspect between units. So we might hand over the gun to someone else and suddenly we have one gun manned by two people (even if that one guy can switch) and solo tankers have two tanks with two guns manned by two people and double the armour. Plus any sidegrades you dumbed into that are off set by someone else dumping it in other things that make their stuff work better (for them) - which you won't have till some time later. >___> The compromise doesn't balance anything, it just skews power distribution further (it makes teamwork units require more manpower and gives them less guns to work with at a time without compensating in armour values) and therefore is a horrible non-compromise.

If you pay less you get less, how is that hard to understand? Also if they had a "sidegrade" to make a gunners seat, then it would be a "sidegrade" ie the gun would be much more powerful to make up for the extra manpower drain. But two tanks should still be stronger than your one tank since they put more resources into their setup.

Furber

2012-07-12, 04:03 AM

Doesn't have to end up one or the other, both ways should be implemented. That would add depth to the game. It gives the tank operators more choice for what to use their certs on.

Figment

2012-07-12, 04:10 AM

Klockan, you don't get less in PS2 if you solo as a "team". You get MORE.

How difficult is that to understand? You get more firepower and more hitpoints/armour, two separate perspective points, more targets for the enemy to fire at and you can change seats internally in PS2 meaning if you specialise your guns you end up with more firepower per player in solo tanks as we've seen throughout all the videos and not having been changed yet.

What do teamwork guys get?

Less enemies for the target to fire at. Half the hitpoints of two tanks. A little bit more situational awareness from the perspective of ONE tank (and that's the kicker people who argue solo tanks can't comprehend - we're argueing about the same manpower used differently, they can't get over the idea of one man in a tank being alone being completely retarded), but that's actually less than the situational awareness of the perspective of TWO tanks, they don't get to switch guns to suddenly have double the firepower in another field at the only advantage of being less stationary in doing so. So maybe you pay half the resources? Great. You also die twice as fast. Think that kinda offsets that...

Unfortunately tanks aren't exactly fast or hard to outmaneuvre, so it's not really a benefit.

Please, enlighten us oh masters of PS2 pre-beta, how do teamwork guys in ONE tank on your side actually get an advantage over TWO tanks on your side? Please. I'm interested.

And don't you @$#&(@^$@*# pretend none of the above has been said and repeat the same clueless dribble. Other advantages, because there's no advantages to the situation described above that does two crew tanks justice. Come on?

But as you say Klockan, two tanks are more powerful... That's exactly what we don't want. So if you agree with our conclusions, stop pretending we're wrong.

Klockan

2012-07-12, 04:15 AM

Figment

2012-07-12, 04:42 AM

The question isn't whether 1 two manned tank is as strong as 2 one manned tanks

Please explain why not. Because it's one of the main balance issues that determined how players selected vehicles in PS1, in WoT, C&C (only there power per resource) and any other game with choice between units as well.

Simply ignoring the issue in favour of another issue that needs looking at AS WELL is not making it go away.

the question is whether 1 two manned tank is as strong as 1 one manned tank and an infantry guy or 1 one manned tank with a machine gun because those two setups have the same costs.

At a moment in time purchase, yes. But over time you'll see it's a different story as the two tanks will last longer than one tank and the one tank with two people in it will have to get a new tank faster.

But yeah if you only look at one moment in time, which may I remind you, is a bit shortsighted in a continuous warfare game, then yeah, you get your argument.

Problem is, it's not about that. It's about what players will choose to use. Plus, if nobody waits for gunners and everyone has access to all vehicles, what stops them from getting any other vehicle? Why would you possibly want to gun if you are actively looking for a vehicle? Most vehicles seem pretty cheap and the hem isn't very restrictive in resources with all the sources available.

If they put in an option to modify the tank to make it stronger while giving away the maingun some people will do it to cut down on their tank costs, ie a team of two can probably spend most of their time in tanks if they take turns driving after each time they die while if they went with 2 tanks they would be momentarily stronger but when those two tanks are dead they would be forced to go infantry for a while.

As I've said before, that's not true if the two man tank dies faster since all enemy fire is concentrated on that single tank, etc. etc (see above and in previous posts). A single tank is much easier to trap and kill. Meaning that a single manned tank will last significantly longer, meaning also that the single guy's income will be more significant over the period of driving his tank. Especially if the empire is winning, which is an issue with skewed resource distribution the devs by their own admission still haven't fundamentally solved, apparently.

So if you're winning, a two men crew tank is unneeded because you have enough resources. While if you're losing a two men crew tank is disadvantaged by the overwhelming enemy numbers of tanks. >__> Given they die faster as you agree, that means they run out of their low number of resources even faster (!).

Btw. The fun thing is, you get to assume random assumptions as long as it supports solo-whoring, without being told wait for beta, while others are simply told wait for beta. I'm not going to tell you to wait for beta though, I just hope you try to use the complete picture we've got right now.

People who wait for beta to me are like theists complaining about missing links.

Littleman

2012-07-12, 04:50 AM

Do you know how I know people against one-man tanks are just thinking in PS1's terms? They're not thinking outside of the tank regarding their coveted teamwork, and are obsessing over who controls the main gun. They just know and want the multi-man tank. Without external support, a tank is actually going to be a big, juicy target this time around. It now matters from which angle one strikes, and their hunters have the tools to make the strike work.

It's not hard for anyone to see which direction the turret is facing and approach at the right time from the right direction.

But to continue thinking within the confines of tanks only, we're honestly arguing tank vs tank fights? Can we honestly not imagine how they'll play out? Seriously? 1 v 1, unless the two-man driver and gunner tank gets a buff, the solo variant driver/gunner MBT won't be at any disadvantage outside of looking where he's driving as he tries and flank around while keeping a bead on the 2 man tank and that might not even be an issue depending on the lay of the land. But yes, 2 people in two tanks probably hold the advantage to 2 people in one, except...

If the driver/gunner built the second gun for AV, he now has the superior firepower provided someone is manning that turret, period. A driver/gunner tank without a secondary gunner is a one-trick pony with just the main cannon alone. The second seat is what makes the tank specialized, and it gimps the tank for the driver to switch to that seat because he's alone. The tank can't be driven without someone in the main seat. And he STILL has the weakness of only being a single set of eyes, only now he's immobile too, and seat switching won't be instantaneous. Nor will exiting the tank.

Is it possible for the 2 manned AV built tank to win against 2 tanks? For that we'll have to wait an see. Requiring everyone driving an MBT to find a dedicated gunner? **** that. It's a convoluted restriction, not a necessary one. It doesn't make the tank's main cannon any better or worse either way, just requires more people for the sake of requiring multiple people, and the actual advantageous over a driver/gunner are fairly situational.

Driver AND gunner or driver/gunner, a tank that runs off to fight alone dies alone, the former's driver just has company.

Figment

2012-07-12, 04:56 AM

Love how you make claims about ease of killing one crew tanks that apply equaly to two crew tanks with the exception that if you beat one two crew tanks you beat two at once.

Littleman, you are a biased person. You have no idea what you are talking about in "who just wants PS1", those people only exist in your mind. We wouldn't be referencing the PS2 context and content otherwise. READ bobby's arguments for once and notice he talks about interaction with infantry and other units a lot. You not getting the core debate strikes me as typical though.

Edit: and for crying out loud, this is a Manpower Distribution debate so stop referencing the stupid situation where solo tankers are driving completely isolated from the rest of their empire!

Klockan

2012-07-12, 05:00 AM

Please explain why not. Because it's one of the main balance issues that determined how players selected vehicles in PS1, in WoT, C&C (only there power per resource) and any other game with choice between units as well.

Simply ignoring the issue in favour of another issue that needs looking at AS WELL is not making it go away.
In PS1 tanks were basically free so there the question was warranted, in WoT everyone always got their own tank, in C&C if 1 tank costs 600 and another costs 800 you don't ask yourself if you want 2 of the 600 cost tank or 1 of the 800 cost tank. In PS2 you wont have enough resources to buy tanks all the time so there will always be guys around to get into your gunner seat, the limit to the amount of tanks is then resources and not players thus you should calculate strength with resources as the main limiting factor.

At a moment in time purchase, yes. But over time you'll see it's a different story as the two tanks will last longer than one tank and the one tank with two people in it will have to get a new tank faster.

But yeah if you only look at one moment in time, which may I remind you, is a bit shortsighted in a continuous warfare game, then yeah, you get your argument.
What, my argument is in a continuous warfare and not in a single moment, your argument is for a single moment aka 1 tank vs 2 tanks. In a continuous warfare if one side uses coop tanks and the other uses standard tanks then on average both sides will have exactly as many tanks on the field, the difference is that the standard tank side will have more infantry to back up their tanks. Why? Because on a grander scale people aren't coordinated, while 2 guys might team up to get two tanks at the same time others will not have the resources at that time to get that. Then also people playing continuously even as a group of 10 not all will have money for a new tank for each engagement so they could use coop tanks to fill the void.
Problem is, it's not about that. It's about what players will choose to use.
A pair of players who wants to play together and only got resources for a tank would use it. This make the rest of your points moot then.

Littleman

2012-07-12, 05:05 AM

Love how you make claims about ease of killing one crew tanks that apply equaly to two crew tanks with the exception that if you beat one two crew tanks you beat two at one.

Littleman, you are a biased person. You have no idea what you are talking about in "who just wants PS1", those people only exist in your mind. We wouldn't be referencing the PS2 context and content otherwise. READ bobby's arguments for once and notice he talks about interaction with infantry and other units a lot. You not getting the core debate strikes me as typical though.

Honestly... someone who waves off the idea of the sundy getting AMS capabilities because they insist a true AMS should be reintroduced to PS2 has no room to talk regarding "bias" or as earlier, who is egoistic.

Figment

2012-07-12, 05:10 AM

You reference C&C and ignore that higher cost just makes you pick those by default because it is more cost effective to have one medium tank over a light tank and more coat effective to have a heavy tank over a medium tank and more cost effective to have a mammoth tank over a couple heavy tanks?

But then forget to realise there was actually a big power distance between them? Nice way to skew the debate. Power distance between one and two crew is minimal, so its better to get two one crews. Even if one is a cheaper lightning tank.

Honestly... someone who waves off the idea of the sundy getting AMS capabilities because they insist a true AMS should be reintroduced to PS2 has no room to talk regarding "bias" or as earlier, who is egoistic.

Wave off? You realise I got around 12 reasons for that, right? I don't dismiss off hand and redesigned the entire AMS for PS2 purposes and context, stop being a biased prick.

Klockan

2012-07-12, 05:28 AM

Power distance between one and two crew is minimal, so its better to get two one crews.
Thanks for enlightening us, oh all mighty one:)
That quote kinda makes all your other arguments useless. For example a coop tank could fire 50% faster and it would probably be fair without making solo coop tanks too viable.

If a team of 10 players who all buy 10 tanks and then in an engagement loses 2 tanks, if just one of those guys have the resources to buy another tank would he buy a solo tank or a coop tank to go with the mate who didn't have a tank? If he goes for a coop tank in that situation then the team will converge to only using coop tanks. If it is better to go with solo tank and an infantry ally then the coop tank is probably too weak and should be buffed.

Edit: As for the cnc argument you brought it up. I know that in cnc the power per resource of the tanks goes up as the resource cost goes up. Can you clarify your argument there what this have to do with Planetside 2? I know that having much power at once is better to have less power spread out over time, ie 2 tanks beat 1 tank + 1 tank. But that isn't the point. The point is that teams of people can only use one tank each when they have tons of resources, as soon as their resource reserves start to dwindle they will start using coop tanks if tanks is what they want to use. In a situation where it is possible for everyone to buy a tank right now it should be better to go with only solo tanks since that is a bigger opportunity cost, but in general people wont have the resources to buy one tank each. Thus you shouldnt do 2 solo tanks vs 1 coop tank but 1 solo tank + infantry vs coop tank since those are the choices people will have.

PredatorFour

2012-07-12, 07:04 AM

What makes these fights interesting is that the 2 man tank (taking on 2 one man tanks) could have a rexo gunner with AV to jump out if needed, maybe the driver too. Or, the 2 one man tanks might both have AV drivers so they can bail near death and pound the enemy. This is a game changer, the `battlefield` mindset.

Azren

2012-07-12, 08:29 AM

Sledgecrushr

2012-07-12, 08:36 AM

There has to be a delay after entering/exiting vehicles. Anything less would just be plain ridiculous.

And again, still nobody wrote why we need a second solo tank. There already is a tank with driver/gunner setup, it is called the Lightning, why destroy the fun of those who want to be dedicated drivers in favour of a second tank of the same type?

The lightning has an entirely different set of tactics than a mbt. Where the mbt is the hammer blow of an assault, the lightning is the skirmisher. In the field when it comes down to it, I believe commanders will call for three two man tanks rather than two three man tanks. It will come down to teamwork between vehicles.

KaB

2012-07-12, 09:00 AM

In the field when it comes down to it, I believe commanders will call for three two man tanks rather than two three man tanks. It will come down to teamwork between vehicles.

I believe in the field the commanders will call for two experienced pilots able to make effective shots, and to drive away when the situation gets worse rather than one guy concentrated to shoot only, irritated by some infantry which could C4 his face, unable to speak, unable to drive away, unable to locate his teammates etc.
If you have a guy concentrated on having some far-distant shots, and another guy driving, looking around, speaking with commander/other players, able to get a look at the map etc., they'll be living longer than anyone solo tanks.

In the games where the players is driver and gunner, I actually never saw anyone playing cleverly in order to get many kills as possible and do the best to save his life. Everyone always rush like idiots, and in PS2, that will cost a lot of ressources...

Faarooq

2012-07-12, 09:42 AM

@OP

Have you not played C&C Renegade or World of Tanks? Solo tanks work fine, however I oppose solo tanks in PS2.

Sledgecrushr

2012-07-12, 09:50 AM

Of course the most efficient tank will have three crew members, what Im saying is that a two man tank is nearly as efficient operationally as a three man tank. So in the field why waste your manpower with theee man tanks.

Jonny

2012-07-12, 10:04 AM

Maby the default tanks would be 1 man.

As you play you unlock with certs a new variation of your factions tank with more armour which has to be played with at least 2 crew. Visually these tanks could look a little more beefed up?

Just an idea.

Flaropri

2012-07-12, 10:05 AM

I think it's perfectly acceptable to have higher skill ceilings for drivers. It isn't like you lose capability when both driving and using the main cannon, but rather that you're attention could be divided and thus more room for error. To me, that seems like a challenge, not an inherently bad thing. It means that the difference between a good driver and a decent driver is all that more important; that while things are accessible to everyone, not everyone will do a great job with them.

I also think it makes good business sense, so that drivers are more likely to get a tank even if they are just part of a Zerg and not necessarily able to get a gunner for whatever reason. The more popular everything is, the more people will want to Cert into them, and thus the more XP Boosts SOE can sell.

More skill-based play is good, more money for SOE (provided the game is as good as we all think it will be) is good, the only downside is slightly less required team-play within a given vehicle. But it isn't like those players aren't going to be around to work with if you want, they just won't be in your tank (instead, in their own tanks, or otherwise engaged).

I think spending a Cert and Mod slot to separate the Main Cannon from the Driver position is a decent way to do things, though I think that most people won't care for it (but hey, more side-grades is best side-grades). Just, I see no good reason to remove Driver/Gunners entirely, or even from the base design of the vehicle.

Doorbo

2012-07-12, 10:21 AM

Hasnt it been stated before that the secondary gun will be nearly if not as powerful as the main gun? So if you put an AV gun for the secondary on a vanguard you essentially have two main turrets. Of course that looks silly so they have to make it look proper. The size of the gun doesnt equal how powerful it is.

So you still have a driver, and you still have a gunner who controls a powerful gun. The only difference is this time is the driver gets a cannon to shoot with as well. Will this decrease teamplay? For those who already will be playing with teamwork in mind, of course not. Though for those who will drive off alone thinking theyre hot stuff, im sure they will have a light bulb flick on when they die too much and see the full tanks dominating.

As for the magrider, i believe it will be OP. For the secondary weapon as seen in the PCG issue, you can equip it with the rail beam cannon, the same gun that was on the turret for the PS1 mag. That will give it an AV turret that can swivel, controlled by the secondary gunner, while still having mobility that the driver can focus on. Just for old times sake we can put an AI gun for the driver, and now you have a magrider true to PS1.

Landtank

2012-07-12, 10:33 AM

Phizuol

2012-07-12, 11:08 AM

I'm primarily a Magrider driver in PS1 and I can say with certainty that having the driver gun really sucks. I spend most of my time making evasive maneuvers, avoiding collisions with friendlies (this is big), and trying to get the best angles for my gunner. Sometimes it's boring when the targets are easy so I can understand it's not for everyone.

The times that I have to do all that and aim the gun (when something is close enough that I have a prayer of hitting with the damn thing) my driving and situational awareness suffers. Some friendlies may have been hurt.

My point is that for me, I just want to drive. If other people want to one-man their tank that's fine. If it's just a option to give all the guns to the gunner that's cool with me. There's something really awesome when you get the great driver & great gunner combo going. That's the playstyle I enjoy the most.

I also like the Lightening and that's a great tank too if you know how to use it. There's nothing wrong with that playstyle if you want to solo. Two people in a MBT or two people in a Lightening can both be pretty effective.

Conclusion: All I ask is to have the option (even if it costs certs) to give all my Magrider guns to the gunner. That's really the thing I am looking forward to the most in PS2.

MrBloodworth

2012-07-12, 11:17 AM

Driver gunner should be split. You should have to cert, at a high level in tanks, to operate the gun and drive. We already have the lightning.

Just because Battlefield does it, does not mean Planetside needs to.

wasdie

2012-07-12, 11:27 AM

They've stated this hundreds of times, people just choose to ignore information and bitch and moan about rational changes to the game.

There is pretty much no downside to being able to gun and drive, it takes more skill, allows for more tanks to be on the field, allows the tank to be more effective, and if people want they can cert for 3 man tanks.

Seriously, go play World of Tanks and tell me that driving and gunning doesn't work, because it sure as hell does, and it can be a lot more fun than tanking in PS1.

Gaming communities, especially a small one like Planetside's, are usually very conservative. They want their games to be just like they remember with no changes at all. Even when all logic dictates that the changes are probably for the best.

People here keep forgetting that this isn't just some change they are making to an existing game. The entire game is being built around having MORE armor on the field. Bigger battles, more people, more tanks, more aircraft, more of everything.

Why can you fly and gun a reaper but can't drive and gun a tank? What makes the flyboys so special?

It's an easy fix. Let everbody drive and gun the tank while giving a lot of bonuses to people who decide to multicrew a tank. That's exactly what is going on here.

Deadeye

2012-07-12, 11:28 AM

I think one fact has been completely overlooked in this discussion: these main battle tanks are going to cost us money. That is the balance right there. If I'm going to pay hard earned resources to drive a tank I want to drive and gun it myself and I want it to do a not insignificant amount of damage to "free" infantry before it dies.

In short, I want my money's worth out of the vehicles I pay for.

MrBloodworth

2012-07-12, 11:29 AM

They cost in the original game too, before they removed the cost. A mistake that watered down many systems.

KaB

2012-07-12, 11:40 AM

Klockan

2012-07-12, 12:09 PM

I don't know how much it will, but if the tank will cost a lot, I won't ever buy it until I can share it with other players, whether they're good or not.

And actually ... after reading some people here, something's telling me that only the good players will potentially be fine to share a tank with someone else, so I guess I shouldn't have any worries about this.
All heavier tanks have at least a machinegunner slot which isn't a bad place to be, in later BF games people usually rush to take those slots even if they didn't get the main vehicle. Thus very few heavy tanks should be manned by just one guy since someone is probably sitting at the machinegun as well.

SgtExo

2012-07-12, 12:14 PM

All heavier tanks have at least a machinegunner slot which isn't a bad place to be, in later BF games people usually rush to take those slots even if they didn't get the main vehicle. Thus very few heavy tanks should be manned by just one guy since someone is probably sitting at the machinegun as well.

But it wont just be a machine gun, it can be anything you want to spec into, so its like having an extra gun on there. Higby said you could have Tow missiles, which would double the lethality towards armor. If you just want to drive, just get someone in a AV top gun and don't use the main gun then, problem solved.

Klockan

2012-07-12, 12:18 PM

But it wont just be a machine gun, it can be anything you want to spec into, so its like having an extra gun on there. Higby said you could have Tow missiles, which would double the lethality towards armor. If you just want to drive, just get someone in a AV top gun and don't use the main gun then, problem solved.
Just pointing out that having a heavy machinegun with sniperlike accuracy is still fairly strong so people want it. A tank is fairly vulnerable to infantry and air without the machinegunner.

KaB

2012-07-12, 12:18 PM

Thus very few heavy tanks should be manned by just one guy since someone is probably sitting at the machinegun as well.

I disagree with you on that fact because BF doesn't have such a huge map that has PS2.
So unless some idiots decide to use heavy tanks to fight in closed areas (which are supposed to be associated by Light tanks), I don't see how people could get some fun at being on the machinegun because the only thing they'll have to do is : report enemy tanks location (hoping the driver/gunner accept to communicate, which doesn't seem to be the case for everyone), and kill some infantry trying to put C4 on the tank. How fun !

Klockan

2012-07-12, 12:22 PM

I disagree with you on that fact because BF doesn't have such a huge map that has PS2.
So unless some idiots decide to use heavy tanks to fight in closed areas (which are supposed to be supported by Light tanks), I don't see how people could get some fun to be on the machinegun because the only thing they'll have to do is : report enemy tanks location (hoping the driver accept to communicate, which doesn't seem to be the case of everyone), and kill some infantry trying to put C4 on the tank. How fun !
They have almost perfect accuracy so you can kill infantry at long range with it. Also it is good against air so you will get vehicle kills with it as well, from E3 it looks like you could get more points with that than the actual maingun as long as there are some air flying around.

SgtExo

2012-07-12, 12:24 PM

Just pointing out that having a heavy machinegun with sniperlike accuracy is still fairly strong so people want it. A tank is fairly vulnerable to infantry and air without the machinegunner.

I know that machine guns are a must. In fact I'm wondering if the main gun has a coaxial machine gun too? Because that is usually my primary weapon in games cause there are always more soft targets than heavily armored targets that the main canon. But that's beside the point here.

Klockan

2012-07-12, 12:29 PM

Watching E3 again it seems like the machinegun has heavy enough calibre to kill tanks as well so it is even better than I thought. It basically works against every target out there making that spot extremely necessary. Here is the E3 part:
Planetside 2 E3 Stream - Day 3 - (feat. Totalbiscuit and Margaret Krohn) - YouTube

If anyone tells me that the machinegun position is bad after that they must be insane. The damage it deals is insane. He kills a galaxy with just a clip for example and he made the magrider go smoking without any help, he even destroyed the tank that the maingunner was shooting at nabbing the kill.

KaB

2012-07-12, 12:37 PM

It looks more like a DCA mounted on a tank. Weird. I really wonder if this game has really been balanced. Anyway we'll check it out in the beta.

Flaropri

2012-07-12, 12:49 PM

It looks more like a DCA mounted on a tank. Weird. I really wonder if this game has really been balanced. Anyway we'll check it out in the beta.

Alpha was not balanced, and neither is Tech Test. Balancing and especially fine-tuning will be done during Beta. "Rough" balancing (such as general guidlines, base-line of desired power, etc.) was done, but only in a general sense.

SgtExo

2012-07-12, 12:49 PM

The game isnt balanced yet, thats why beta is going to start, so they can balance it.

maradine

2012-07-12, 01:08 PM

I disagree with you on that fact because BF doesn't have such a huge map that has PS2.
So unless some idiots decide to use heavy tanks to fight in closed areas (which are supposed to be associated by Light tanks), I don't see how people could get some fun at being on the machinegun because the only thing they'll have to do is : report enemy tanks location (hoping the driver/gunner accept to communicate, which doesn't seem to be the case for everyone), and kill some infantry trying to put C4 on the tank. How fun !

The maps in BF2/3 certainly aren't as big globally, but the size of a map like Caspian Border or Operation Firestorm is roughly the size of a PS2 engagement - indeed, large enough that there are multiple geographic hotspots and terrain masking is in play.

Playing the secondary gun in BF wasn't merely fun and reasonably kill-heavy, it was also highly necessary to deal with all the things the main gunner didn't have the attention for or the right tools to deal with.

I strongly suspect you're going to warm up to what's been designed for us. And if not, well, I will. :love:

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-12, 01:40 PM

Driver gunner should be split. You should have to cert, at a high level in tanks, to operate the gun and drive. We already have the lightning.

I still don't like the concept, but of all the certs stuff I've heard, this makes a lot more sense. Starting as a multi-crew vehicle and CERTING it into being one-man a makes more sense than the other way around.

They've stated this hundreds of times, people just choose to ignore information and bitch and moan about rational changes to the game.

It's not IGNORING it. It's NOT LIKING it. Big difference there. Most the people talking here are well aware of the mechanics in place, and what the reason is behind them. WE DON'T LIKE IT.

@WasDie

"Gaming communities, especially a small one like Planetside's, are usually very conservative. They want their games to be just like they remember with no changes at all. Even when all logic dictates that the changes are probably for the best."

Wrong again. It's not wanting it "just like it was". It's we think the changes being implemented are stupid. Just because you personally like it, does not mean "it's for the best", which is a subjective opinion, at best (just like ours, in many ways).

And it is not about whether or not the secondary gun is worth a shit. What part of this do you people not grasp? We don't like the concept of a one man battle tank! It doesn't make a difference if it has a powerful secondary gun that is best to use. We're saying a one man battle tank should not be an option, period! It's just STUPID! The whole reasoning behind the secondary gun being the way it is, the durability of the tanks, the resource cost etc, are all aimed at attempting to balance the one man tank thing. That's fine, it may work as advertised. That's not the point. WE DON'T WANT A ONE MAN BATTLE TANK! It doesn't matter how it's balanced or anything else. We don't like it! That is core of the argument and what it boils down to.

It is not PS1 mentality, just because PS1 happened to have this feature. So do many other games, and RL for that matter. I've only been playing PS1 about a week, I have no bias based off this playtime. If the tanks as is have some rough edges that need to be worked on, fine, but we do not think the solution to these problems is creating Rambo tanks!

And with that, I am officially exiting the thread. We're all arguing in circles, anyway. Not only is the mechanic probably laid out, but it's not like we're exactly convincing one another of anything. Not that anyone tends to listen to anyone else, anyway.

Azren

2012-07-12, 01:52 PM

Gaming communities, especially a small one like Planetside's, are usually very conservative. They want their games to be just like they remember with no changes at all. Even when all logic dictates that the changes are probably for the best.

People here keep forgetting that this isn't just some change they are making to an existing game. The entire game is being built around having MORE armor on the field. Bigger battles, more people, more tanks, more aircraft, more of everything.

Why can you fly and gun a reaper but can't drive and gun a tank? What makes the flyboys so special?

It's an easy fix. Let everbody drive and gun the tank while giving a lot of bonuses to people who decide to multicrew a tank. That's exactly what is going on here.

Well, I don't know, why does the liberator have gunners, why isn't it manned by one guy like the MBT?
See what I did there?

You compare the MBT with the "reaper" (it is called Reaver btw), while you should be comparing the lightning with it.

The Lightning is the solo ground tank, while the MBT is meant to be the one with dedicated gunner. Just as it is the case with the bomber.

I think one fact has been completely overlooked in this discussion: these main battle tanks are going to cost us money. That is the balance right there. If I'm going to pay hard earned resources to drive a tank I want to drive and gun it myself and I want it to do a not insignificant amount of damage to "free" infantry before it dies.

In short, I want my money's worth out of the vehicles I pay for.

It is overlooked for good reason; there is no way it will cost a lot of money. I am pretty sure you will get it's value worth by sitting around for 5 minutes and letting the territory control resources flow into your pocket.

The game is fast paced, the vehicles are meant to be one use items now, no way something that weak (look at the videos for reference) will cost more than a few minutes worth of gameplay.

Also, even if it would cost a lot, it does not change a thing. I would gladly pay 10x the value for a driver/driver tank, because I know it is worth that much more. Solo vehicles die like flies due to a multitude of reasons, all which can be traced back to the sheer number of enemies you will have to keep a track off.

All heavier tanks have at least a machinegunner slot which isn't a bad place to be, in later BF games people usually rush to take those slots even if they didn't get the main vehicle. Thus very few heavy tanks should be manned by just one guy since someone is probably sitting at the machinegun as well.

You forget to mention that they only jumped in the mashinegun slot so they can steal the tank the second you got out to repair.

Nice motivation right there, something we do not really need in PS2 imo.

At an rate, this is for everyone who wants dedicated driver MBTs;
no way it is happening. Looking at the dev's communication regarding this issue to this date, you can be assured that they have no plans whatsoever to change this. They never bothered to give us a real reason why they chose this setup (you will not feed me that crap about "enjoying the benefit of putting my certs into the vehicle". That was just a lame marketing text, nothing more. Just for that note; enjoyment to me is related to either driving or gunning a tank, not both). The real reason is probably to attract more CoD kiddies, nothing more.

Raymac

2012-07-12, 02:00 PM

Why would you bother having 1 tank with 2 people when you can be 'skillful' and have 2 tanks with a person each?

Please tell me how well do you think your secondary armament is going to match up to another whole tank?

All this is doing is shifting 'teamwork' from within a single vehicle (ie Driver AND a gunner), to 'teamwork' starting at multiple vehicles (Driver/gunners)

It's bizarre how people rationalise the driver now being the main gunner too with PS1 anecdotes of never being able to find primary weapon gunners and now bizarrely think you're going to get people swarming your driver/gunner vehicles now to sit in the piddly secondary weapons position in PS2. You also somehow think your 'awesome teamwork' skills are going to match up to 2 people just pulling 2 solo MBTs.

You guys.:huh:

I know you were responding to someone else, but I'll answer those questions too. Obviously this is just my point of view, so you can take it with a grain of salt (or even less lol).

One reason you would have a secondary gunner instead of a second tank is the ease of coordinating. While obviously it is possible to coordinate between mulitple tanks, when you get into the chaos of a huge battle, that coordination can get impeded and you can get split up. If you are both in the same vehicle, the coordination because much much easier because, well, you are literally stuck together. It's similar to the PS1 logic behind pulling 1 Deliverer w/ 2 gunners as opposed to 2 Delis w/ 1 gunner. Yes I'm aware of the additional person, but there would also be "double the hit points".

Also, there is the issue of the cost of the tanks, but little is known about that at this point, so it is hard to say how effective that will be.

You are absolutely right when you say it shifts some of teamwork from 1 vehicle to mulitple vehicles, but I personally don't see that as a huge negative. Plus, you will still have lots of people choosing to use a secondary gunner (assumption based on my experience with how outfits coordinate), not to mention the other vehicles like the Sunderer, Lib, and Galaxy that will still be there for mulit-person vehicle teamwork.

Finally, to your last point, I think it can still be difficult to find random zerglings to jump in the secondary gunner position, and organized outfits won't have any trouble at all. Basically, I think in allowing the MBT driver to control the main gun, it opens up the iconic vehicle to the more casual player who doesn't play the game at the higher level of coordination that we are so used to. Basically, I think the casual player should be allowed to play with this tank.

Of course, the response to that is "that's what the Lightning is for" but I think the Lightning is a different tool. I see it as the same between choosing a max suit or Heavy Assault.

You may call that point of view "bizarre", but I think it's clear, simple, and most of all more fun for more people.

SgtExo

2012-07-12, 02:00 PM

Flaropri

2012-07-12, 02:08 PM

That's not the point. WE DON'T WANT A ONE MAN BATTLE TANK! It doesn't matter how it's balanced or anything else. We don't like it! That is core of the argument and what it boils down to.

Well said. I may not agree with you (primarily because I want to see more tanks in use and players enjoying themselves even on their own) but I can certainly appreciate you're ability to get your point across.

This is largely a matter of personal opinion. I think it's wasteful to pull an MBT in place of a lightning if you don't want anyone else to get in there with you, but I also think that it's alright for the driver to be able to shoot things with a decent weapon. That's how I view things, and outside of horrible play experiences in Beta or Live, I don't think it's going to change, just as I don't think I'll change your opinion either.

Hopefully, regardless of how it ends up going through, we can still have fun in the game regardless.

Well, I don't know, why does the liberator have gunners, why isn't it manned by one guy like the MBT?
See what I did there?

The Liberator has a nose cannon the pilot can use though, so even if the specific comparison was wrong, the overall point is still valid.

Azren

2012-07-12, 02:10 PM

But the point is that with a F2P game, you don't want to punish ppl for soloing, which could drive away ppl, but encourage ppl to team up, which can enhance gameplay and keep the player interested for a longer day.

So things like requiring a gunner for the tank is something that I can easily see driving ppl away from the game, while getting someone on the top gun to get stronger will encourage ppl to get some friends or join an outfit.

We need allot of ppl to have a healthy and thriving community in-game, so anything that punishes bad choices instead of rewarding good one is not the way to go. Because this game will be free, ppl might decide they do not like the game very fast if they get a bad first impression and because they have not paid anything for the game, they might quit very fast. So while in PS1 ppl bought the game and took the time to learn who it worked because they had paid for it, here ppl will make their mind allot faster.

That's what accessibility is all about, its about not punishing bad choices with game mechanics, but rewarding you when you make good choices and use teamwork. Also if ppl try to rambo, they will get wiped ass soon as they encounter a group. As this is 100% PvP, bad choices don't need to be punished by game mechanics because you will have over a thousand ppl ready to teach you that lesson.

Sorry, but this logic is flawed on two bases;

1 - if it is a punishment to require a gunner and if this would hurt the community, why don't the devs make the liberator the sunderer and the galaxy weapons controlled by the driver too? All of these vehicles have their main weaponry setup for dedicated gunners.

2 - it is not a punishment to require gunner. Just think about it, the soloers can jump in a number of vehicles that are for single man. Take the Flash, the Lightning, the Reaver (or empire equivalent). These vehicles will be very effective (well, maybe not the flash).

The chagne in MBTs does not punish soloers, it punishes those who want a vehicle where they can be the driver only. We have no such vehicles in game in contrast with the abundance of solo vehicles.

The Liberator has a nose cannon the pilot can use though, so even if the specific comparison was wrong, the overall point is still valid.

No, it is not. The nose canon on the liberator is by no means it's main gun. We are talking about controlling a vehicle and it's main weaponry here. It would be fine if the MBT drivers got to use a secondary gun, but this is not the case.

Methonius

2012-07-12, 02:14 PM

I really hope they make a cert or something that allows you to have gunners and be the driver, because I really enjoyed being the driver with my friends gunning. I had lots of great times calling out targets and maneuvering my tank around making it harder for the enemy to hit us while my friend gunned for me.

SgtExo

2012-07-12, 02:21 PM

I don't why ppl say that the lightning is a solo MBT, its not! The Lightning is made for scouting, maneuvering and flanking. The MBTs are made to hold the front line and destroy the enemies line. They serve different roles, so not allowing soloers to use a MBT alone is taking a part of the game away from them and thus that is a punishment for not being in an outfit. Because there is a second gun on the MBTs, the game is saying "You can use the tank alone, but if you make a friend, you could be even more effective!". That's what I mean by not punishing soloers.

Also trying to fly a plane and gun something that isn't fixed to your point of view would be really hard.

Sledgecrushr

2012-07-12, 02:21 PM

Klockan

2012-07-12, 02:24 PM

Sorry, but this logic is flawed on two bases;

1 - if it is a punishment to require a gunner and if this would hurt the community, why don't the devs make the liberator the sunderer and the galaxy weapons controlled by the driver too? All of these vehicles have their main weaponry setup for dedicated gunners.

2 - it is not a punishment to require gunner. Just think about it, the soloers can jump in a number of vehicles that are for single man. Take the Flash, the Lightning, the Reaver (or empire equivalent). These vehicles will be very effective (well, maybe not the flash).

The chagne in MBTs does not punish soloers, it punishes those who want a vehicle where they can be the driver only. We have no such vehicles in game in contrast with the abundance of solo vehicles.

No, it is not. The nose canon on the liberator is by no means it's main gun. We are talking about controlling a vehicle and it's main weaponry here. It would be fine if the MBT drivers got to use a secondary gun, but this is not the case.
The reason the driver is not controlling the main gun in those vehicles is because it wouldn't be possible to control that with just two hands. A tank controls perfectly with just a keyboard and a mouse though so it works, but having playing an aircraft with an aimable turret is impossible since you need one hand just to control the pivoting of the aircraft and the other to control the speeds and turning. Thus all aircraft guns the driver got access to are front mounted. The galaxy only got turrets so the driver get no gun and the liberators cannon is a turret as well. Why the sunderer pilot don't get to control a machinegun is beyond me though, would probably make them much more common.

fvdham

2012-07-12, 02:24 PM

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-12, 02:29 PM

Well said. I may not agree with you (primarily because I want to see more tanks in use and players enjoying themselves even on their own) but I can certainly appreciate you're ability to get your point across.

Hopefully, regardless of how it ends up going through, we can still have fun in the game regardless.

:) *giggity* Well, at least somebody understands :P And, yeah, I'm not upset or in arms. We're just arguing because we got nothing better to do :) I don't hate these folks for disagreeing with me, I hate them because they're NC and VS. They all need to die... Oh wait... They're going to :)

And one last comment on-topic, regarding the "Lightning isn't an MBT" thing somebody mentioned above me. I don't think anybody said it was. That's the gist, in fact. It's not an MBT, which is a big part of the reason why people don't mind it being solo. I think part of the reason people argue so much around here is they continually miss each other's point :)

Flaropri

2012-07-12, 02:36 PM

1 - if it is a punishment to require a gunner and if this would hurt the community, why don't the devs make the liberator the sunderer and the galaxy weapons controlled by the driver too? All of these vehicles have their main weaponry setup for dedicated gunners.

As far as Galaxy and Sunderer, their primary role is transport, which is very different from Libs or MBTs (or fighters or Lightnings).

2 - it is not a punishment to require gunner. Just think about it, the soloers can jump in a number of vehicles that are for single man. Take the Flash, the Lightning, the Reaver (or empire equivalent). These vehicles will be very effective (well, maybe not the flash).

This I largely agree with, however, a lot depends on what weapons are available for each vehicle. It is very possible for MBTs to have different weapon access than Lightnings for example, and thus fulfill roles that the 1-man tank can't even with a single weapon being used. EDIT: Although honestly, I doubt that will be the case, and if it is, I would be down with fixing that.

The chagne in MBTs does not punish soloers, it punishes those who want a vehicle where they can be the driver only. We have no such vehicles in game in contrast with the abundance of solo vehicles.

Other than transports you mean, and, according to you (though I disagree, we'll find out shortly I'm sure) the Liberator.

No, it is not. The nose canon on the liberator is by no means it's main gun. We are talking about controlling a vehicle and it's main weaponry here. It would be fine if the MBT drivers got to use a secondary gun, but this is not the case.

We lack enough information to really comment on the power of the nose cannon vs. belly cannon. Certainly, it is likely for the belly cannon to have more versatility, and it may be more powerful, but that doesn't mean the nose cannon isn't a main weapon on par with a Reaver's AtG weapons for example (it may or may not be). You may be right on a whole with that, but we'll have to see the details to confirm.

TheDAWinz

2012-07-12, 02:38 PM

:) *giggity* Well, at least somebody understands :P And, yeah, I'm not upset or in arms. We're just arguing because we got nothing better to do :) I don't hate these folks for disagreeing with me, I hate them because they're NC and VS. They all need to die... Oh wait... They're going to :)

And one last comment on-topic, regarding the "Lightning isn't an MBT" thing somebody mentioned above me. I don't think anybody said it was. That's the gist, in fact. It's not an MBT, which is a big part of the reason why people don't mind it being solo. I think part of the reason people argue so much around here is they continually miss each other's point :)

TR power!

MrBloodworth

2012-07-12, 02:42 PM

Ill just post this again.

Driver gunner should be split. You should have to cert, at a high level in tanks, to operate the gun and drive. We already have the lightning.

Xyntech

2012-07-12, 02:47 PM

In PS1, where the Lightning was just slightly too underpowered, I may have disagreed, but it seems like the Lightning is a pretty formidable solo tank.

I really have no good argument why the Lightning shouldn't be there to appease solo tank drivers while the MBT's require more team work.

But on the other hand, an MBT will be a lot more effective with 2 people than with one, so at the same time I don't feel very strongly that an MBT shouldn't have the driver controlling the main gun.

But either way, one way or another, I'd like to see some option for a dedicated driver with a gunner controlling the main gun.

SgtExo

2012-07-12, 02:59 PM

And one last comment on-topic, regarding the "Lightning isn't an MBT" thing somebody mentioned above me. I don't think anybody said it was. That's the gist, in fact. It's not an MBT, which is a big part of the reason why people don't mind it being solo. I think part of the reason people argue so much around here is they continually miss each other's point :)

But what I mean is that when I want to fight in the front lines I want a big tank and when I want to be a fast moving raider, I will take a Lightning. But allot of ppl have been saying that if you want a tank and be solo, go for the lightning. But I do not consider does two as filling the same role and just because I will want to play alone sometimes that I should be locked out of a vital role on the battlefield.

But what I wouldn't mind seeing in game is something even bigger than the MBTs. Something that the driver could maybe a small fixed gun of his choice up front and then a really big main gun and then one or two extra turrets up top for AA or AI weapons. Having a rolling fortress would be cool in this game because we actually have the population for it to be effective.

MrBloodworth

2012-07-12, 03:01 PM

There are lots of other games that let you "Play alone, together".

But this is Planetside. Team work and combined arms in a war game. Not a single battle.

SgtExo

2012-07-12, 03:12 PM

There are lots of other games that let you "Play alone, together".

But this is Planetside. Team work and combined arms in a war game. Not a single battle.

But I don't want to be punished if after a long day I just want to do some solo gunning.

I will work with ppl all the time, but some times you just want to get a big gun and go shoot things even if you are not at your most efficient and at does times, I don't want to have to deal with ppl.

Forcing ppl to work together can be viewed as the game punishing you if you do not want to, but when the game tells you that working with ppl will make you better or more efficient if you want, is a positive way of doing the same thing.

Because this is a game and ppl chose to play, reinforcing good game play (meaning teamwork here) will always be a better way to promote those kind of ways of playing instead of it saying "Sry you cant play this part of the game because you don't want to deal with ppl right now."

MrBloodworth

2012-07-12, 03:44 PM

But I don't want to be punished if after a long day I just want to do some solo gunning.

You are not punished, you made a choice. They happen in life, and its a bad sign that many modern games go to far to protect users from themselves, or the choices they make. Sure, this is an entertainment title, but instead of validating your choice, and isolating you from any repercussion of that choice, the design should encourage you to not make that choice in the first place. Like explaining to you that you will need a gunner for this Vehicle.

You also have many, many options as a solo user in Planetside 2.

There is ZERO reason one single user should be as effective as two or three.

None.

KaB

2012-07-12, 03:45 PM

Universal games don't exist. Every devs who tried to make some just failed.
If you wanna make some teamplay just play a game which requires teamplay. If you wanna play solo then play a solo game or a multiplay game which doesn't require teamplay.

A game is what it is and is not supposed to follow your temper.

Raymac

2012-07-12, 03:50 PM

There is ZERO reason one single user should be as effective as two or three.

None.

But why is a single user in a MBT as effective as two or three?

Loco

2012-07-12, 03:51 PM

I could see forward facing MG's... or the like. Something that simply sprays the area in front so there is a chance to down enemy infantry.

But I concur with most that a driver / gunner combo would be an adjustment to say the least.

SgtExo

2012-07-12, 03:52 PM

You are not punished, you made a choice. They happen in life, and its a bad sign that many modern games go to far to protect users from themselves, or the choices they make. Sure, this is an entertainment title, but instead of validating your choice, and isolating you from any repercussion of that choice, the design should encourage you to not make that choice in the first place. Like explaining to you that you will need a gunner for this Vehicle.

You also have many, many options as a solo user in Planetside 2.

There is ZERO reason one single user should be as effective as two or three.

None.

I'm not saying that a solo player in a MBT will be as effective as two, I am saying that it should be the opposition that should kill me because I have waited for someone to get into the second gun.

Figment

2012-07-12, 03:53 PM

They've stated this hundreds of times, people just choose to ignore information and bitch and moan about rational changes to the game.

EVERYONE KNOWS THAT FOR FIVE MONTHS NOW.

FFS, it was already known well in the first thread that went on for 50 pages and it was ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS why we said a gunner is useless! Because to get a gunner to be more useful than getting a tank of its own, it has to be WAY BETTER than the main gun!

DO THE MATHS. PLEASE DO SOME @#*@*$****$^#*$ MATHS FOR ONCE.

We did that damn maths back then already indicating just how much better a gunner would have to be to match splitting the manpower over two tanks!

Ignoring my arse! YOU are the one ignoring all our points!

There is pretty much no downside to being able to gun and drive, it takes more skill, allows for more tanks to be on the field, allows the tank to be more effective, and if people want they can cert for 3 man tanks.

Seriously, go play World of Tanks and tell me that driving and gunning doesn't work, because it sure as hell does, and it can be a lot more fun than tanking in PS1.

orly.

What are your WoT stats?

Are you Landtank on the US server on WoT?

The one with an efficiency ratio of 958,3 and a winratio of 48%, with 410 tanks destroyed in 548 matches?
http://worldoftanks.com/community/accounts/1000363356-Landtank/

Or are you Landtank on the EU server on WoT?

The one with an efficiency ratio of 633,0 and a winratio of 49%, with 11 tanks destroyed in 84 battles?

I'm Figment on the EU WoT server, my efficiency ratio is 1.321,1 and my winratio 53,5%, with 11.340 tanks destroyed out of 10.702 games played. Please note that I only play random matches and usualy alone, which means the Gauss distribution of random distribution means my stats should be closer to the 49% win ratio that's the average of all WoT players, in comparison to the players that work together in clans (clans like Pirates have winratios around 70% because they work with 15 people on the same team, rather than maybe 3 out of 15 that coordinate).

You can find my stats for WoT here if you want to check:
http://wot-dossier.appspot.com/dossier/131001

IF you're either of those Landtanks and don't have some secret uber stat char hidden somewhere, you honestly think you can make a better judgement about WoT than me if you have next to no experience in playing that game (with not even 8% of the amount of matches I've played)? >_> If you're not either of those landtanks, I'd like to see your stats though.

My experience with WoT is that the drivers are utter crap in comparison to PS1 drivers (all 40+ PS1 players on my friendslist have far above average win ratios (50-65% winratios and some have efficiency ratios of up to 1900+, all others 1200 or higher, which means WoT players rate them as good (not above average, good) players) and have excellent overall scores on all counts.

And you know why? Because WE, opposed to most WoT players, not only immediately realise the benefits of certain units and for example apply stealth well due to cloaker experience, but mostly because we work as teamplayers within teams. Even if the other tanks don't realise it. We work together, we take a hit for the team, we try to set enemies up for getting shot by team mates, we inform, we play together. Why? Because this is what we're used to in PlanetSide vehicle combat. THEY on the other hand, play with random solo players each match. They don't learn to work together unless they join clans.

Yet we all hate how static the gameplay is because driver+gunners tend to sit still and be easy targets and easy prey, especially when we work together. Even more due to WoT mechanics. You always saw the same thing with Lightning and ATV drivers in PS1: usualy very static, easy prey while firing, because they couldn't both drive and fire.

Worse, the attitude between WoT players is, aside from the greetings at the start (which are usualy only meant for potential fellow countrymen...), very lousy. They don't talk to each other at all. Many will even tell you to STFU if you try to coordinate your team because "they know better than you". They're always on about who sucks more than they do, even if, if not especially when they're the ones who cost us the match by throwing away their lives recklessly and not coordinating with others (typically those players have winratios of 48% or lower...).

Incidentally the type of isolationist drivers that are being described here to indicate how easy single player tanks are to overcome... I WONDER WHY.

The attitudes and competences are crap and that's mostly because they're all dependent on players they don't know and don't work with. And that's exactly what PS2 is encouraging by putting everyone in their own isolation cell called a solo-crew unit.

Fun fights were had between MBTs, Deli variants and buggies, because the fights are always extremely dynamic, about out-maneuvring and good aim and not about who has the thickest hide and most penetration power/alpha damage, like in World of Tanks. I really don't want tank combat to end up like World of Tanks and I don't know anyone on my WoT list who'd prefer WoT tank combat over PS tank combat.

What will happen is that multicrew tanks will become far more stationary in PS2 and that people like us, who'd work together in multiple tanks, would circle and utterly pulverize them, repair without either of us having been killed and move on to the next target.

So why the hell would you want to put more people in those tanks? Up to three!? They'd just fall prey to our tanks and their side would lose because they're being careless and stupid with manpower distribution! THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT. We want a challenge! Multicrew vehicles should be something to fear by single player units by default! Multicrew vehicles should not be soloplayers + a little extra spunk, that's going to be so easy to beat!

Clearly we know nothing though... We're all morons who just randomly pull stats out of our arse.

And you know what? Those casual players that play WoT and make up the majority of players, end up leaving the game eventually after they grinded their things.

Why?

Because there's never been a community established that retains them. They've never had to partake in a community. They have no ties to the game through players.

We do.

Because we were naturally enticed to play together because we needed each other and realised it without being told: we had an empty gunner seat and we wanted it filled. That means we actively went out to find people to play with.

If you can play decent solo - which is possible certainly, in fact it's OP if done correctly in teams - you're not enticed to go play with others. That doesn't mean you won't, but if you're shy or play casually, you won't feel that need at all.

I'm sorry, but I don't want PlanetSide's community to turn to EgoSide. Airchavs were bad enough at that in PS1. And yes, the better outfits worked together as teams of solo tag team aircav and utterly pulverised the competition at times. You might recall how OP they could be compared to teams working together in multicrew units like tanks. So yay, let's completely ruin any form of teamplay that was left, rather than get the aircav crew to teamplay too!

And then, just to pretend there's some teamwork left, add insult to injury and give the SAME UNIT YOU GIVE TO A SINGLE PLAYER to THREE players for a tank's individual efficiency rise that doesn't beat those THREE players geting the efficiency rise out of THREE units.

Oh yeah, they'll feel so well-treated by the game for taking the effort to coordinate in one vehicle and getting utterly smashed to bits by whatever group did things as a group of three solonoobs that simply had two times the firepower AND three times the armour...

SgtExo

2012-07-12, 04:03 PM

^^^ wow, long read.

And I don't if its because I'm on the NA servers, but ppl are allot friendlier than that in WoT.

Figment

2012-07-12, 04:05 PM

^^^ wow, long read.

And I don't if its because I'm on the NA servers, but ppl are allot friendlier than that in WoT.

Common language helps.

Free to play means massive influx from Eastern Europe for the EU servers though. The children there are... "new" to netiquette.

DukeTerror

2012-07-12, 04:05 PM

I am on the 1 Driver 1 Gunner side of the debate. It was a lot of fun being able to do that with my outfit (I was a member of TRG a long, long, time ago when I was still on PS) and for when I was going solo, or needed a different approach, the lightning was an option. The variety of options is a core of the game. However, it seems like on the youtube videos, there's a hint at a considering a quad cannon prowler which maybe the gunner would get to have his own pair of cannons on the turret. The similar option would work well on the Magrider.

My concern with the MBT turret being driver controlled is the lack of ability to really perform amazing tank maneuvers. Full 360 rotation and ability to drive in 360 is difficult alone with any controls, but trying that with a mouse and keyboard really doesn't help. X360 controller is slightly easier, atleast when I play halo or BF. I remember when the the lightning had a fixed turret (like front 45 or so) and I thought it was way easier to drive (given how you needed to run in and out in strafing runs anyway). It became much harder when the patch came to allow 360 turreting. I guess I'll have to let drive controls in beta be my decision to if solo MBT is a good idea, but my guess is a paired driver gunner team could easily outmatch two tanks on solo drivers.

Raymac

2012-07-12, 04:09 PM

This is part of the problem I have with this debate. Sometimes people argue that the driver/gunner set up is too powerful, and sometimes people argue that the set up is too difficult to control.

Figment

2012-07-12, 04:10 PM

This is part of the problem I have with this debate. Sometimes people argue that the driver/gunner set up is too powerful, and sometimes people argue that the set up is too difficult to control.

Because it's both?

It's not a paradox...

EDIT: With multiple tanks working together, you need less driving skills because you get double the armour distributed over the two of you to compensate for your incompetence. An incompetence which is only a slight defficiency if you're any decent. But it means tank combat is of lower quality and more zergish, because quantity trumps quality in that situation.

It's not hard...

Raymac

2012-07-12, 04:13 PM

Because it's both?

It's not a paradox...

I could see how that would be possible, but I don't agree. If it is difficult to control, that naturally "nerfs" its effectiveness. It is a bit of a contradiction. (waits for incoming wall of text telling my I'm a retard)

EDIT: With multiple tanks working together, you need less driving skills because you get double the armour distributed over the two of you to compensate for your incompetence. An incompetence which is only a slight defficiency if you're any decent. But it means tank combat is of lower quality and more zergish, because quantity trumps quality in that situation.

It's not hard...

If that was the case, wouldn't you see more people pull 2 deliverers with 1 gunner, since you wuold "double your hitpoints"?

SgtExo

2012-07-12, 04:14 PM

Just driving or just gunning a tank sounds boring unless you have really intense driving mechanics like gears and such, but driving in PS2 does not look that different than BF games.

I know you will say to go get a Lightning to solo, but they do not fill in the same role, so that response is invalid (but that does not mean that I wont drive the lightning allot cause it looks really fun).

Figment

2012-07-12, 04:14 PM

Raymac, just read the edit above.

You somehow assume that the nerf cancels out the buff. And yes that's a retarded assumption because it's not just baseless, experience and maths tell otherwise. ;)

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-12, 04:18 PM

But what I mean is that when I want to fight in the front lines I want a big tank and when I want to be a fast moving raider, I will take a Lightning. But allot of ppl have been saying that if you want a tank and be solo, go for the lightning. But I do not consider does two as filling the same role and just because I will want to play alone sometimes that I should be locked out of a vital role on the battlefield.

But what I wouldn't mind seeing in game is something even bigger than the MBTs. Something that the driver could maybe a small fixed gun of his choice up front and then a really big main gun and then one or two extra turrets up top for AA or AI weapons. Having a rolling fortress would be cool in this game because we actually have the population for it to be effective.

What? Like a Maus? There's a lot of reasons that sort of stuff doesn't exist in real life and why tanks pretty much leveled out at the 60 ton range. The 1944 King Tiger II was 65 tons, believe it or not, the same size roughly as a modern M1 Abrams (also 65 tons). Russian T-72/80/90 all are in the 40-45 ton range (basically trading armor for increased mobility, they can go over a bridge/overpass that would collapse under an M1).

Giant 150 ton tanks with three turrets and five or six people in them don't exist because they're infeasible. I know this a video game and they aren't actually confined by the realities of physics, but the gist most people are leaning toward who oppose some of the design choices is not that they want "the real world" (this is a sci-fi video game, imagination is a given) but they want more realism than not.

Actually, when I re-read what you said, you weren't necessarily describing something that large. Sounds more like an equivalent to the old Prowler 3 seater, I'm not really sure, though. I'm sure as time goes on, and they add additional vehicles, we'll probably get "gaps" in the current lineup/roles filled in, and probably will end up with some more heavy armor of some sort. That's basically what they were going for with BFRs, but apparently screwed the pooch with their implementation :P

Regarding tank design, I am baffled by the Prowler having dual guns in the first place, and now they're offset. From an engineering perspective, this would cause horrible recoil... And somebody implied it might have a cert for TWO MORE guns on the other side to balance it out? I like guns. TR likes guns... But FOUR guns on one tank??? Gawd. Imagine the smoke/debris spam from something like that. NOBODY'S gonna be able to see :P

TheDAWinz

2012-07-12, 04:21 PM

What? Like a Maus? There's a lot of reasons that sort of stuff doesn't exist in real life and why tanks pretty much leveled out at the 60 ton range. The 1944 King Tiger II was 65 tons, believe it or not, the same size roughly as a modern M1 Abrams (also 65 tons). Russian T-72/80/90 all are in the 40-45 ton range (basically trading armor for increased mobility, they can go over a bridge/overpass that would collapse under an M1).

Giant 150 ton tanks with three turrets and five or six people in them don't exist because they're infeasible. I know this a video game and they aren't actually confined by the realities of physics, but the gist most people are leaning toward who oppose some of the design choices is not that they want "the real world" (this is a sci-fi video game, imagination is a given) but they want more realism than not.

Actually, when I re-read what you said, you weren't necessarily describing something that large. Sounds more like an equivalent to the old Prowler 3 seater, I'm not really sure, though. I'm sure as time goes on, and they add additional vehicles, we'll probably get "gaps" in the current lineup/roles filled in, and probably will end up with some more heavy armor of some sort. That's basically what they were going for with BFRs, but apparently screwed the pooch with their implementation :P

Regarding tank design, I am baffled by the Prowler having dual guns in the first place, and now they're offset. From an engineering perspective, this would cause horrible recoil... And somebody implied it might have a cert for TWO MORE guns on the other side to balance it out? I like guns. TR likes guns... But FOUR guns on one tank??? Gawd. Imagine the smoke/debris spam from something like that. NOBODY'S gonna be able to see :P

Well, the t-72/80/90 Are all crappy tanks that fall apart constantly. The M1A2 TUSK is 70 tons with the choblam and or reactive armor on it and it would easily punch through a column of Crap-90's

SgtExo

2012-07-12, 04:21 PM

Raymac

2012-07-12, 04:27 PM

Raymac, just read the edit above.

You somehow assume that the nerf cancels out the buff. And yes that's a retarded assumption because it's not just baseless, experience and maths tell otherwise. ;)

Yeah, caught the edit later, so check my edit responding to your edit :groovy:

I don't think there can be a direct mathmatical answer because of all the intangibles i.e. terrain, fog of war, emotional reactions, etc. I can feel your teeth grinding at me already, sorry. Obviously math is an important component, but it's not the end all be all answer.

Figment

2012-07-12, 04:28 PM

1 tank with the two guns could easily beat 2 tanks with 1 gun each if they are good enough and know how to use their armor and terrain to their advantage. But the same can be said from the other side. Do you prefer to have a more effective single point, or do you want to use numbers to pin down and flank the opposition.

Also if you have an engineer in the second gun and the battle is pretty static, the engineer could always get out, take cover behind the tank and repair it at the same time, while the others cannot. That is another good examples of teamwork.

I was writing this up for raymac, but you could do with it as well. Two tanks is always better than one of the same frame if the total firepower is the same. By default. You don't have to know specifics beyond that because it's irrelevant.

This is a very simplistic representation and only meant to illustrate how something can cancel something else out:

Imagine driving efficiency of 1.0 being the performance of a player in a multicrew, driver only tank (regarding his driving skills and impact on the battle). His gunner also has an efficiency of 1.0. Alright? Together they have 200% and their tank is a single tank, so it's a modifier of 1.0. So 2.0 total.

Now imagine they both get their own tanks and have to gun. This reduces both player's efficiency by 40% to 0.6. together, they now have an efficiency of 120%, rather than 200%. So that's worse right? Wrong. The modifier for the armour of two tanks is 2.0. That means that their efficiency now is 2.4

That's a whole .4 points higher despite both being much worse on their own.

THEN we add the advantage of circling. Which enhances the efficiency of both solo players further, because you add turret rotation issues to the equation. So the actual efficiency of two solo players can be even greater!

Add some more modifier advantages like better situational awareness from not both having the same perspective and being able to tag team for repairs and you can easily reach an efficiency of what... 3?

Even if on an individual basis, they're significantly worse off in one vehicle than in two. Of course the above is a simplification, but it illustrates well that people are dumb to assume being a worse driver cancels out any additional advantage separate vehicles gives you.

Basically, it's killing teamwork gameplay to make everything solowhorable.

Goldeh

2012-07-12, 04:29 PM

Yeah, caught the edit later, so check my edit responding to your edit :groovy:

I don't think there can be a direct mathmatical answer because of all the intangibles i.e. terrain, fog of war, emotional reactions, etc. I can feel your teeth grinding at me already, sorry. Obviously math is an important component, but it's not the end all be all answer.

You're also forgeting the blessings of Satan needs to be taken into account when discussing battle outcomes.

Flaropri

2012-07-12, 04:30 PM

Because to get a gunner to be more useful than getting a tank of its own, it has to be WAY BETTER than the main gun!

Or make it prohibitively expensive for everyone to get their own MBTs all the time, and make being a gunner slightly more useful than being in a Lightning (which can be accomplished via intangibles really, especially since being a gunner doesn't require any certs into tanks or resource expenditure).

DO THE MATHS. PLEASE DO SOME @#*@*$****$^#*$ MATHS FOR ONCE.

There are no hard numbers with which to do math.

There's speculative numbers, numbers based on E3 (game not in a balanced state), and there's basing it all in PS1 stats (aka: slightly better educated speculation). But that's all we got.

If a single multi-crew MBT is going against 2 MBTs with only one crew each, then it has an HP disadvantage, but not a weapons disadvantage. Further more, it could use tight spaces to it's advantage, or attempt to manuever so that there's one enemy tank between the other. Ultimately, I think it's reasonable to think that it could at least take out one of the enemies before being trashed itself, pending skill of the players involved and chosen weaponry. In some rare situations, it might be able to take out the second one later.

I think it's reasonable that the second single-crew MBT is able to survive and move on, simply because more resources were spent on that side. Likewise, if the driver for the first single-crew is able to get in than that's the fault of the multi-crew not killing the character or otherwise cutting them off from their ally.

Obviously, if resources just pour out of the rocks (that players fly into trying to mine the resources) then this is moot, and the game overall will be imbalanced anyway.

That's just my view on it. I don't have any WoT experience, so a lot of the conversation involving that game means very little to me.

SgtExo

2012-07-12, 04:38 PM

Making cost more, meaning you want to have a gunner for more bang for your buck, then having to have a second person shooting for you. And I do believe that tactics and teamwork will be more important than numbers in the game.

Azren

2012-07-12, 04:46 PM

There are no hard numbers with which to do math.

There's speculative numbers, numbers based on E3 (game not in a balanced state), and there's basing it all in PS1 stats (aka: slightly better educated speculation). But that's all we got.

You have got to be kidding. What kind of numbers do you need?

armor of tank = x
damage of main weapon = y
damage of secondary weapon = y - z

for argument's sake, lets make z = 0

so a tank does 2*y damage with a gunner
two tanks do 2*y damage too, with no gunner

the diffrence is, the tank with two occupants has x armor, while the two tanks have 2*x armor

So who do you think would win? And I was being very generous by giving the secondary gun the same damage as the main one. Not to mention the "small" details that for example one of the two tanks could swrill around and attack the double manned tank's rear or side for extra damage.

Figment

2012-07-12, 04:52 PM

@Flapropi.

Algebra doesn't require accurate numbers. It just requires a subtitute A, B, C, etc. for whatever number you might want to fill in and you can quickly derive ratios and come to conclusions for different scenarios.

Simply base the maths on:

A - Amount of gunners (1xA, 2xA, etc).
B - Firepower of gun 1 (damage per shot)
C - Firepower of gun 2 (damage per shot)
D - Rate of fire
E - Endurance of tank (hitpoints)
etc.

Loading times, clipsizes, you name it, you can work them all into algebra and customize any value you get to know.

Then add some efficiencies you find acceptable. For example, hit ratio efficiency, driving skill. However, assuming those efficiencies as 1.0 simplifies the maths greatly and is pretty accurate, because it gives you a top performance idea and you already know that everything else that would be a lowering factor would negatively impact the performance in combat.

If you want, use ranges of efficiency modifications. I would however, assume standard combat situations on flat terrain, since terrain can be to the advantage of both players, though is usualy in favour of a group of units.

People who say "but we don't know the situation" are just avoiding and don't actually think about ways to bypass or calculate for the unknowns without avoiding them. But you can always just assume equality as a basis and work from there.

I've done it before, doesn't take too long. When you're comparing two tanks of the same frame, LOADS of factors start cancelling out. It's very simple mathematics.

Just calculate a TTK expressed in algebra for the two tanks and for the single tank to kill both tanks.

You'll find the single tank with more gunners is always screwed.

That means that the single tank with more gunners is the worse option to pick.

But yes, Flapropi. The scenario you suggested is about right according to the maths (see how hard it is to make a basic assesment?). In principal ONE of the solo tanks should probably die on an equal skill basis. The other would probably take barely any damage. However, you say this is fair because of resources spend.

I don't think any player in game will feel it that way and their response will be something other than "oh well, again". Why? Because they want to perform and thus they learned a lesson: play with two tanks, not one, to be efficient. More costly? Depends. Over time it's probably less costly if you survive more often.

EDIT: And Azren does make a good point. The two units are going to take advantage of directional damage which will be in PS2, so don't forget to add damage mitigation/increasing modifiers. Note that it seems just a few hits in the rear can already take out a tank at this time. So being able to flank (which is incredibly easy with two vs one), is going to be a huge modifier to the situation.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-12, 04:52 PM

Well, the t-72/80/90 Are all crappy tanks that fall apart constantly. The M1A2 TUSK is 70 tons with the choblam and or reactive armor on it and it would easily punch through a column of Crap-90's

No, the poorly maintained second hand tanks used by the Iraqis and Afghans are crap tanks that fall apart constantly. Also, budget shortfall and improper maintenance has more to do with these issues than the actual designs of the vehicles. As the US continues to bankrupt, you'll see Abrams, F-16s, etc, become afflicted with the same problems...
The modern T-72/80/90s incorporate a lot of the same technology any other modern battle tank does, including reactive armor. They have a couple interesting prototypes in the work, too, using stuff intended to baffle missiles (or at least give the crew a headsup that they're being lazed). Basically, one person comes up with a good idea, everybody else starts doing it, too.
They all do the same things, or variations thereof, more or less. The USA doesn't have a monopoly on stealth fighters anymore, either, several other countries either have or are working on their own versions.

It boils down more to design philosophies that are in use, more than one being directly "better" than another. Besides, I wasn't referring to quality as much as size in that statement.

-edit

Wow. Now we're breaking it down into algebraic formulae, huh? Sorry, you guys are taking this discussion way past my ability/willingness to follow :P

TheDAWinz

2012-07-12, 04:54 PM

No, the poorly maintained second hand tanks used by the Iraqis and Afghans are crap tanks that fall apart constantly. Also, budget shortfall and improper maintenance has more to do with these issues than the actual designs of the vehicles. As the US continues to bankrupt, you'll see Abrams, F-16s, etc, become afflicted with the same problems...
The modern T-72/80/90s incorporate a lot of the same technology any other modern battle tank does, including reactive armor. They have a couple interesting prototypes in the work, too, using stuff intended to baffle missiles (or at least give the crew a headsup that they're being lazed). Basically, one person comes up with a good idea, everybody else starts doing it, too.
They all do the same things, or variations thereof, more or less. The USA doesn't have a monopoly on stealth fighters anymore, either, several other countries either have or are working on their own versions.

It boils down more to design philosophies that are in use, more than one being directly "better" than another.

Tell that to the russians who fought to the georgians! Е-90 шы еру агслштп цщкые ефтл шт еру утешку цщкдв! its so shitty! After a single rpg it was destroyed.

your under the illusion that america's military might will go down. Wrong. The U.S. has thing 50 years ahead of what they currently show us.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-12, 04:56 PM

TheDAWinz

2012-07-12, 04:57 PM

I doubt that, but whatever. Enjoying your 360 degree monovision?

Yes, why i am. You are envious of being the lesser begin here.

I doubt that, but whatever. Enjoying your 360 degree monovision?

edit-

Actually, the possibility of a tank being taken out by a single round or RPG is very realistic, including an Abrams. Phosphorous rounds are not commonly used because of their extreme expense, but stuff like that almost instantly burns through armor, nearly regardless of thickness or type, and turns the inside into a 4000 degree oven. It's been around since the 40's, but like I said, it's expensive, and so most the rounds a tank carries will be SABOT, with only a couple like this.

Some abrams carry tungsten instead of depleted uranium. I don't see the difference as they are both very dense materials. I love white phosphorous as much as the next guy, but everyone by now has developed countermeasures or at least resistances to it in their armor. At least thats what the challenger 2 and Merkerva tanks do.

Klockan

2012-07-12, 05:02 PM

And you know what? Those casual players that play WoT and make up the majority of players, end up leaving the game eventually after they grinded their things.
So much bullshit in this post and this probably takes the cake. Do you really think that the community for WoT would be bigger if they had separated gunner and driver? The community is small because the game sucks with utterly worthless scenarios, almost everyone would stop playing it after ~2 games if they didn't have the grind. Battlefield games are way more solo oriented than WoT but its community is still thriving, mainly because the game is more engaging.

And the thing about how you are a better tank player because you have used a 2 man tank... That is just a ridiculous statement. No, you are a better tank player because you are a more serious player than 99% of the players out there. You know how I know that? Because you played planetside. You payed a monthly fee just to play an fps. No, you aren't a better player because you have done X or played Y, you are a better player since you care more.

TheDAWinz

2012-07-12, 05:02 PM

I doubt that, but whatever. Enjoying your 360 degree monovision?

edit-

Actually, the possibility of a tank being taken out by a single round or RPG is very realistic, including an Abrams. Phosphorous rounds are not commonly used because of their extreme expense, but stuff like that almost instantly burns through armor, nearly regardless of thickness or type, and turns the inside into a 4000 degree oven. It's been around since the 40's, but like I said, it's expensive, and so most the rounds a tank carries will be SABOT, with only a couple like this.

Some abrams carry tungsten instead of depleted uranium. I don't see the difference as they are both very dense materials. I love white phosphorous as much as the next guy, but everyone by now has developed countermeasures or at least resistances to it in their armor. At least thats what the challenger 2 and Merkerva tanks do.

Edit: The T-90 and M1A1 can be considered to be ~ equal.
the M1A2 SEP swapped 2nd gen DU mesh with 3rd gen DU. NBD
And M1A1 has greater depression of the barrel.

Ratstomper

2012-07-12, 05:02 PM

Wow, this thread went nowhere fast.

Even after reading all these arguments, I stand by my previous statement about drivers as gunners. Even though I can't find it....

SgtExo

2012-07-12, 05:08 PM

Klockan

2012-07-12, 05:13 PM

Also a main reason why tanks could move around and fire well in planetside was because the turret didn't turn with the body, so you could drive circles without fucking up the aim of the gunner. If this wasn't the case the driver/gunner teams of planetside would be even less mobile than the single player tanks since as soon as you start to turn you fuck up the aim of the player controlling the tank. It is a lot easier to compensate for movement than to compensate for turning.

Ratstomper

2012-07-12, 05:18 PM

We are just bored now and the debate has cooled down.

Now its more about if its better to have 1 two person or 2 one person tank.

On that subject, if the 2 person tank can take out 1 of the other tanks fast, that takes away 50% of the other teams effectiveness. So you would have to put that into your equation.

Apples to oranges.

I don't understand why people think lightnings are "MBT lite". The heavier tanks are actually capable of pushing battle lines. Lightning are practically skirmish and flanking vehicles. That's exactly why saying "We already have a one-man tank" is kind of a defenseless argument for having separate spots for gunners and drivers. They're technically both tanks, but they serve different purposes. One is not just a more powerful version of the other.

It's obscenely difficult to try to play out hypothetical math like this. You have to look at things on a role basis. It doesn't matter how many lightning it takes to kill a MBT, because MBTs shouldn't be a lightning's primary target.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-12, 05:23 PM

Some abrams carry tungsten instead of depleted uranium. I don't see the difference as they are both very dense materials. I love white phosphorous as much as the next guy, but everyone by now has developed countermeasures or at least resistances to it in their armor. At least thats what the challenger 2 and Merkerva tanks do.

Edit: The T-90 and M1A1 can be considered to be ~ equal.
the M1A2 SEP swapped 2nd gen DU mesh with 3rd gen DU. NBD
And M1A1 has greater depression of the barrel.

Yeah, I think tungsten and d.uranium are pretty similar performance wise. I found a field manual/army study thing? Anyway, it says pretty much what I expected : cost. Tungsten is an alloy/material that is more easily obtained. Depleted Uranium, obviously, comes from Uranium, which isn't very common, as we all know. So... Yeah $$$$ <--- this here.

Phosphorous is also heavily regulated by international law, apparently. They don't mind you killing people... As long as you do it "humanely" note : humane is purely subjective. I think regulating this stuff is idiotic in the first place, but more so when stuff overlaps or is contradictory. Napalm is ok, but the very things that make phosphorous supposedly NOT ok (even though it's utilised despite not being ok, it's only if it's being used for specific applications) even though napalm does the very things that supposedly make phosphorous NOT ok. But then... That's bureaucrats for you.

SgtExo

2012-07-12, 05:25 PM

Apples to oranges.

I don't understand why people think lightnings are "MBT lite". The heavier tanks are actually capable of pushing battle lines. Lightning are practically skirmish and flanking vehicles. That's exactly why saying "We already have a one-man tank" is kind of a defenseless argument for having separate spots for gunners and drivers. They're technically both tanks, but they serve different purposes. One is not just a more powerful version of the other.

It's obscenely difficult to try to play out hypothetical math like this. You have to look at things on a role basis. It doesn't matter how many lightning it takes to kill a MBT, because MBTs shouldn't be a lightning's primary target.

I agree that Lightnings and MBTs do no fill the same role, but they are trying to calculate between 1 MBT that is fully maned and 2 solo MBTs.

Ratstomper

2012-07-12, 05:29 PM

I agree that Lightnings and MBTs do no fill the same role, but they are trying to calculate between 1 MBT that is fully maned and 2 solo MBTs.

Right and I'm saying that's an unfair comparison because the MBT is clearly better designed for killing enemy armor than the lightning is. You can hypothesize till the cows come home with different scenarios, but the two can't really be compared like that.

MrBloodworth

2012-07-12, 05:32 PM

Planet side one had a rule.

1 + 1 = 3.

If you choose to solo, you should not be as effective as a team. This applies to Vehicles as well.

If you want to solo, you have the lightning. You made a choice. Planetside one and two offer solo users options. No need to water down the team aspect when you are already covered. Separate Driver and Gunner, and put a cert, at a high level in tanking, to drive and gun. Just because battlefield does something, does not mean Planetside has to keep breaking its original design intentions. This is a war game, not a session based game. Two very different designs. Right now, from the outside, PS2 is a large scale session based game in its design.

I for one, do not like that. I hope to help them temper it into the global scale war game it should be, in beta.

Klockan

2012-07-12, 05:40 PM

I don't think that anyone would want separate driver and gunner with the current tank controls, without having a noobified turret like PS had it would be a hell to be a gunner if the driver didn't stood still.

DukeTerror

2012-07-12, 05:46 PM

Yeah, I didn't expect my 1driver/1gunner tank vs 2 solo tanks comment to turn into such a math debate. What Losers! J/K However, it's a really about can the 2player tank maneuver, dodge, and aim better than the solo tanks because of the two focused players and ability to see in two directions.

The obvious answer is yes, but is it significant enough to make a difference to such a battle scenario? I'm crossing my fingers in the beta they actually test this out to see what players like better (and I assume they'll like whatever kills better ultimately in large scale combats)

SgtExo

2012-07-12, 05:48 PM

Right and I'm saying that's an unfair comparison because the MBT is clearly better designed for killing enemy armor than the lightning is. You can hypothesize till the cows come home with different scenarios, but the two can't really be compared like that.

I'm saying that they are not trying to compare the Lightning to the MBT but are comparing 1 MBT with both gunner position filled and 2 MBT with only the main gun filled.

@Blood: The reason that the MBT can be driven solo is that it is the only vehicle for that role. If you compare it to the air vehicles, the ES planes can fill the same role as the Lib, but the lib will be allot more devastating with its increased gunner numbers. But a Lightning cannot fill in the role of a MBT because it lacks the protection of heavy armor. But that does not mean that the devs cant make another heavy tank with more places in it for outfits that enjoy to be in the same vehicles.

Ratstomper

2012-07-12, 05:48 PM

Planet side one had a rule.

1 + 1 = 3.

If you choose to solo, you should not be as effective as a team. This applies to Vehicles as well.

Not entirely true. Certain roles were more prone to being effective than others. Snipers would, on average, get more kills in a life than standard grunts would. Infiltrators, on average, didn't get many kills and had to work pretty slowly, but still served a practical and important purpose. Most multi-manned vehicles will be more effective than single manned vehicles, just by their nature. However, that's just the rule of thumb.

Performance is based on tactical thinking and ability to adapt to situations, not "how many of X should it take to do Y?". That kind of thinking completely negates all the logic and thought that goes into a PvP game. Let's face it, HOW you play the game is 90% of what will make you successful.

Flaropri

2012-07-12, 05:51 PM

You have got to be kidding. What kind of numbers do you need?

Cost.

Specifically relative cost vs. income in an average situation. What the most limiting factor is, whether it's resources or players.

Also, less important, the number of tanks that can effectively engage a smaller group (given terrain) before losing effectiveness due to overkill or lack of angles, etc.

@Flapropi.

Algebra doesn't require accurate numbers.

True, but there are too many unknown variables. Including what the heck the rest of the army is doing, how quickly the gap in resources can be spent via other means (did the gunner lay a bunch of mines to cover their rear for instance? [assuming mines cost resources like grenades]), etc.

The other would probably take barely any damage. However, you say this is fair because of resources spend.

Indeed, because nothing stops the multi-crew from getting another tank, at that point, they've lost time, but the fight is even or possibly in their advantage (pending reinforcements on either side, whether or not they killed the first driver and if that driver can return as quickly as they can to assist his allied tank, etc.)

Or for that matter getting a Liberator or Air-to-Ground Fighter knowing that those MBTs only have one crew member so if they use their AA secondaries they are likely immobile and thus easy targets... assuming they even have time to respond properly when you come in for the initial attack.

Or, if they choose to get two tanks when they come back, they'll have more resources to do so. Or a tank and a fighter to really screw them over.

Or it means they focus on taking away resources from that empire that are used for MBTs to limit their capability in the long run.

I don't think any player in game will feel it that way and their response will be something other than "oh well, again". Why? Because they want to perform and thus they learned a lesson: play with two tanks, not one, to be efficient. More costly? Depends. Over time it's probably less costly if you survive more often.

I don't think survival affects resources, just victory and point control. Certainly if you are able to consistently take more resources due to that temporary advantage then you'd be right. However, if the battles are long enough that attrition is a factor then it can easily even out or turn in favor of multi-crew use. Winning the battle is more important than winning a specific engagement within that battle.

In any event I think that effectively saying that any player would disagree with me is an overstatement (certainly, as a future player myself it won't be strictly true). Learning the system, the draw-backs, and the potential benifits of single vs. multi-crew both in resources and in time to prep will be important, and I think as long as they are able to take out or get close to taking out one of the enemies it won't be so frustrating that they'll rush to change tactics or yell at people for getting in the gunner position (instead of their own tank).

EDIT: And Azren does make a good point. The two units are going to take advantage of directional damage which will be in PS2, so don't forget to add damage mitigation/increasing modifiers. Note that it seems just a few hits in the rear can already take out a tank at this time. So being able to flank (which is incredibly easy with two vs one), is going to be a huge modifier to the situation.

You can flank, but (as a group) you are less maneuverable, and terrain could be a mitigating factor as well (likewise it can hide your numbers/approach to enable flanking, strategy and player skill is a significant factor in this obviously). In a small area where you can only (effectively anyway) fit D number of tanks, the ones that are better crewed will come out ahead even considering that the single-crewed tanks will be quicker to fill the spaces of lost tanks, simply due to better damage within the field of fire.

In larger open areas more tanks at less firepower have the advantage, and in rougher terrain the tanks with more firepower could have the advantage in spite of the HP gap. All within that specific engagement. Also, this ignores Air and Infantry support, where multi-crewed tanks will likely be better equipped to handle them if only because they have more eyes to see incoming.

Here's how I'm looking at it. You have something that costs X resources and does Y damage per gunner and Z HP. You're paying 2X for 2Y damage and 2Z, while the other side is paying X for 2Y and Z. Even accounting for flanking, you're paying double the resources for only a bit more (say, 2.2Y w/ flanking modifier) than what they are getting in terms of firepower, and relying on greater total health to make up the difference in cost... and even then you're still likely (at least 40% chance as long as we're going with rough numbers) to lose half your firepower and HP for the next engagement.

If it was just the one isolated battle, yeah, you'd come out ahead, but over a series of battles attrition could hurt. And that's what this game is all about, persistent, never-ending war.

Without knowing how effective attrition is, resource scarcity, and other numbers, there isn't enough to say that one strategy is generally better than another. If it's done right, there will be times having a bunch of single-crew MBTs will be the way to go, and other times you want to have multi-crew MBTs for superior concentrated firepower, maneuverability, and conservation of resources.

Klockan

2012-07-12, 05:52 PM

However, it's a really about can the 2player tank maneuver, dodge, and aim better than the solo tanks because of the two focused players and ability to see in two directions.

The obvious answer is yes.
No they can't, since the turret is fixed to the chassis in this game trying to aim while the driver drives will be hell, so most likely a single 1 man tank would perform better since he would have an easier time compensating for his own movements. Separating driver and gunner with those mechanics would almost force the driver to stop or at least stop turning every time the gunner wants to fire or the gunner would never hit anything.

Ratstomper

2012-07-12, 05:53 PM

I'm saying that they are not trying to compare the Lightning to the MBT but are comparing 1 MBT with both gunner position filled and 2 MBT with only the main gun filled.

Oh, sorry. I'm a moron who should read better. I don't necessarily think one MBT with 2 gunners could take on two MBTs with one gunner, but that 2-manned tank would be able to react much better to a MUCH wider variety of situations than the two single-manned tanks could. Planes and local infantry are threats to tanks as well, not just other tanks.

SgtExo

2012-07-12, 06:05 PM

Great post Flaropri, I think you go the gist of how things are going to balance out, meaning we cannot account for all the variables right now. And people will always find ways to turn weaknesses into strengths.

DukeTerror

2012-07-12, 06:07 PM

No they can't, since the turret is fixed to the chassis in this game trying to aim while the driver drives will be hell, so most likely a single 1 man tank would perform better since he would have an easier time compensating for his own movements. Separating driver and gunner with those mechanics would almost force the driver to stop or at least stop turning every time the gunner wants to fire or the gunner would never hit anything.

Well, I should have been more clear, but the assumption with the 1 Driver/ 1 Gunner combo is that the gunner would have the main cannon on the turret with full 360 view like PS1. True, that made aiming a bitch when your driver was going full throttle crazy, but then again, you got hit less yourself.

maradine

2012-07-12, 06:10 PM

Flaropri

2012-07-12, 06:18 PM

SgtExo

2012-07-12, 06:28 PM

Hmm, I just realized there's an easier way to put my point:

As long as resources are meaningful, all else being equal, the side that spends more resources should have the advantage in a given engagement, that's just natural, and it will be balanced in the long run because the game is persistent and not about a specific encounter.

I should not be about who spends the most resources, but about who does not waste to much of it. Which is what attrition warfare is about. Spending more resources should give you more power, but a clever or well pulled of tactic, or even just good teamwork should count for more then spending power. Otherwise, people spending for resources and xp boosters will always have the advantage of having more resources to spend.

Sledgecrushr

2012-07-12, 06:32 PM

I should not be about who spends the most resources, but about who does not waste to much of it. Which is what attrition warfare is about. Spending more resources should give you more power, but a clever or well pulled of tactic, or even just good teamwork should count for more then spending power. Otherwise, people spending for resources and xp boosters will always have the advantage of having more resources to spend.

I think we can all agree that three people in a tank really is the most efficient use of that tank. But I think most of us recognise that having three people in a tank isnt the best way to use your available manpower.

TheDAWinz

2012-07-12, 06:32 PM

Yeah, I think tungsten and d.uranium are pretty similar performance wise. I found a field manual/army study thing? Anyway, it says pretty much what I expected : cost. Tungsten is an alloy/material that is more easily obtained. Depleted Uranium, obviously, comes from Uranium, which isn't very common, as we all know. So... Yeah $$$$ <--- this here.

Phosphorous is also heavily regulated by international law, apparently. They don't mind you killing people... As long as you do it "humanely" note : humane is purely subjective. I think regulating this stuff is idiotic in the first place, but more so when stuff overlaps or is contradictory. Napalm is ok, but the very things that make phosphorous supposedly NOT ok (even though it's utilised despite not being ok, it's only if it's being used for specific applications) even though napalm does the very things that supposedly make phosphorous NOT ok. But then... That's bureaucrats for you.

I don't see how people think you can make killing people humane. I vote for the ones that take more people with them.

Klockan

2012-07-12, 06:37 PM

Well, I should have been more clear, but the assumption with the 1 Driver/ 1 Gunner combo is that the gunner would have the main cannon on the turret with full 360 view like PS1. True, that made aiming a bitch when your driver was going full throttle crazy, but then again, you got hit less yourself.

No, you don't understand what I mean, the turret turns when the tank turns. Thus if the driver loops around your turret would as well which makes it all but impossible to hit stuff. Planetside didn't rotate your turret when the tank rotates which makes the whole thing a lot easier and is the main reason tanks are more mobile there, not that the driver and gunner seat are separate.

Flaropri

2012-07-12, 06:38 PM

I should not be about who spends the most resources, but about who does not waste to much of it. Which is what attrition warfare is about. Spending more resources should give you more power, but a clever or well pulled of tactic, or even just good teamwork should count for more then spending power. Otherwise, people spending for resources and xp boosters will always have the advantage of having more resources to spend.

I said all else being equal, and was referring to an individual fight, rather than the overall battle. In other words, the effectiveness of said resources (per resource) is equal as well. It's a hypothetical.

I have no problem with the side that commits more resources having an advantage (and advantage isn't guarantee of victory) in a given fight. Long term it balances out, and overall skill is still a very significant factor.

SgtExo

2012-07-12, 06:40 PM

I said all else being equal, and was referring to an individual fight, rather than the overall battle. In other words, the effectiveness of said resources (per resource) is equal as well. It's a hypothetical.

I have no problem with the side that commits more resources having an advantage (and advantage isn't guarantee of victory) in a given fight. Long term it balances out, and overall skill is still a very significant factor.

If that is what you meant, you are right then that the side with the most resources should win.

Sledgecrushr

2012-07-12, 06:45 PM

The side that commits to using three man tanks will be defeated.~Sun Tzu

vasito

2012-07-12, 07:22 PM

Drivers should be gunners. And there should be a cert that allows drivers to be only drivers.

Figment

2012-07-12, 07:24 PM

If that was the case, wouldn't you see more people pull 2 deliverers with 1 gunner, since you wuold "double your hitpoints"?

Caught this late, apologies Raymac, overlooked your edit.

If you have four people and there's no better alternative for the fourth person, yes.

Typically, if we're with four people we pull one Deli and the fourth guy uses a Mossie or Reaver for added air support though, because that's even better most the time. But yes, we've done that quite a bit.

Thing is, the Deliverer requires four people to do that. If you look at the unit itself, then with three people, it doesn't help to have one gunner and an extra deli, because nobody would be gunning it (!).

The situation you prescribe is more obvious for the Raider however. With the Raider, you have five people to dispense, so the dual Deliver makes far more sense with three gunners total and double the armour of a Raider. That's why you hardly see TR pull Raiders and people who want to use them can't get gunners, because everyone else knows it's stupid to waste manpower on a single unit when it doesn't create an advantage, but a disadvantage.

When you then make a unit like a MBT "soloable", you basically create the option to pull two MBTs, instead of one and then the decision to use two (if not more) instead of one becomes even easier. Why should that decision be easier? Who does it help but the winning party?

Resources could influence this, yes, but it's highly questionable that's going to be a mitigation issue rather than an escalation issue most the time in a game that looks to be highly stalemate prone (in a stalemate it'd have no effect). However, when you ARE somehow on the defense, you have less resource gain, a higher attrition rate and thus will quickly have less available units. Especially when the enemy then also would outnumber you, this is going to be painful... The larger numbers have no reason to pool resources, the lower numbers do, but the lower numbers would do so and be disadvantaged as per earlier posts.

So to make single players better with multiple units is just asking for escalation of a pre-existing resource problem for any defender. Requiring teamwork makes larger groups in vehicles more manageable by an enemy as it focuses their troops. It also enhances the relative power of the few units you can still pull.

This is something entirely overlooked with regards to resources and again - you don't need to see it to know the maths are sound.

DukeTerror

2012-07-12, 07:43 PM

No, you don't understand what I mean, the turret turns when the tank turns. Thus if the driver loops around your turret would as well which makes it all but impossible to hit stuff. Planetside didn't rotate your turret when the tank rotates which makes the whole thing a lot easier and is the main reason tanks are more mobile there, not that the driver and gunner seat are separate.

Ah, I get you now. Yeah that would e a whole new mechanic to debate about. With future technology theme you could allow it it either way and Im sure that's not locked down in development (good code base should allow both options anyway - just a toggle for the designer to choose). I think a counter-turning turret would be the more fun playstyle of course just for the reasons you've said.

Landtank

2012-07-12, 07:48 PM

Yeah, I didn't expect my 1driver/1gunner tank vs 2 solo tanks comment to turn into such a math debate. What Losers! J/K However, it's a really about can the 2player tank maneuver, dodge, and aim better than the solo tanks because of the two focused players and ability to see in two directions.

The obvious answer is yes

Could not disagree with you more.

The obvious answer is no, they are honestly even. Play World of Tanks, if I had someone gunning for me I would just end up getting pissed off because they might not see the same shot as me, etc.

Figment

2012-07-12, 08:01 PM

So much bullshit in this post and this probably takes the cake. Do you really think that the community for WoT would be bigger if they had separated gunner and driver? The community is small because the game sucks with utterly worthless scenarios, almost everyone would stop playing it after ~2 games if they didn't have the grind. Battlefield games are way more solo oriented than WoT but its community is still thriving, mainly because the game is more engaging.

I was saying... People play longer... if they're part of a community...

If you ever frequent the gameplay discussion forums of WoT, ask if they think WoT is a good community builder game.

Trust me on this: they don't think it's great at building a community due to the random setup of the matchmaker and because clan wars and even Tank Company matches are very inaccessible for the lower tiered. Which unfortunately is the root equalizer of the game since it's needed to keep tiered matches fairly 'balanced'.

If you can call tiered matches with the power distance they utilise balance...

And the thing about how you are a better tank player because you have used a 2 man tank... That is just a ridiculous statement. No, you are a better tank player because you are a more serious player than 99% of the players out there. You know how I know that? Because you played planetside. You payed a monthly fee just to play an fps. No, you aren't a better player because you have done X or played Y, you are a better player since you care more.

No, I said I got a lot of experience purely driving in PlanetSide 1 and thus if I have to compensate for gunning my efficiency is higher (read: not reduced as much as that of other players who never simply drove a lot and never had as much competence in the first place). Driving is second nature to me. Compensating for gunning is therefore less hard on me. Is that really strange to say?

But you're saying if you got the money to pay a sub, or find it worthwhile, you're by default a better player because you care? Eh... "Apathic" is the word I've been using for a lot of CR5s with regards to rsecuring. They just cared for the killing in the end.

But wait till I tell the zerg or the people that bought tier 8 Premium Tanks in WoT that if you spend money you're a better player! =D

You catch the drift. ;) Tbh, I personally feel in WoT to be a better player it's mostly about willingness to work together with total strangers, which in PS1 you learned to do lots and then you got to know them better. Being able to break the ice usualy helps create a cooperative spirit. Hence I usualy make jokes or provoke light spirited rivalries with the enemies ("they took our pies!" "They said your granny's tank rusts!"), try and create a group feeling. Get people to share info. Try to make sure flanks are covered and my personal favourite: flank an enemy and turn their heavily armoured side towards me as they try to protect their butt, while the actual heavy tanks get to fire at the now exposed soft sides. I just can't stand people on forums when they dismiss arguments off hand, like a lot of people in these "WAIT FOR BETA" type threads tend to do. :/

But the group tactics learned in PS1 work like a charm in WoT thanks to the armour system: every time cause players rather block shots by turning hull and turret from one nearby tier 8 enemy than 2-3 tier 9 tanks sniping. <3 Aah. The smell of burning peons trumped by teamplay in the morning. Basically... I know full well how to take full advantage of single crew vehicles and entice randoms to use my insane rushes to their advantage by communicating the plan. But also hence why I fear so much for the multi crew vehicles, because they'll get outnumbered and will be so easy to flank and overwhelm... :(

With regards to World of Tanks, with multi-crew player tanks tank combat in it would be far more dynamic and as long as they're on equal footing, more enjoyable, yes. Unfortunately, the aiming system (auto-compensates for height and distance making leading an targeting very easy) and damage/tier systems would create a huge problem (a lot of tanks can one or two shot other tanks due to tier differences and power distance). That'd make it really frustrating to play with two people: get one shot by a higher tier solo player. In PS, there's no tier system and damage per shot lower, so that shouldn't be an issue as long as two crew units are more powerful in comparison.

Anyway, I've often advised on WoT forums to make a bit more challenging aiming system within some "expert" battle mode, just to create a more challenging and dynamic game play. Then fast moving units could make better use of their maneuvrability and make up for their lack of hitpoints, firepower and armour compared to heavy and higher tier tanks. Opposed to now where if they show themselves at range, they often die within 10 seconds - which is one reason why combat is so static. And boring, tbh. The other is that accuracy on the move is virtually impossible at long distance and you almost always have to cross long distances at first. Plus if you stand still, you can fire undetected from bushes with a lot of units. Plus if you get sighted, artillery starts homing in on you (since everyone else isn't shown yet...). Hence often times, nobody moves out of fear. Hence why camping is such an issue in WoT and gameplay so static.

PS 1 and 2 both have a much better aiming system in that regards and you don't have to hit miniscule parts of enemy tanks to not just hit, but also deal damage. That dynamic combat is an advantage to a good driver, even if less effective due to gunning, as said before, there's a lot to compensate for if you drive a tank alone with some buddies in other tanks.

Could not disagree with you more.

The obvious answer is no, they are honestly even. Play World of Tanks, if I had someone gunning for me I would just end up getting pissed off because they might not see the same shot as me, etc.

Would you mind sharing your WoT name and server please? >.>

Vanir

2012-07-12, 08:09 PM

vasito

2012-07-12, 08:12 PM

fod

2012-07-12, 08:17 PM

Optional cert that allows the driver to choose to give up use of the main Cannon. In return for opening up a 3rd seat in the tank, a main gunner seat. There for you would have the driver, the main gunner, and the secondary gunner.

this would be awesome

i dont mind too much if people want to solo drive a tank but dont force it on me if i want to have dedicated gunners - a cert so i can do this will be fine by me

maradine

2012-07-12, 08:45 PM

I think that's pretty fair, considering both camps think they're more effective in combat.

Littleman

2012-07-12, 08:50 PM

Optional cert that allows the driver to choose to give up use of the main Cannon. In return for opening up a 3rd seat in the tank, a main gunner seat. There for you would have the driver, the main gunner, and the secondary gunner.

I'm just quoting this before this thread blissfully flies off on another extreme tangent. (not the first time this has been suggested...)

As an extension to the idea, the turret shouldn't rotate with the chassis when this cert is active, and neither should having the cert active consume a modification slot if any such thing exists. I still don't really know how the customization plays out yet as the videos didn't offer a whole lot of insight either because E3 was severely limited, or Higby pretty much had his tank set up the way he wanted it from the start.

And for the record, the cert should be free and immediately available.

Alternatively, the devs could come up with a simpler method: a little toggle box next to the selection item :p

WorldOfForms

2012-07-12, 10:11 PM

There's another aspect that makes 2 solo tanks better than one tank with 2 players in it.

Armor regeneration. If both players cert regeneration, they not only have double the hitpoints of a single tank, the have double the regeneration rate. This, combined with tactics where they can trade off facing the brunt of enemy lines means they can create a revolving, regenerating 2-tank unit.

They also have the ability to cover each other's rear - if one tank needs to retreat quickly, the other can block LOS to the vulnerable rear by placing his own front armor in the way.

AzureWatcher

2012-07-12, 10:34 PM

I admit it: I suck at using turrets. No matter what game it is, I'm terrible at them. When the vehicle turns and messes up your angle of fire or if they begin to move while you are lining up a shot or the driver positions itself so you can have a shot at target A but you didn't know that target was there and instead was looking at B, etc.

I know this, so I don't go into turrets. However there are people out there who are just as bad but jump into tanks anyways, reducing optimal performance.

I would much rather be able to drive and fire my own cannon. I am in perfect sync with myself. I know what my intentions are and I know how to position myself to achieve my objective. This simply isn't possible when you are with another player. Whether you know them or not doesn't matter.

So, I'm very glad that the driver gets to man his own main cannon. However, there are other vehicles that require multiple people to be used optimally. The sunderer, liberator, and galaxy just to name a few. And this is okay and fine and lovely. Because these are much more team based vehicles than the MBTs can ever dream of being.

It's not always a bad thing to draw in mechanics from other games like Battlefield and Halo and etc. This is one of those cases.

DukeTerror

2012-07-12, 11:34 PM

As an extension to the idea, the turret shouldn't rotate with the chassis when this cert is active, and neither should having the cert active consume a modification slot if any such thing exists.

I agree with you here. I called it counter-rotating but heck if I know what the term should be. But I have a feeling with the way the flight system got overhauled into a more "pro" mode with needing active throttling and tilt control to hover and maneuver, they may keep turrets fixed to the chassis motion just to keep the difficulty challenging (for all turrets not just MBT). Yeah it sucks when you got a bad driver, but the built-in voice channel for vehicles should help call out turns and targets.

Nirawen

2012-07-12, 11:48 PM

I completely agree with the OP. I felt the driver/gunner(s) setup was perfect in PS1 and will be fairly disappointed in that aspect if there's not at least a cert option for separating the two.

I was definitely planning on certing heavily into the Prowler but would be upset if it ends up just being a fat Lightning :p.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-12, 11:57 PM

Ah, I get you now. Yeah that would e a whole new mechanic to debate about. With future technology theme you could allow it it either way and Im sure that's not locked down in development (good code base should allow both options anyway - just a toggle for the designer to choose). I think a counter-turning turret would be the more fun playstyle of course just for the reasons you've said.

Same basic thing as barrel stabilisation, that the Abrams has always been so famous for but has actually been around since the 40s :P That a tank would have a turret with "smart" compensation for movements is not unreasonable. Actually, considering the rate technology advances, by the time Planetside future gets here, we'll probably think each other to death.... Which is almost what we're doing here with this thread :P

SgtExo

2012-07-13, 12:01 AM

As soon as my beta invite gets here I doubt that I will check the forums as much, its just there is no other games that I want to play, so this is the next best thing.

SnipeGrzywa

2012-07-13, 12:48 AM

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-13, 12:52 AM

For those that are fine with the driver/gunner model, you all say certing to give up the main gun is fine.

Well how about this... Basic free cert is just driving the vehicle. From there you build up your addons and weapons. Toward the end of the tree you finally unlock the driver/gunner cert. SInce you "mastered" the tank you can now do it all. But starting off you are to inexperienced to do it.

Because why would you cert to give up something? You will be certing to get MORE. Plus

Still don't want this option, but it's an acceptable compromise.

One other person suggested this, and while I don't like it persay, it is far more sensible than what they're doing now (which is the other way around).

Now, as to who is "right", I'm giving you each a knife. Over here, I dug a pit. I'll check back in twenty minutes to see who won the argument :)

Furber

2012-07-13, 12:56 AM

Optional cert that allows the driver to choose to give up use of the main Cannon. In return for opening up a 3rd seat in the tank, a main gunner seat. There for you would have the driver, the main gunner, and the secondary gunner.

Yes, more choice for the tank operators!

I think this thread needs to be less about which you think is better, and more about trying to convince the devs they should implement both ways.

RodenyC

2012-07-13, 01:07 AM

Optional cert that allows the driver to choose to give up use of the main Cannon. In return for opening up a 3rd seat in the tank, a main gunner seat. There for you would have the driver, the main gunner, and the secondary gunner.

That would work alot better.Only thing I would change is that the cert should be to give up the 3 seats for 2 seats.Driver is now in control of the main cannon. Teamwork should come first.Lonewolf play sits in the back.I don't think they would have to redesign any models(Magrider) if they used this from the start.

Azren

2012-07-13, 01:24 AM

Furber

2012-07-13, 01:57 AM

Not possible to implement due to the magrider.

That is a valid point, but I don't think the other two factions should suffer at the expense of one. Surely they could work something out, maybe a main top turret for the mag only if you spec into the gunner cert?

The Loverator

2012-07-13, 02:18 AM

Haro

2012-07-13, 02:27 AM

Figment

2012-07-13, 05:57 AM

Not if you generally don't like the people you're forced to play with.

Then don't play a MMO if you don't like any of the 70.000 people waiting on Facebook to get in.

Azren

2012-07-13, 06:11 AM

Not if you generally don't like the people you're forced to play with.

Do you have social issues, or just didn't think before you posted? There will be several hundred people on each empire on a given continent. The chances of you having to play together with the same guy twice is slim to null. Besides, you should just play with your outfit mates, whom you like.

If you don't like anybody, I might suggest you try Hello Kitty Online

KaB

2012-07-13, 07:06 AM

I'm all ok for giving us the choice through a cert !

Figment

2012-07-13, 07:10 AM

I'm all ok for giving us the choice through a cert !

So what choice do you give the Magrider drivers?

Yeah. Thought so. Well thought-out this plan of "choice"! Not to mention that hitpoint/damage balance would be based on one guy driving/gunning...

KaB

2012-07-13, 07:31 AM

So what choice do you give the Magrider drivers?

None. They'll deal with it, like in PS1.

If it's a free cert, then let's say that it's like a way of being more comfortable.

fod

2012-07-13, 07:51 AM

So what choice do you give the Magrider drivers?

just let us have a turret like in PS1
i never liked the idea of a fixed cannon

Figment

2012-07-13, 07:59 AM

None. They'll deal with it, like in PS1.

If it's a free cert, then let's say that it's like a way of being more comfortable.

So you're going to make the Vanguard and Magrider what the Prowler was in PS1 and create manpower issues?

Great.

just let us have a turret like in PS1
i never liked the idea of a fixed cannon

That's why a Magrider is to be classed a Tank Destroyer / SPG, rather than a tank.

I'd say give the NC and TR a tank destroyer as well and the VS a tank if you want to have three crew options on other tanks.

The whole setup of driver=gunner and tank chassis choices is very badly thoughtout in terms of balancing manpower. :/ Honestly think it's one of the worst thoughtout design choices in PS2.

And giving the players a "choice that's not really a choice" is IMO a band-aid that pretends to fix the problem, but only makes the glaring imbalances between the ES units and solo-multicrew more obvious. But one thing it certainly isn't, and that's a fix. It's a compromise meant to silence criticasters by pretending you give them what they want, while actually giving them a worse tool in comparison to those who use less players per same unit.

I don't really get how anyone can support the certing into either less or more crew in a vehicle, because both completely screw up balance.

KaB

2012-07-13, 08:31 AM

Adding a cert will allow us to compare and test them both (at least in the beta). End.

EisenKreutzer

2012-07-13, 12:18 PM

Dude, this thread. Total popcorn material.

Raymac

2012-07-13, 12:39 PM

It's v~eeery good that there are Gunner's in Planetside 2. Takes Players away from the Ego-Trip with the needful Force. :-P

If you don't want to drive in a "Papertank", you will have to be a Teamplayer. And it's nice that People are getting 'forced' to be Teamplayers.

greetings, LV. :wave:

Encouragement is a better motivator than forcing something. I mean this is a game we are talking about here. I wouldn't want them to force someone to drive only just as I wouldn't want them to take out the 2nd seat and force someone to only drive alone.

I know it's an MMO and all, but there is a difference between playing along side other people and having to chauffeur them aroudn while they get to shoot.

This is the main ES tank. It shouldn't be limited to only the people that want to be a taxi driver. At the same time, I don't see a problem with giving people the option to drive only (except for the Mag, but they could always just make the seconadry gun much more powerful in that set up)

Gammit10

2012-07-13, 01:03 PM

@MrKWalmsey

@RadarX

We know this is the philosophy they've chosen at this time. That's not in dispute. What we're all busily arguing about is whether or not we like the philosophy :)

RadarX

These forums--I assume--are meant for feedback, or at least communication. We understand the developers have chosen this configuration. Our feedback is that some of us deeply do not like the configuration. Please do not tell us what is obvious: that the developers have chosen this approach. Please tell us you are bringing these thoughts of the community to the developers, even if you cannot promise any changes as a result. Using this method may lower the aura of bs-as-usual from big companies and actually promote trust and open, honest communication with a community manager.

Raymac

2012-07-13, 01:08 PM

Trust me. The devs read this forum plenty. I'm sure they are well aware of the large number of PS1 players that are not happy about this.

CollinBRTD

2012-07-13, 01:15 PM

What else can he say?

On one hand people say don´t listen to the community to much because of messing around with the game and so on. On the other hand you are moaning when a choise has been made.

The developers have made a choise. Either you like it or not. This is not planetside 1. The games have been evolved and some standarts have been set. Planetside 2 is going to be a sure step up from the normal FPS, but wants still to attract the normal FPS or tactic shooter players. It wants to take the normal FPS player with it and so i guess some compromises needed to be taken.

Just to make it clear! i quite like the idea of driving and gunning.

Everybody is moaning about the Tank beeing 2 man but not the aircav beeing 2 man/women vehicle.

You want teamwork and firepower take the lib. A FLYING TANK FOR GOD SAKE!

So RadarX stick with it, when some of the comunity don´t want to create a game for the future but want to stay in their little reaverwhoring world of Planetside 1.

maradine

2012-07-13, 01:26 PM

A lot of people, vets included, like the new direction. Let's not make this a squeaky wheel fight.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-13, 01:34 PM

I love how you insult everyone's intelligence, Collin, just because they disagree with you.

-edit

It's not "squeaky wheel" anything. We are as equally part of the "community" as anyone else. Would you prefer if everyone just sat on their ass and didn't offer any feedback at all? What are you expecting people to do? Not all the features/revisions/plans for the game generate controversy. Only a few.

EisenKreutzer

2012-07-13, 01:34 PM

I can only provide my perspective.

As a newcomer, I have never played the original Planetside. I have in fact never played a game where the driver and the gunner are two separate people in a tank. So I might not have any serious understanding or new insights to offer.

What I am, though, is a consumer of games. I am very particular about the kind of games I like, and epsecially the kind of FPS's I enjoy.

I've read large parts of this thread (though I skipped to the end after a while, mainly because the arguments started to go in circles at some point), and honestly, the two sides have compelling arguments.

Separate drivers and gunners adds lots of cool stuff to the game. it adds to immersion, which is a vital factor, it adds new tactical possibilities and it strengthens the role of the MBT. Lets be honest, a two or three-manned tank is going to outperform a one man tank. It's just obvious.

On the flip side, it makes tank play more difficult. Theres more work involved in organising tanks when you need two people to man it. And sure, many people think this is a positive thing. Anything that adds more teamwork is a good thing, right?
Well, not neccessarily. For the large outfits, definately. When you have 300 guys, and you all use voice chat to coordinate your operations, theres no problem.
But there will be lots of people who play and enjoy the game outside of major outfits.

Take more traditional mmo's, like World of Warcraft for example. There are literally thousands of players who don't join guilds as a conscious desition, preferring to trudge along on their own. Many of these players are quite good at the game, while many others simply don't want to involve other people in their enjoyment of the game.

Now, some people might say that these guys are playing the game wrong. And they'd have a point, to an extent. But in the end, can anyone really take someone elses enjoyment and label it wrong? Morally? Does wrongbadfun really exist? I'm not even gonna attempt to answer that. :P

My point is that there are going to be many, many players who go at it solo, or with a small group of friends. These people are going to rely on other randoms they encounter on Auraxis for their teamwork. And two-man tanks will make their lives more difficult.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, because for me, personally, it's a toss up. I could enjoy the game either way.
But it's worth considering.
Who is this game being designed for?

MrBloodworth

2012-07-13, 01:39 PM

It only takes two people, with VOIP, or in the same room to drive and gun a tank with efficiently.

VOIP is built into PS2.

You want teamwork and firepower take the lib. A FLYING TANK FOR GOD SAKE!

If you want to solo, take the lighting, for gods sake. :rolleyes:

maradine

2012-07-13, 01:46 PM

It's not "squeaky wheel" anything. We are as equally part of the "community" as anyone else. Would you prefer if everyone just sat on their ass and didn't offer any feedback at all? What are you expecting people to do? Not all the features/revisions/plans for the game generate controversy. Only a few.

You are absolutely part of the community, and yes, your feedback is welcome. What I take issue with is representations of "large numbers" of people being happy or unhappy with anything. Pointing out that this issue isn't solvable by bitching in an enthusiast forum that only contains a small percentage of the desired population is a reasonable thing to do.

I enjoyed PS1's armored play, but it was't particularly good. I have a crew for Steel Beasts Professional, but we don't always want to burn 4 hours on a run. Having an accessible experience for casual players can be both rewarding and deep. Hell, I love running three man BF3 tanks - I have two younger brothers practically designed for it.

The spirit and practicality of teamwork isn't going away, but it is different than PS1. For your (and your representative side's) sake, I do hope they allow tankers to spec for a separate gunner. For my sake, I hope they stick to their vision, because I think it is correct for the experience they're trying to create, and the one I want to play in.

edited for multiple grammatical atrocities

KaB

2012-07-13, 02:00 PM

Having an accessible experience for casual players can be both rewarding and deep.

Why ? (and cool story for your bro bro)

"The spirit and practicality of teamwork isn't going away, but it is different than PS1"

Why ?

Sorry you're saying we're bitching, but as you're taking this kind of master behavior comparing everyone, I just wanted to warm you that you're doing the same thing than us : you're saying things you have no idea of their validity as you never played PS2 yet.

Kayos

2012-07-13, 02:32 PM

Azren

2012-07-13, 03:01 PM

I think the vast majority will like being able to drive and shoot. Maybe not the PS1 vets but I bet most that end up playing will like it. I am a PS1 vet and I like the idea of being able to drive and gun myself. Never liked waiting around to try to get a gunner if my friends weren't online.

Can anyone explain why you all insist on having two solo tanks? Why not have one where you can drive/gun (lightning) and one where you can only drive? Don't tell me they are for different roles, with the cert system they can be made very similar in most aspects.

Sledgecrushr

2012-07-13, 03:08 PM

Has the argument changed from having three man tanks to the driver manning the secondary gun with still only two guys in a tank? For me the way the devs have it now is absolutely perfect for what maximum enjoyment without havin to look for 2 extra gunners to completely man a tank. Also having the driver take control of a secondary gun seems kind of silly to me. As important as the secondary gun really is it needs to be manned full time.

Sephirex

2012-07-13, 03:12 PM

Ratstomper

2012-07-13, 03:14 PM

Sledgecrushr

2012-07-13, 03:17 PM

Odds are pretty good in my book that the secondary gun on a mbt will be more powerful that the main gun on a lightning.

KaB

2012-07-13, 03:28 PM

Not sure I've already seen it posted : instead of having three pilots, cant the drivers have the control of the machinegun ?
If the MG's HUD comes to look more like the one in BF (a sort of camera) and if we have no more the gun showing up on the screen, the driver will keep a good view of the action.

Deadeye

2012-07-13, 03:38 PM

Can anyone explain why you all insist on having two solo tanks? Why not have one where you can drive/gun (lightning) and one where you can only drive? Don't tell me they are for different roles, with the cert system they can be made very similar in most aspects.

Because I, and I'm sure many others, don't want to PAY for a tank that we can only drive. There's a reason just 5 or 6 tanks was a cool site in PS1 but the skies were often filled with aircraft: people prefer solo vehicles. I prefer it too. I only ever cert for Lightning when I play PS1 and want a ground vehicle other than an AMS. However, in PS2, I plan on driving MBTs to some extent because I can now drive and gun it. It was all fun and games when the tanks were free in PS1, but now that we pay, we demand more.

As far as the the excuses against it, the main one seems to be some kind of idea that because one person is driving a tank, they aren't a team player. It's an excuse that has lived far too long. I can be just as much a team player in a one man tank as you can be in a 2. Why? Because I can do the same things as you can like support an infantry attack by providing supporting fire from afar or close in and I can do it while allowing one more infantry man to be in the fight rather than tied up in the tank.

If there is one balance change I would make to the idea it's this: if you only want to pay for half the tank, you can only drive it and the gunner will have to pay the other half. Otherwise, you pay full price and get to drive a full tank.

I'll bet, though, that even if 80% of people said they'd be up for the former option, 90% would choose the latter when ingame.

Raymac

2012-07-13, 03:59 PM

"Can be made similar in most aspects" is not the same thing as" has the same role". They're obviously made to do different things.

MBTs aren't solo tanks, they've got offensive spots for two people and will suffer if they don't have that second spot filled.

This point is ignored far too often. Why? Because theoryside says 2 mbts with 1 person may be better than 1 tank with 2 people? I don't buy that. The secondary gunner can watch your 6, (a 2nd tank could too, but who watches his back??), he can take out air, not be restricted by terrain on acquiring the same target as you, etc. etc.

No, but go out solo in 2 MBTs because I LOVE being a tankbuster in my Reaver, and you'll just double my kills while you pathetically try to kill me with the main gun, or sit still while you switch out of the driver's seat. So please, boost my stats. Thanks.

Flaropri

2012-07-13, 04:19 PM

So you're going to make the Vanguard and Magrider what the Prowler was in PS1 and create manpower issues?

It's optional, so if people don't like it, they wouldn't have to take it and it could ultimately be removed if no one wants to use it after giving it a fair shake.

I don't really get how anyone can support the certing into either less or more crew in a vehicle, because both completely screw up balance.

I don't see how it messes up balance*. It's a playstyle preference, it doesn't actually effect overall power per resource spent in any particularly important way**. Long term, it's not an issue for the same reason why 2 Solo MBTs against 1 multi-crew MBT isn't an issue.

Besides; a lot depends on whether players or resource points are the scarcer resource, and diminishing returns for a given area.

*(Referring only to Certing to allow more players, since "rough" balance is based on fewer. But balance isn't fully done yet so it could be rebalanced around more players required in MBTs [rather than just optimal], I just dislike that option.)

**(Which is why I don't think it needs to be changed from how it is currently, but I tend to err on the side of letting players do stuff as long as it doesn't force everyone else as well.)

Tamas

2012-07-13, 04:27 PM

OH this thread again. Is this back to the future?

maradine

2012-07-13, 04:29 PM

Sorry you're saying we're bitching, but as you're taking this kind of master behavior comparing everyone, I just wanted to warm you that you're doing the same thing than us : you're saying things you have no idea of their validity as you never played PS2 yet.

You're absolutely correct - I'm making assumptions on developer intent and predictions on feel. And if you're willing to wait until beta and try it out before complaining about the situation, then so am I.

edit: sorry, too many US-centric idioms

SgtExo

2012-07-13, 04:30 PM

OH this thread again. Is this back to the future?

Its back to being bored and waiting for beta. So endless debate where no one is ready to budge from his view point.

Cutter

2012-07-13, 04:32 PM

How about a 1 or 2 second delay in switching from the driver's seat to the gunner's seat and vice versa?

Flaropri

2012-07-13, 04:33 PM

Its back to being bored and waiting for beta. So endless debate where no one is ready to budge from his view point.

That's what these forums are for, no? :lol:

SgtExo

2012-07-13, 04:34 PM

I have been checking my email every 15 to 30 minutes.

Sephirex

2012-07-13, 04:34 PM

Its back to being bored and waiting for beta. So endless debate where no one is ready to budge from his view point.

I didn't know you worked in the government!

SgtExo

2012-07-13, 04:43 PM

I didn't know you worked in the government!

Nope, still a student. :groovy:

KaB

2012-07-13, 04:49 PM

I'm making assumptions on developer intent and predictions on feel.

Considering the fact they've not tested their game with thousand players yet, let's say their intent and predictions are quite ... vague.

What I can say is : I loved the way tanks were in PS1. Being driver or gunner, I could always find cool people and make some effective offensives. And I was only a Planetside Reserves, which means I played occasionally, so I got neither clans nor long-time friends. And when I found nobody I changed to the planes, but I was a terrible noob.

And in every other games where the player had to drive and fire at the same time, I felt this so annoying, I was really Bad !

So my message to SOE : please make it optional, at least in the beta so that we can test it.

fvdham

2012-07-13, 05:37 PM

Because I, and I'm sure many others, don't want to PAY for a tank that we can only drive.

PlanetSide 2 is free to play, so you don't have to pay anything.
You get the solo Lightning tank and there is can be a 2/3 person tank for team players.

In PlanetSide 1 I drive the Lightning tank 99,99% of the time.
But it is once in a while also fun to man a Prowler or Deliverer
with 3 people and just focus on driving.
Having practiced with Lightning you can keep the other 2 people alive longer.

Sephirex

2012-07-13, 05:38 PM

PlanetSide 2 is free to play, so you don't have to pay anything.

You pay hard earned in-game resources for tanks.

Figment

2012-07-13, 05:46 PM

It's optional, so if people don't like it, they wouldn't have to take it and it could ultimately be removed if no one wants to use it after giving it a fair shake.

...I was refering to his suggestion about having two three player tanks and one two player tank...

Optional my arse. There's no option there.

I don't see how it messes up balance*. It's a playstyle preference, it doesn't actually effect overall power per resource spent in any particularly important way**. Long term, it's not an issue for the same reason why 2 Solo MBTs against 1 multi-crew MBT isn't an issue.

Besides; a lot depends on whether players or resource points are the scarcer resource, and diminishing returns for a given area.

*(Referring only to Certing to allow more players, since "rough" balance is based on fewer. But balance isn't fully done yet so it could be rebalanced around more players required in MBTs [rather than just optimal], I just dislike that option.)

**(Which is why I don't think it needs to be changed from how it is currently, but I tend to err on the side of letting players do stuff as long as it doesn't force everyone else as well.)

It's not a playstyle preference. It's a manpower difference, ergo a player-power distribution balance issue.

Resources mean squat. Unless you're saying because the Vanguard would need three gunners for the "prefered" playstyle, the Magrider should cost 1.5x as much. Even though it will face tanks with one or two players as well?

You don't get it maybe, but there's a HUGE problem in manpower distribution there. It's the basis of all balance.

Well, not neccessarily. For the large outfits, definately. When you have 300 guys, and you all use voice chat to coordinate your operations, theres no problem.
But there will be lots of people who play and enjoy the game outside of major outfits.

We were a very small, but consistent outfit. Usualy had 3 to 15 people on.

We never had gunner obtaining issues. We just ran fewer units. Hell, we ran units with randoms if we had to (though more likely, friendly outfits), we never had any issue whatsoever. So no, it's not just good for huge outfits. It's excellent for tiny outfits.

The drivers would be coordinating, the gunners would follow our lead. And no, they usualy were not on TS. We simply gave proper instructions and usualy those randoms stuck around for the afternoon, so we didn't have to redo those instructions constantly.

Odds are pretty good in my book that the secondary gun on a mbt will be more powerful that the main gun on a lightning.

Actually Higby mentioned the Lightning was (substantially iirc) better.