Driver/Gunners... NO!

[Sephirex]

Pay2Win resources?

Resources can't be bought. They have to be earned by taking bases. Which you just dismissed as pointless in another thread. Good lord, are you just trolling?

[Buggsy]

Resources can't be bought. They have to be earned by taking bases. Which you just dismissed as pointless in another thread. Good lord, are you just trolling?

Resources will be dropped before Beta ends. Wanna bet $10 in StationCash?

[Sephirex]

Resources will be dropped before Beta ends. Wanna bet $10?

Trolling it is then. Done responding to you.

[Buggsy]

Trolling it is then. Done responding to you.

I'm tired of your trolling, smell you later.

[Ratstomper]

Pay2Win resources?

Even if they DID sell resources (I've heard mention of boosts), it's not like it's going to keep everyone else from getting resources as well.

[Littleman]

As if no one has noticed:

ALL vehicles in Planetside 2 are solo capable. Even the liberator, only you're probably going to run into something very hard if not fall out of the sky should you switch from the cockpit to the under belly turret. Hrm... though for the latter they could just set the speed to maintain altitude.

There's no way this is unintentional. I firmly believe SOE is balancing ALL craft around being "solo" capable as a result, with a clear edge for the multi-seaters should those extra seats get filled. I know balancing isn't complete but... it's a no brainer to leave out seat switching for the liberator if solo balance wasn't their intent.

And for the record, I'm imagining flying a liberator, getting a bogey on my tail, setting the flight speed/angle and hustling through the innards of the craft to get to the tail gun. Reminds me of the Black Cats mission in Call of Duty: World at War.

It's not a matter of teamwork, it's a matter of balancing vehicles vs. infantry. If 1 person can drive and gun, than vehicles will be weak like BF2/3 vehicles are weak.

Not neccessarily. The idea behind resources is having players offset the ability to drive around powerful vehicles at the expense of some form of currency they've had to work for.

Actually, Buggsy is sort of right. We have to consider that it's simply the best course of action to strike a tank in it's rear, which as we've seen watching videos deals magnitudes of damage over striking the tank's front. A single shot from a prowler into a Vanguard took away more than 50% of the Vanguard's hit points, and the Vanguard is the more durable tank taking a hit from the tank with the weakest firepower.

There will be plenty of infantry out and about with either rocket launchers, AV turrets, or C4, and the guys carrying C4 have the methods to get in close a bit more effectively than other infantry could. And don't forget air craft... ugh. Would love to have a second guy manning the AA turret when they show up.

[Ratstomper]

Actually, Buggsy is sort of right. We have to consider that it's simply the best course of action to strike a tank in it's rear, which as we've seen watching videos deals magnitudes of damage over striking the tank's front. A single shot from a prowler into a Vanguard took away more than 50% of the Vanguard's hit points, and the Vanguard is the more durable tank taking a hit from the tank with the weakest firepower.

There will be plenty of infantry out and about with either rocket launchers, AV turrets, or C4, and the guys carrying C4 have the methods to get in close a bit more effectively than other infantry could. And don't forget air craft... ugh. Would love to have a second guy manning the AA turret when they show up.

Right, but I don't think that's a matter of balancing a vehicle vs infantry (not intentionally anyway). That's a matter of providing more tactical gameplay and offering SOMETHING to do vs tanks. We've also seen that infantry AV (at least the HA rocket launcher) is pretty lackluster and seems to be designed to be effective when multiple people are using them against single targets.

EDIT: I'll reiterate the point you just touched on, with the introduction of weakpoints on vehicles, the secondary gun has a MUCH more important purpose than it ever did in the original game. You'll want that guy focused on taking out infantry flanking you and planes shooting at you from the sky, not killing other tanks with the main gun; something the driver can do himself (cmon people, driving and gunning isn't THAT hard). As I said in an earlier post, tanks in PS2 are different creatures for a different game; much more offensively viable and much more subject to good tactics being used against it.

[SnipeGrzywa]

As if no one has noticed:

ALL vehicles in Planetside 2 are solo capable. Even the liberator, only you're probably going to run into something very hard if not fall out of the sky should you switch from the cockpit to the under belly turret. Hrm... though for the latter they could just set the speed to maintain altitude.

In order for aircraft to stay in the air, specially hovering, takes active piloting. No more floating camera, actually have to fly.


And everyone keeps going back to arguing about playstyle. Its not about how YOU want to play. Its about what's fair.

In what universe does it make sense that in a team based game, the first minute you play you can spawn the ground attack vehicle (sunderer is transport until certed otherwise) with the MOST armor AND shoot the MOST power gun (unless compared to same vehicle accept certed for higher damage)?

[Littleman]

Right, but I don't think that's a matter of balancing a vehicle vs infantry (not intentionally anyway). That's a matter of providing more tactical gameplay and offering SOMETHING to do vs tanks. We've also seen that infantry AV (at least the HA rocket launcher) is pretty lackluster and seems to be designed to be effective when multiple people are using them against single targets.

EDIT: I'll reiterate the point you just touched on, with the introduction of weakpoints on vehicles, the secondary gun has a MUCH more important purpose than it ever did in the original game. You'll want that guy focused on taking out infantry flanking you and planes shooting at you from the sky, not killing other tanks with the main gun; something the driver can do himself (cmon people, driving and gunning isn't THAT hard). As I said in an earlier post, tanks in PS2 are different creatures for a different game; much more offensively viable and much more subject to good tactics being used against it.

We saw the rocket launcher slap the front of the tank. Even the prowler shrugs off the shots of a Vanguard when struck from the front. At least, there was no obvious change in the plumes of smoke rising from the prowler in the stream. I know the Vangaurd shrugged off the Prowler's frontal shot.

It does add dynamics to engaging a tank, but it also grants the tank a level of frailty without making them entirely frail, they just desperately need external support in the form of infantry and other tanks to be 100% effective, not just fully occupied positions within the tank.

Counter-EDIT!:

There could be a point in any given battle where one may very well want to make their tank the tank hunter. The second gun specializes the tank, the main gun is just a big gun with a set purpose.


In order for aircraft to stay in the air, specially hovering, takes active piloting. No more floating camera, actually have to fly.

If we can set the throttle like we could in PS1, the craft may remain stable enough to switch seats and get something done, even if only for a handful of moments. I never said it was practical nor specified how practical, just possible.

And everyone keeps going back to arguing about playstyle. Its not about how YOU want to play. Its about what's fair.

In what universe does it make sense that in a team based game, the first minute you play you can spawn the ground attack vehicle (sunderer is transport until certed otherwise) with the MOST armor AND shoot the MOST power gun (unless compared to same vehicle accept certed for higher damage)?

It makes sense when the tank needs an external guard to survive long enough to be meaningful >.> Teamwork doesn't happen just inside the tank.

[Ratstomper]

We saw the rocket launcher slap the front of the tank. Even the prowler shrugs off the shots of a Vanguard when struck from the front. At least, there was no obvious change in the plumes of smoke rising from the prowler in the stream. I know the Vangaurd shrugged off the Prowler's frontal shot.

It does add dynamics to engaging a tank, but it also grants the tank a level of frailty without making them entirely frail, they just desperately need external support in the form of infantry and other tanks to be 100% effective, not just fully occupied positions within the tank.

Counter-EDIT!:

There could be a point in any given battle where one may very well want to make their tank the tank hunter. The second gun specializes the tank, the main gun is just a big gun with a set purpose.

I was actually talking about HA ordnance vs aircraft, which should be MUCH more fragile than tanks. Maybe even more so than the rear armor of said tank.

The whole game seems to be a shift toward HOW you prepare for and engage targets as opposed to the logistics of PS1, where you could just run your MBT into enemy territory and if you have 10 tanks doing that, you were good. It will make MBTs more fragile and force them to think before just moving into places they shouldn't be.

I already see the main gun as the anti-tank weapon. It's there specifically for anti-armor and maybe shelling enemy fortifications. Not that I disagree, but that would be a tradeoff.

Back on the topic, though, I don't think having drivers as gunners is going to impact the game in a negative way (just like classes haven't seemed to). It's just a different way of doing things.

[Azren]

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.

I do not think that anyone here ever questioned that at least 50% of the population prefers to play solo. The devs are well aware of this and have supported them in a great number of ways. Just in terms of vehicles, they have an option to use very solid vehicles for both air and ground roles.

However you should not question the rest of the population who wants a different experience. An experience only PS was able to provide so far in terms of tank combat. Obviously I am talking about MBT setup PS1 used.

I have to disagree with you on your reasoning as of why much more aircav was used than MBTs. They were used because how benefitial they are; they are the fastest vehicles in game, they give you the greatest freedom, they were very deadly (could take out an MBT easy), they were not dependent on anything, ect. In contrast the MBTs were very dependent on support, starting from aquireing a gunner to constant repairing.

For many players it was frustrating to pull a tank and not get a gunner. However this was only an issue for soloers, anyone with an outfit never had a problem with it. You must also see that the reason people didnt want to gun for them is related to their previous experience where the driver got them killed very fast.

I can respect the soloers way of gaming, however I wish they would do the same towards other people. PS2 already supports a great number of solo roles both as grunts and as vehicle operators, why do you have to be so selfish as to request the only role that was meant to be played by dedicated gunner and driver teams for yourself also?

You argue that the Lightning's role is different than MBT's, but so what? Does it hurt so much not being able to play a single role in an MMOFPS alone?

[Ratstomper]

I can respect the soloers way of gaming, however I wish they would do the same towards other people. PS2 already supports a great number of solo roles both as grunts and as vehicle operators, why do you have to be so selfish as to request the only role that was meant to be played by dedicated gunner and driver teams for yourself also?

You argue that the Lightning's role is different than MBT's, but so what? Does it hurt so much not being able to play a single role in an MMOFPS alone?

It's not a matter of being selfish. It's a matter of the PS1 system for MBTs not being able to work in PS2. As we've said, MBT will be more fragile form certain directions. That means it's necessary to have a dedicated secondary gunner to be effective in any battles of decent size. If that gunner is busy using the main cannon against enemy armor, he's not focused on taking out the planes and infantry that may be flanking you.

I forsee the secondary gun is going to play a MUCH larger role in PS2 than it did in PS1. Let the gunner defend the tank and let the driver control the main cannon. That's teamwork and it's no less teamwork than PS1 had. Just because the MBT is able to be used solo does not mean a secondary gunner won't be both important and effective. Besides, it gives your driver something to do.

EDIT: also, I've never seen anything short of an OS take out an MBT "easy". It took a MASSIVE amount of reaver rockets to kill an MBT in PS1 and the only reason they didn't get shot down was because the gunner wasn't able to stop firing the main gun long enough to shoot them.

[fod]

It's not a matter of being selfish. It's a matter of the PS1 system for MBTs not being able to work in PS2. As we've said, MBT will be more fragile form certain directions. That means it's necessary to have a dedicated secondary gunner to be effective in any battles of decent size. If that gunner is busy using the main cannon against enemy armor, he's not focused on taking out the planes and infantry that may be flanking you.

I forsee the secondary gun is going to play a MUCH larger role in PS2 than it did in PS1. Let the gunner defend the tank and let the driver control the main cannon. That's teamwork and it's no less teamwork than PS1 had. Just because the MBT is able to be used solo does not mean a secondary gunner won't be both important and effective.

EDIT: also, I've never seen anything short of an OS take out an MBT "easy". It took a MASSIVE amount of reaver rockets to kill an MBT in PS1 and the only reason they didn't get shot down was because the gunner wasn't able to stop firing the main gun long enough to shoot things down.

could always have a 3rd person / 2nd gunner (if they implement the ability to let someone else gun the main weapon for us)

[Littleman]

could always have a 3rd person / 2nd gunner (if they implement the ability to let someone else gun the main weapon for us)

Well... yeah. The best case scenario would be giving drivers the option of controlling the main gun. This thread just gets ugly when people insist it must be one way or the other.

[Azren]

It's not a matter of being selfish. It's a matter of the PS1 system for MBTs not being able to work in PS2. As we've said, MBT will be more fragile form certain directions. That means it's necessary to have a dedicated secondary gunner to be effective in any battles of decent size. If that gunner is busy using the main cannon against enemy armor, he's not focused on taking out the planes and infantry that may be flanking you.

I forsee the secondary gun is going to play a MUCH larger role in PS2 than it did in PS1. Let the gunner defend the tank and let the driver control the main cannon. That's teamwork and it's no less teamwork than PS1 had. Just because the MBT is able to be used solo does not mean a secondary gunner won't be both important and effective.

EDIT: also, I've never seen anything short of an OS take out an MBT "easy". It took a MASSIVE amount of reaver rockets to kill an MBT in PS1 and the only reason they didn't get shot down was because the gunner wasn't able to stop firing the main gun long enough to shoot things down.

This is not the place for PS1 debate, but just for that comment I have to reply; Reavers where flying tanks in PS1, it took 4 shots from the magrider's main gun to take them out. Hitting them was very hard, so chances are that if you ran into one of them, you were pretty much dead. Of course the pilot's and the gunner's skill matter here, but a good pilot was almost always able to take out a tank with a good gunner. I am speaking of experience I have with magrider, which has the best AA capability in PS1 from all the MBTs.

Back on topic;
I can not share your views on the future of the MBTs. I can only envision a flood of solo tanks rolling all around the map. Tanks do not need AA gunner, we got other people for that. As for AV and AI, the main gun is all we need to cover those areas.

Your argument for being attacked from the rear may sound valid at first, however what kind of secondary gunner will keep looking at your 6, searching for possible flankers, when he knows there are enemies to be shot at 12 O'clock?

The main problem we are facing here is not that the driver gets to shoot a gun, it's that the current setup makes a gunner not nessesary.

[Ratstomper]

could always have a 3rd person / 2nd gunner (if they implement the ability to let someone else gun the main weapon for us)

You could, technically. It would make it that much harder for someone who doesn't have friends that play to fill his tank, though.

[Azren]

Well... yeah. The best case scenario would be giving drivers the option of controlling the main gun. This thread just gets ugly when people insist it must be one way or the other.

That would be very hard to balance and as such is very unlikeley to happen. The Magrider even adds an extra layer of balance issues to this idea

[Ratstomper]

This is not the place for PS1 debate, but just for that comment I have to reply; Reavers where flying tanks in PS1, it took 4 shots from the magrider's main gun to take them out. Hitting them was very hard, so chances are that if you ran into one of them, you were pretty much dead. Of course the pilot's and the gunner's skill matter here, but a good pilot was almost always able to take out a tank with a good gunner. I am speaking of experience I have with magrider, which has the best AA capability in PS1 from all the MBTs.

Did you not say...

I have to disagree with you on your reasoning as of why much more aircav was used than MBTs. They were used because how benefitial they are; they are the fastest vehicles in game, they give you the greatest freedom, they were very deadly (could take out an MBT easy), they were not dependent on anything, ect.

Are you speaking in the past tense about a game neither of us has played yet? I was a reaver pilot in PS1 and I did not stick around when I had magriders shooting at me, because a reaver died fast from ANY MBT shell. Considering you'd have to unload nearly all the rockets you brought to kill a single MBT...We must be talking about different games.

Back on topic;
I can not share your views on the future of the MBTs. I can only envision a flood of solo tanks rolling all around the map. Tanks do not need AA gunner, we got other people for that. As for AV and AI, the main gun is all we need to cover those areas.

Your argument for being attacked from the rear may sound valid at first, however what kind of secondary gunner will keep looking at your 6, searching for possible flankers, when he knows there are enemies to be shot at 12 O'clock?

The main problem we are facing here is not that the driver gets to shoot a gun, it's that the current setup makes a gunner not nessesary.

I don't think you understand how a tank works. The closer the target is to the tank, the less effective the main gun becomes. If you're driving anyplace with nearby cover, you've got infantry to worry about. If you're anywhere on a battlefield at any time, you've got aircraft to worry about. Yes, they can take you out quick and you cannot rely on other people to protect your shiny tank you bought with your own resources. A good secondary gunner is going to be specifically looking out for flanking and planes. I guarantee it.

That brings me to my second point, MBTs have AI and AA capabilities with their second gun, why would someone spend their time protecting a tank when there are more important targets to protect?

If you think a secondary gunner will be unnecessary, you will probably be delightfully surprised when you get in one at just how fast an MBT will die without one. The makings of teamwork and effectiveness is still there, it's just different than what you're used to. No amount of main gun will change the fact that a MBT with a secondary gunner will be massively more effective than a driver going solo.

[fod]

You could, technically. It would make it that much harder for someone who doesn't have friends that play to fill his tank, though.

if its all optional does it really matter?
as others have said why does it have to be one way or the other - allow us to pick if we want to control the main gun or let someone else

i have 0 troubles filling leviathans/auroras etc etc with gunners so i would like the choice if possible to let others gun

[Littleman]

The main problem we are facing here is not that the driver gets to shoot a gun, it's that the current setup makes a gunner not nessesary.

This is the point. No vehicle requires other players to make them work. Having those empty seats filled is just greatly beneficial. Unlike with the multitude of posts constantly asking the point in having a 2 man tank when those two could pull two of their own tanks and then letting simple math parse out the victor without considering dozens of other unpredictable variables, there's more than tanks out there to face off against.

In fact, for a tank, another tank is one of the preferable opponents to fight against. Against swarms of infantry and especially air cav, that big tank barrel ain't looking like the optimal solution, and last I checked Planetside is most definitely a mixed arms game. Not World of Tanks. Optimally, a driver will want someone on the secondary turret. Maybe it might not be better than what the lightning can bring to the fight, but it spares HIM the trouble of driving and gunning a skyguard at the same time. That's right, the concept can work in reverse too!

And no, the secondary gunner won't be checking the tank's six at all times. That's the opportunity infantry have to strike. The weakness doesn't go away just because the secondary gunner is watching the rear regardless. Sure, he COULD pull his own tank, but now we have 2 tanks weak against infantry, air cav, or even arguably tanks if they come up against AV variant tanks. There's also the consideration that one may not like driving at all, just gunning and being a team player.

To this day, I still happily hop into the MG seat of the Prowler and focus solely on lighter vehicles, infantry, and prioritizing aircav. I don't see myself changing that habit in PS2, especially if the weaponry is even stronger this time around by comparison.

[Ratstomper]

if its all optional does it really matter?
as others have said why does it have to be one way or the other - allow us to pick if we want to control the main gun or let someone else

i have 0 troubles filling leviathans/auroras etc etc with gunners so i would like the choice if possible to let others gun

Those are a bit different. Transport vehicles are assumed to be going to the next big fight. When you gun a tank, you usually expect to be using that tank until it dies.

I'll be honest, I don't like all the complexity that's going into this "let people cert to have 3 slots or whatever". I feel like people may be blowing things out of proportion without trying the game to see how they like it first.

[maradine]

Your argument for being attacked from the rear may sound valid at first, however what kind of secondary gunner will keep looking at your 6, searching for possible flankers, when he knows there are enemies to be shot at 12 O'clock?

One that wants a ride in my wheels. :cool2:

Seriously, that's secondary gunner Job One. You are free, of course, to work out whatever priorities with your crew you see fit based on circumstance and secondary armament.

[Figment]

Well... yeah. The best case scenario would be giving drivers the option of controlling the main gun. This thread just gets ugly when people insist it must be one way or the other.

YEAH LET'S GIVE THE FIXED MAGRIDER GUN TO THE THIRD PERSON IN THE TANK!


You thought out that argument well haven't you?

Even if it has been brought up... oh... 70 times by now in various threads...


It's simply not a viable option to give the gun away. That just costs you way too much manpower.

You could, technically. It would make it that much harder for someone who doesn't have friends that play to fill his tank, though.

Ehr no... it would make it harder for those who would fill their tanks...


Getting an extra gunner doesn't make your tank stronger. It doesn't gain you more hitpoints. Thus you get killed as a team of two, MUCH faster. The TTK they have right now on MBTs should make any gunner think thrice for getting in. You lot mentioned how fast it goes down, right?

A gunner is not going to help at all. Its hitpoints will remain the same and it's not like it can magically catch the bullets. Instead, if he was in another MBT, he'd have double the hitpoints and when needed, both of you can switch seats to that magical secondary gun you keep refering to.

There's currently NO advantage to being a gunner, let alone letting in two gunner. Mathematically it's extremely unbalanced to do that right now. The MBTs will need an armour buff and split roles, a significant armour buff, because they're now pretty much equal to the Lightning from what Higby said and you can tell that a single grunt can solo a tank with ease. If you think that's inviting for three people to sit in, you're either extremely stupid, or you simply have no gaming experience whatsoever. If you can't tell how players would react to such a given situation, then you haven't been paying attention in any games you've played on why you make unit choice decisions.

[Ratstomper]

Ehr no... it would make it harder for those who would fill their tanks...


Getting an extra gunner doesn't make your tank stronger. It doesn't gain you more hitpoints. Thus you get killed as a team of two, MUCH faster. The TTK they have right now on MBTs should make any gunner think thrice for getting in. You lot mentioned how fast it goes down, right?

Do you know what the term "suppression" means? A secondary gunner will be able to eliminate threats before they become imminent. those guys who just flanked you from out of cover and are moving in to put boomers on your tank are going to be swiss cheese when your secondary gunner sees them. Planes don't come in for multiple runs when there is actively a gun knocking them out of the sky. At the very least, it's making them think twice before making a second run at you. A secondary gunner keeps the enemy off you while the driver/maingunner does his job. In effect, giving you more hitpoints.

A gunner is not going to help at all. Its hitpoints will remain the same and it's not like it can magically catch the bullets. Instead, if he was in another MBT, he'd have double the hitpoints and when needed, both of you can switch seats to that magical secondary gun you keep refering to.

And that is a mechanic that should be addressed. Most people don't like the fact you can just switch seats or enter/exit vehicles instantly, but I digress...

As a solo, any time you're in one gun, your other gun is not being used (nor can you move while in secondary gun). That's a big drop in performance efficiency of the vehicle. That means you don't have the offensive power or utility you could with a gunner. Not NEARLY the offensive power or utility. I can almost guarantee that anyone who tries to solo an MBT will not be able to take much pressure from any sizable enemy force and will be burned down EASILY. I think it will be such a problem, that people will wait for secondary gunners, because it's an important job and increases the survivability of the tank exponentially.

Two solo-manned MBTs are going to burn down like tissue paper because they do not have the defense capabilities of a single, 2-manned MBT. See above.

There's currently NO advantage to being a gunner, let alone letting in two gunner. Mathematically it's extremely unbalanced to do that right now. The MBTs will need an armour buff and split roles, a significant armour buff, because they're now pretty much equal to the Lightning from what Higby said and you can tell that a single grunt can solo a tank with ease. If you think that's inviting for three people to sit in, you're either extremely stupid, or you simply have no gaming experience whatsoever. If you can't tell how players would react to such a given situation, then you haven't been paying attention in any games you've played on why you make unit choice decisions.

The fact you have access to a free, high-powered weapon is enough for 90% of people to be a gunner. That's a lot of potential kills and a lot of potential XP. I've not seen ANYWHERE where Higby said an MBT was equal in survivability to a lightning OR that a grunt could take out a MBT easily. NOWHERE. If it's out there, lets see it.

As far as this personal attack business, you better learn some respect. You sound like an immature brat who doesn't know anything when you talk like that. If you're going to start insulting people for "not knowing how players will react to a given situation" you better goddamn well learn yourself first. Although, I can't say I expect you to do either, considering you dont even take the time to comprehend the arguments before spouting your mouth off.

[Figment]

First off, you haven't adressed the unfairness of the Magrider with regards to "certing to give away the main gun. Nice ignoring of the argument there.


Yeaaaaah because gunners can suddenly aim at 360 degrees targets AT ONCE. No, gunners get flanked too. Don't pretend they're ideal and awesome at suppressing infantry. They'll be equally screwed as any one man tank if they get flanked by infantry, tanks, aircraft or otherwise.

And don't ever pretend that solo tanks are alone. You know what's even better for suppression angle? Someone who can shoot at targets that are below your gunner's depression angle: someone in another tank.

Instead of a gunner, I'd always bring a Lightning tank. Gunners are crap if you can have two tanks instead of one. Don't ever pretend a gunner is magically as good as or even better than a wingman unless that gun is 3 times as strong as the gun on a Lightning or MBT and we already know it's about equal to a MBT as AV and worse than a Lightning at AA. So it's crap.

Which also means that you're better off with a Lightning AA/AI unit (which happens to exist in PS2) and on TOP OF THAT, you can have TWO people with AA now because the tank driver can switch guns! So no, that secondary gunner would only get in the way as you'd have half the hitpoints, half the AA power, half the vantage points and half the flanking options.

But please, keep ignoring and not ever using your brain on how you use other combinations of units and keep to your one scenario that only exists in your mind but in reality "suiss cheese" is what your tank will be in PS2 (as we've seen happen so far). You don't even acknowledge that that "infantry targeting guy" may not even target infantry at all and you don't acknowledge that you have no idea how easy it will be to actually target and kill infantry. Because from what I've seen, they'll jetpack over your tank, you lose track of them as you're at 180 degrees from them and then they boomer you. But hey, I'm sure they'll all nicely line up and those other infantry, aircraft and tanks will all wait their turn for the gunner to not be distracted... No, I'm sure they'll all make their move the moment the gunner is watching them and that the gunner is at all times pointing in the right direction and never assisting his main gunner against that tank (especially while using an AI or AA gun...).




I agree that seat switching must be adressed. But hey, if you do that, some people will argue the same thing again: "WE DON'T WANT TO RELY ON A GUNNER WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH MOMMMY THE BAD MAN MAKES ME PLAY WITH A FRIEND!" and "BUT PEOPLE FROM BF3 AND HALO ARE USED TO INSTANT SEAT SWITCHING!"...


Yay. (And if it's suddenly more important that seat switching is addressed then that says enough about the viability of the argument that "people are used to something, thus it can't ever change" - which ironically is not at all the line of argumentation used by people refering to PS1 MBT combat, even if that's what some people want you to believe).


Sorry, if I don't give any credence to whining ego-centric babies.


You're also horribly underestimating two solo-MBTs. Horribly underestimating them. I'll have you know that two tanks working together in a random match in World of Tanks can easily rake in 7-12 kills in two teams of 15 (one life per tank). Why? Coordination. If you saw the strength of the main gun in PS2 from the footage sofar, it'll be piss easy to kill infantry with it.



Regarding the strength of the Lightning, go back to I think it was the fourth or fifth interview. It was an AGN broadcast.



As far as your critique on my posting style, I fully comprehend the argument you make, I simply utterly disagree with it as you may have noticed. Your claims are based on nothing but wild assumptions of the strength of a gunner's gun, even though it's been said it's not going to be better than a MBT's main gun and a Lightning's guns will be more powerful, while Lightning armour would be approximately the same to a MBT (only slightly less iirc).

Hence I don't see why you'd get yourself a gunner if you can get yourself a Lightning wingman who can suppress infantry much better and doesn't die when you die.

[Flaropri]

...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.

The suggestion, IIRC, was that there would be an optional Certification that some tanks could be modded to have 3 crew instead of 2. That's where the option is. People don't need to use that Cert/Mod and thus whether or not they put more manpower into those tanks is optional.

No one would be forcing people to use the 3-crew variant of their MBT, choosing to use it is the playstyle preference (by this suggestion, obviously, there are some people, such as the OP, that don't want optional but that's not what you were responding to at the time).

If the situation calls for it, just use the 2-crew variant.*

Resources mean squat.

I can't say how you can be sure of that. So far, we've seen Alpha footage with access to debugging tools and admin commands, and E3 (also Alpha) footage where everyone was given a bunch of resources. Even considering that though, there were several terminals that ran out of resources on the first day.

Ultimately, whether resources (both incomes and costs) are balanced or not will play a lot into whether or not vehicles in general are balanced, and the importance of efficiently using vehicles vs. using a lot of vehicles.

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?

There's no reason to alter cost because of an option on other tanks. My point, which you perhaps missed as it relates to my previous posts in this thread, is that specifically in the long term the resources make a difference. The more players that pull MBTs the fewer resources that group will have towards other vehicles or MBTs at a later time... assuming resources do have meaning like the Devs seem to want them to.

You don't get it maybe, but there's a HUGE problem in manpower distribution there. It's the basis of all balance.

And what I guess you don't get is that most people are suggesting that the 3-crew variant for a given tank should be optional. Manpower distribution is important, it's why I don't think a cert to decrease required players is the way to go for example, but...

I also think that people are undervaluing resources as a means of balance. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if resource gains were modified based on relative Empire population in a similar way to XP gains in PS1. Likewise, the more places you control, the more resources you'll get, but also the more area you'll have to defend, so those resources still get split up (relatively at least).

In any event... as long as it's optional, there isn't any real harm to it.


*(I think the 2-Crew Variant will be by far the most used even if this cert. method was used. However, I can understand people wanting to play in a specific style, and there are some situations where fitting more people into less armor is a good choice... but not enough situations to care whether or not VS would get that choice.)

[Figment]

The suggestion, IIRC, was that there would be an optional Certification that some tanks could be modded to have 3 crew instead of 2. That's where the option is.

And as I said, that's not an OPTION.


Between the alternatives of that "option", it's NOT an option. The Raider is an "option" in PS1 because it's available to the player, yet it's not a viable option available to the player. And it's not a fair option either, because the other two empires need two gunners less for their units optimal state*. Capiche?

*Yes, the Raider when fully manned has the highest firepower of all Deli Variants by a margin of around 10%-20% (so say 110-120% total), but when you consider you need 5 people then each of the four Raider gunners accounts for 27.5%-30% of the unit's effectiveness, while each gunner on another Deli variant is worth 50% of the damage. Meaning their actual effectiveness as a group of five is extremely low! Hence it's not an option to use your manpower as such, when considering the available alternatives! This is the exact same for when you could "cert a third crewmember for style". It's a ridiculous option no self-respecting, competitive player would use.


PS: the remainder of your reply is based on your misinterpretation of the above difference between an available option, fair option and viable option. The three are not the same.

[Flaropri]

And as I said, that's not an OPTION.


Between the alternatives of that "option", it's NOT an option. The Raider is an "option" in PS1, yet it's not an option. Capiche?

I'm vaguely familiar with some of the meta-game mechanisms of PS1, but I've never actually played it, and couldn't say what all the vehicles are.

However, I'm guessing your point is that no one would choose that option. I'm perfectly okay with that. I think that there are some people that would, because they play "casually" or their side already has (at the time) an overwhelming player advantage, or because they are weirdos. I don't know, I don't care. There's no harm in the option existing even if it is (very) rarely used.


Obviously, there are some people that want it (and not just because they want to force it and nerf MBTs in general, which I disagree with vehemently). They might be foolish to want it, but that's their choice.

[Methonius]

PlanetSide 2 Community Interview with Matt Higby - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl3UduQprZ4)
Go to time index 15:35 on the video to hear the most recent thing that Higby has said about tank drivers controlling the main cannon.

Personally I'm in favor of an optional cert that will unlock an optional main gunner seat in the tank will give the driver the option of giving control of the main cannon to another player. Thus allowing up to 3 people in the tank. The driver, the main gunner, and the secondary gunner.

I will love the devs forever if they do this. If not I will be very disappointed.

[Figment]

Ah, no experience with PS1, well read the edit above, it should make things clear.

In the case of the MBTs, we're talking 3 people for 100% of the firepower, where for other tanks you need two people. Meaning driver=gunner would be 50% of the firepower each, while with a crew of three, you actually reduce the potential firepower per player by 33%, because you'll have 100% where 150% was possible (plus 100% armour too). It's just not a choice anyone should make. The little bit of maneuvrability you gain is not worth it if your peers do not make that choice.

Mind, as an individual tank facing individual other tanks, it would perform better and the combat would be better if you look purely on a single tank performance basis. But since you require more manpower, it's just not better than its alternatives.


Also note that if instead of two gunners, handing the main gun over to your secondary gunner would simply half your firepower and isn't a "viable option" either, if others do not hand over their gun and do not suffer from it (Magrider in particular won't suffer from this). So it's simply not fair either. Hence it should be either all solo tanks (no gunners needed, but at the cost of dynamic and skilled tank combat) or uncompromising team work tanks. It's simply the best way to ensure balance between alternatives and fairness between empires.


THAT is why to me the only good design option is MBTs with split drivers because it's fair, balanced and ensures best game play.

Screw those people that can't find gunners. Let them go play PvE railshooter games or something if they're that incompetent, lazy and easily bored.

[Sledgecrushr]

Ok so if we get a 3 man tank variant, how will this work with a fixed gun magrider?

[Figment]

Ok so if we get a 3 man tank variant, how will this work with a fixed gun magrider?

Not.

[Ratstomper]

First off, you haven't adressed the unfairness of the Magrider with regards to "certing to give away the main gun. Nice ignoring of the argument there.

They could make it work. They would have to tweak it, but they could do it. I don't think they should, something you've failed to realize about what I'm saying. I think the tanks are fine as they are.

Yeaaaaah because gunners can suddenly aim at 360 degrees targets AT ONCE. No, gunners get flanked too. Don't pretend they're ideal and awesome at suppressing infantry. They'll be equally screwed as any one man tank if they get flanked by infantry, tanks, aircraft or otherwise.

Secondary guns are there specifically for this reason. They can turn quickly, 360 degrees, and lay down alot of suppression fire. If they could constantly be looking 360 degrees, that'd be a little OP, wouldn't it? Tanks cannot be invulnerable like you want them to be.

And don't ever pretend that solo tanks are alone. You know what's even better for suppression angle? Someone who can shoot at targets that are below your gunner's depression angle: someone in another tank.

As if ANYONE is going to be alone. You'ge got an ARMY of people fighting over a continent. you know what's better than two single-manned MBTs? Two fully-manned MBTs. This hypothetical, 1v1 battle in a peachery dish argument is bullcrap. You and the enemy are going to be constantly surrounded by people in any sizable conflict. The times when you're going to go up against two solo-manned MBTs as a fully-manned MBT are so rare, no one will (or should) give a rats ass.

Instead of a gunner, I'd always bring a Lightning tank. Gunners are crap if you can have two tanks instead of one. Don't ever pretend a gunner is magically as good as or even better than a wingman unless that gun is 3 times as strong as the gun on a Lightning or MBT and we already know it's about equal to a MBT as AV and worse than a Lightning at AA. So it's crap.

Again, when are you only going to have 2 people vs 2 people? As someone stated above, this isn't world of tanks and this is such a niche situation that it's not even worth arguing. You CANNOT compare the tanks, you have to compare it in realistic situations (i.e. in battlefield scenarios, where you will have multiple factors trying to kill you at any given point).

Which also means that you're better off with a Lightning AA/AI unit (which happens to exist in PS2) and on TOP OF THAT, you can have TWO people with AA now because the tank driver can switch guns! So no, that secondary gunner would only get in the way as you'd have half the hitpoints, half the AA power, half the vantage points and half the flanking options.

That's what the lightning is designed for anyway. A lightning won't be able to stand up to an MBT shelling. That's what the MBT main gun is designed for. An AA/AI lightning has those capabilities, an MBT that is fully manned is prepared for the vast majority of situations it runs into. The same cannot be said for a lightning. Again, think in terms of effectiveness in a battle, not towards each other.

blah blah blah

...You don't even acknowledge that that "infantry targeting guy" may not even target infantry at all and you don't acknowledge that you have no idea how easy it will be to actually target and kill infantry. Because from what I've seen, they'll jetpack over your tank, you lose track of them as you're at 180 degrees from them and then they boomer you....

Which is exactly why you need a decent goddamn secondary gunner on the top of your fucking tank, because the main gun is USELESS in that situation. That's why secondary gunners are important and why good secondary gunners will dramatically improve the lifespan of your vehicle. If the gunner sucks, it doesn't matter what he is gunning, does it? Which is exactly why a lot of people don't want some random person controlling all the offensive power on their tank!

blah blah blah hyperbole blah blah

...that the gunner is at all times pointing in the right direction and never assisting his main gunner against that tank (especially while using an AI or AA gun...).

YES! Because a good gunner will have his own targets to be attacking.


I agree that seat switching must be adressed. But hey, if you do that, some people will argue the same thing again: "WE DON'T WANT TO RELY ON A GUNNER WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH MOMMMY THE BAD MAN MAKES ME PLAY WITH A FRIEND!" and "BUT PEOPLE FROM BF3 AND HALO ARE USED TO INSTANT SEAT SWITCHING!"...

Sounds familiar.... :rolleyes:

Yay. (And if it's suddenly more important that seat switching is addressed then that says enough about the viability of the argument that "people are used to something, thus it can't ever change" - which ironically is not at all the line of argumentation used by people refering to PS1 MBT combat, even if that's what some people want you to believe).

:confused:


You're also horribly underestimating two solo-MBTs. Horribly underestimating them. I'll have you know that two tanks working together in a random match in World of Tanks can easily rake in 7-12 kills in two teams of 15 (one life per tank).

Who the eff cares, dude? This isn't world of tanks. PS2 is a mixed arms game. What works in that game will not necessarily work in this one.

Why? Coordination. If you saw the strength of the main gun in PS2 from the footage sofar, it'll be piss easy to kill infantry with it.

Bullshit. Your main gun moves slow as hell and infantry are constantly moving from cover to cover. Besides that, we know the main gun for a tank only has so much ammo for it. Are you really going to waste those rounds trying to one-shot a single infantry?


Regarding the strength of the Lightning, go back to I think it was the fourth or fifth interview. It was an AGN broadcast.

I'm not going back anywhere. You're the one who brought it up, you go find it. I refuse to believe that a lightning has just as much anything as an MBT. the ONLY thing a lightning has on a MBT is speed, because it's designed for a completely different purpose than the MBTs are.


As far as your critique on my posting style, I fully comprehend the argument you make, I simply utterly disagree with it as you may have noticed. Your claims are based on nothing but wild assumptions of the strength of a gunner's gun, even though it's been said it's not going to be better than a MBT's main gun and a Lightning's guns will be more powerful, while Lightning armour would be approximately the same to a MBT (only slightly less iirc).

And you're saying I am making wild assumptions??? Every video I've watched and interview I've seen has shown the MBTs to be superior in every way to lightnings, except for speed. That means armor. That means firepower. that means ability to react to situations.

Hence I don't see why you'd get yourself a gunner if you can get yourself a Lightning wingman who can suppress infantry much better and doesn't die when you die.

Because, once again, this is a battlefield setting. You aren't only going to be fighting 2 guys vs 2 guys. There will be more than enough people for your gunner spot. Could someone be a solo-gunner MBT and have a lightning escort instead of a gunner? Almost certainly. The lightning owner will have to spend resources to pull it and babysit the MBT, but it's possible. If they get seprataed for some reason, the MBT may well be screwed. If there are line of sight issues for gunning because the lightning is a totally different vehicle than the MBT, the MBT may well be screwed.

Don't you see that you're making up complex hypotheticals that will hardly ever, if ever at all, happen?

[Flaropri]

Ah, no experience with PS1, well read the edit above, it should make things clear.

I think I understood your point in that post well enough actually, and I have a better grasp of choices vs. false choices than you realize.

I don't think that all Certs/Mods need to be competitively important. "False choices" could be considered a newbie trap, but otherwise I don't think they are a problem as long as they are a very, very minor presence.

Plus there are (very rare) situations I could see 3-crew MBTs having (minor) advantages over 2-Crew MBTs of otherwise similar firepower.

1. You need more people inside vehicles and are as a group low on resources. Not as efficient as a Sunderer but it is a way to transport more people for fewer resources, and especially for a smaller group a Sunderer isn't always the best option.

2. The driver can exit while the gunners maintain full firepower. Instead of sacrificing 50% firepower (or 50% and mobility) you can sacrifice mobility as an option. (Note, I think that popping out of vehicles in the middle of a battle-field will not nearly be as effective as some people claim it will be in Entry/Exit threads.)

3. Your driver sucks at multi-tasking. Which, really, they should just get better honestly but...


Those situations are so rare as that they won't justify using the Cert probably at least 95% of the time. But I'm sure someone, somewhere, uses the Raider because it's what they need at the time, or because they think it'll be fun, and those kinds of options I'm okay with, even if they aren't used most of the time.

Of course, looking at it from SOE's perspective, I understand it might be too much work for how few people use it. Fortunately for myself, I'm also okay with that option not existing (I'm leaning towards VS, and don't seem myself being attracted to it regardless personally). Just, as a player, I don't mind more options existing for others to mess around with. Much like I don't have a problem with people using a Reflex sight on their Sniper Rifle or whatever. It's not optimal, but if they're having fun... *shrug*

[Azren]

PlanetSide 2 Community Interview with Matt Higby - YouTube
Go to time index 15:35 on the video to hear the most recent thing that Higby has said about tank drivers controlling the main cannon.

Personally I'm in favor of an optional cert that will unlock an optional main gunner seat in the tank will give the driver the option of giving control of the main cannon to another player. Thus allowing up to 3 people in the tank. The driver, the main gunner, and the secondary gunner.
I will love the devs forever if they do this. If not I will be very disappointed.

As a VS player, I do not find that acceptable. They just need to create a second tank model for magrider where it has a turret, so based on the cert you either get the normal locked main gun one, or one with a turret (only for gunner).

[fvdham]

Advantages of just driving and letting others gun:
- Drivers are less likely to hit a tree and come to full stop if they focus on just driving.
- Gunners are extra eyes to find enemies.
- Gunners can help repair. Meaning the tank is shorter time out of action.
- Gunners can not repair but cover the driver while he is repairing.
- Playing with friends in the same car is easier if the driving/gunning skills are different.
- Roleplaying of being a tank driver.

Since I drive Lightning 99,99% of the time, it must be that I do not find these advantages enough.

[Figment]

@Ratstomper, I will reply when you have one sentence that makes sense in terms of balancing instead of you acting completely obstinate. You don't understand game design and game balance. You have nothing constructive to add to this discussion and spekking to you is therefor a waste of time.

@Fla: I don't get how you can say that and then conclude it is okay to forego balance for the reason that people love lots of uncompromised power over others. Because that's why they like driving an mbt alone: lot of power and no need to share it or work for it. That is bad MMO design and if you can't conclude that then I suppose this discussion is over.


You can't make something a one man tank and then call this okay because "in theory a playstyle that is not competitive in a game where competition is everything is provided as a subpar game play style".

You don't do these players justice and only cater to the solo players, who already get all but three other units, two of which are transports. You give a token design option that doesn't help promote teamwork and since you don't care you think that suffices.

That's a horrible design attitude. But unfortunately PSU is full of people who are more concerned with buffing themselves and their personal fighting capacity than with good team game play.

[sumo]

realism vs fun as usual.
this is a sci-fi game and therefore not based in reality. they could just make up some technobabble that tank driver now have a nano helmet of some sort that help them to drive and shoot a tank and at the same time.

i never played ps1. but i do know that in bf3 noone want to take the driver position in the all so powerful and heavily armored troop transporter.

[Klockan]

You don't do these players justice and only cater to the solo players, who already get all but three other units, two of which are transports. You give a token design option that doesn't help promote teamwork and since you don't care you think that suffices.
That's really biased talk. Half the vehicles are team vehicles and half are solo. Flash, lightning and aircav are strictly solo vehicles while Galaxy, Liberator and Sunderer are strictly team vehicles. The MBT is a mix, it works with a solo guy but its effectiveness is ~doubled with a guy on the top gun so both are viable.

[Figment]

That's really biased talk. Half the vehicles are team vehicles and half are solo. Flash, lightning and aircav are strictly solo vehicles while Galaxy, Liberator and Sunderer are strictly team vehicles. The MBT is a mix, it works with a solo guy but its effectiveness is ~doubled with a guy on the top gun so both are viable.

As I said, two of the units you name are transport vehicles and therefore do not qualify as combat vehicles. And as I've illustrated many times before, the MBT cannot be considered a unit worth manning with two or three people if it is balanced for the possibility of driving it solo.

Which it is.

It's not biased, it's a conclusion you refuse to draw.

realism vs fun as usual.
this is a sci-fi game and therefore not based in reality. they could just make up some technobabble that tank driver now have a nano helmet of some sort that help them to drive and shoot a tank and at the same time.

i never played ps1. but i do know that in bf3 noone want to take the driver position in the all so powerful and heavily armored troop transporter.

Realism? No. Game play design which is far more fun because the combat is of higher quality (more dynamic), but only if you don't entice people to prefer static combat by having more endurance without losing firepower (ie. getting more tanks or other units to cover instead).

We're discussing the heaviest of tanks here. BIG difference. Considering you haven't played PS1 nor any other games where you have dedicated drivers in a combattive tank role and therefor have no idea about the level of fun we're talking about, your opinion is pretty moot on what is fun. Your APC reference btw is akin to the original Sunderer in PlanetSide one, but falls flat for any other team units in PS1.


And you name a troop transporter in BF3 where the alternative options are flying jets solo or driving tanks solo. Meaning you give a perfect example of why solo vs team work has to be balanced properly and not based on one person doing everything.

[Azren]

realism vs fun as usual.
this is a sci-fi game and therefore not based in reality. they could just make up some technobabble that tank driver now have a nano helmet of some sort that help them to drive and shoot a tank and at the same time.

i never played ps1. but i do know that in bf3 noone want to take the driver position in the all so powerful and heavily armored troop transporter.

Read the thread fist. Nobody argued to have dedicated gunner and driver because it is more realistic.

The arguments for dedicated d/g setup are along these lines:

The MBT is the only multi crew ground combat vehicle. A design that does not require a gunner, effectively makes it a solo mashine, thus leaving no option for those people who want the experience of being dedicated gunner or driver

The survivability of the PS2 setup is low because the driver has to split his attention between situational awareness (rocks, trees, enemy positions, friendly positions) and gunning (which requires keeping focused on one spot, making situational awareness low). Add to this the already far faster gameplay which also came at the cost of much lower TTK for MBTs.

Finding a gunner for a vehicle with low survivability will be very hard. For reference, try finding a gunner for a Harrasser in PS1, you will even have a hard time with ES buggies.

The drivergunner setup will encourage a much more stationary gameplay than what we had in PS1. Take PS1 lightings as reference, you will se how they tend to fire from a static position instead of while being mobile. If they do the later, they usually end up hitting a tree or a rock.



That's really biased talk. Half the vehicles are team vehicles and half are solo. Flash, lightning and aircav are strictly solo vehicles while Galaxy, Liberator and Sunderer are strictly team vehicles. The MBT is a mix, it works with a solo guy but its effectiveness is ~doubled with a guy on the top gun so both are viable.

Would it be biased not to count transport and support units as assault vehicles? I didn't think so. If you look at assault vehicles, here is the rundown:

solo - ES aircav
solo - Flash
solo - Lightning
soloable - Liberator
soloable - MBT

I see no vehicles in that list that require a team of two or more peole, do you?

[fod]

realism vs fun as usual.
this is a sci-fi game and therefore not based in reality. they could just make up some technobabble that tank driver now have a nano helmet of some sort that help them to drive and shoot a tank and at the same time.

i never played ps1. but i do know that in bf3 noone want to take the driver position in the all so powerful and heavily armored troop transporter.

not really as i find it more fun driving a tank with a seperate gunner than i do a tank which i control the gun
i dont give a crap about realism

[sumo]

Read the thread fist. Nobody argued to have dedicated gunner and driver because it is more realistic.

The arguments for dedicated d/g setup are along these lines:

The MBT is the only multi crew ground combat vehicle. A design that does not require a gunner, effectively makes it a solo mashine, thus leaving no option for those people who want the experience of being dedicated gunner or driver

The survivability of the PS2 setup is low because the driver has to split his attention between situational awareness (rocks, trees, enemy positions, friendly positions) and gunning (which requires keeping focused on one spot, making situational awareness low). Add to this the already far faster gameplay which also came at the cost of much lower TTK for MBTs.

Finding a gunner for a vehicle with low survivability will be very hard. For reference, try finding a gunner for a Harrasser in PS1, you will even have a hard time with ES buggies.

The drivergunner setup will encourage a much more stationary gameplay than what we had in PS1. Take PS1 lightings as reference, you will se how they tend to fire from a static position instead of while being mobile. If they do the later, they usually end up hitting a tree or a rock.





Would it be biased not to count transport and support units as assault vehicles? I didn't think so. If you look at assault vehicles, here is the rundown:

solo - ES aircav
solo - Flash
solo - Lightning
soloable - Liberator
soloable - MBT

I see no vehicles in that list that require a team of two or more peole, do you?
That makes great sense.
Thanks for summing up 36 unread pages.

[Klockan]

Would it be biased not to count transport and support units as assault vehicles? I didn't think so. If you look at assault vehicles, here is the rundown:

solo - ES aircav
solo - Flash
solo - Lightning
soloable - Liberator
soloable - MBT

I see no vehicles in that list that require a team of two or more peole, do you?
Liberator isn't soloable since there is no reason to drive a liberator solo when you can just drive aircav solo with better results in every way.

[Figment]

Liberator isn't soloable since there is no reason to drive a liberator solo when you can just drive aircav solo with better results in every way.

Depends on what you want to do with it. Liberators with a front mounted gun can be used to solo and there are several situations where you can draw a comparison to the MBT here.

Liberators were frequently used solo in air and air to ground combat (particularly during one event where Reavers and Mosquitos were removed from use by SOE). En mass (when outnumbering an enemy), their endurance with better front gun firepower becomes more important than their capacity to maneuvre as their wingman get the chance to cover the others without being fired back at. So you can compare that to the situation where a group of MBTs outnumbers a single, "enhanced crew" MBT: they simply overwhelm it with total endurance, where they'd have lost one on one.


So if aircav would have required more manpower, the comparison would have stood up as when making the choice, you would have had to choose between more units with high armour or fewer units with more agility. Instead, aircav is also solo and with equal numbers to pick from, agility, speed, firepower and flexibility trumps endurance+firepower. If aircav had required three players though?

So yes, it's the better solo option as you can have equal numbers of aircav for the amount of Liberators you can bring. That's where the comparison falls flat: there's no other, better solo units.

And with MBTs, these ARE the best solo units for their vehicle category.

[ruskyandrei]

I think you should also consider resource cost here. Everything we've seen so far is in no way indicative of what effect resource cost (and cooldown) will have on vehicle use.

Your main point against the driver/gunner, soloable vehicles, seems to be that they would be too powerfull for a single person and everybody would get one.

Yet you never once considered the fact that these vehicles cost resources and have cooldowns (therefore cannot be spammed as you describe).

Both the resource cost, and cooldown will mean using 2 or more people in a single vehicle will almost always be beneficial in the long term (sure you could have everyone in your team pick up an MBT and not have any gunners but apart from the fact that they will get destroyed by AV infantry and air vehicles since they have no second gunner, this style of play will also leave your entire side resourceless in a very short timespan).

The possibility of having a cert that allows for 3 people to man an MBT has been suggested and it makes no sense that people still argue against that as well.
On the one hand you have people opposing the driver/gunner system because it's "too easy", and on the other you have people saying it's "not as efficient as separating the driver and the gunner". Would you please make up your minds ? Which is it ? OP or not good enough ?

[Azren]

I think you should also consider resource cost here. Everything we've seen so far is in no way indicative of what effect resource cost (and cooldown) will have on vehicle use.

Your main point against the driver/gunner, soloable vehicles, seems to be that they would be too powerfull for a single person and everybody would get one.

Yet you never once considered the fact that these vehicles cost resources and have cooldowns (therefore cannot be spammed as you describe).

Both the resource cost, and cooldown will mean using 2 or more people in a single vehicle will almost always be beneficial in the long term (sure you could have everyone in your team pick up an MBT and not have any gunners but apart from the fact that they will get destroyed by AV infantry and air vehicles since they have no second gunner, this style of play will also leave your entire side resourceless in a very short timespan).

The possibility of having a cert that allows for 3 people to man an MBT has been suggested and it makes no sense that people still argue against that as well.
On the one hand you have people opposing the driver/gunner system because it's "too easy", and on the other you have people saying it's "not as efficient as separating the driver and the gunner". Would you please make up your minds ? Which is it ? OP or not good enough ?

Did you read this thread or just decided to chip in at the last minute? Just a few posts before I wrote a list of the arguments that were brought up in support of dedicated drivers. You might want to read that.

Resource cost... let's just assume for a second that an MBT will cost a lot of resources, do you seriously think anyone would pull one? We saw how easy they die now, the TTK on a tank is like 4 seconds tops. It woud be a waste of resources and never used in game.

There is no way the cost of any vehicle would be high. Maybe you will not be able to constantly pull them and die without scoring any points, but if you idle around a bit, the automated resource gain should be more than enough to get a new MBT.

Remember PS2 is a fast paced game with short TTK, high resource cost would only result in a forced foot zerging, that won't happen.

[ruskyandrei]

You seem to assume that the values you see now (for everything from resource cost to TTK) will be the same when the game releases. I doubt that will be the case.

I did read your arguments, I just don't agree with all of them.

In particular:

The survivability of the PS2 setup is low because the driver has to split his attention between situational awareness (rocks, trees, enemy positions, friendly positions) and gunning (which requires keeping focused on one spot, making situational awareness low). Add to this the already far faster gameplay which also came at the cost of much lower TTK for MBTs.


I'm just going to dismiss the last part about TTK because as I said, this game is still in beta (actually, it's not even started beta) and things like TTK for tanks can change radically in a single patch.

But touching on your first point, which describes lower survivability with a driver/gunner setup: I agree, which is why it makes PERFECT sense for a high level cert that allows you to spawn a tank with 3 slots instead of 2, while leaving the driver/gunner option as default.

The MBT is the only multi crew ground combat vehicle. A design that does not require a gunner, effectively makes it a solo mashine, thus leaving no option for those people who want the experience of being dedicated gunner or driver

Again, the 3 slot cert option (which has already been hinted at) would allow people who wish to play dedicated driver/gunner to do just that.
And as you described above, 3 people would make the tank better than 2, so it would fit in nicely.

Would it be biased not to count transport and support units as assault vehicles?

It would if you consider that it has been clearly stated the galaxy can be outfitted as a gunship instead of a transport, and the sunderer has decent if not very good anti-infantry and air potential at least.

[Flaropri]

There are three arguments in this thread:

1. Being able to solo operate an MBT is overpowered.
2. Driving and gunning at the same time is less efficient than driving and gunning being split between players.
3. The game needs to encourage team-play.

My responses to these are:
1. Being able to solo operate an MBT is only "overpowered" if resources are meaningless. There are still many situations and variables that point to soloing an MBT would not be stronger than using the cheaper lightning.

2. Anything that both improves general access and the skill ceiling in the game seems like a very good thing, so I disagree that it is a problem.

3. The game needs to encourage team-play... and it does. MBTs are less valuable when driven solo for all the reasons from argument 1. Libs, Sunderers, etc. are relatively pointless without other players working with you. Personally I would rather the game's vehicles be accessible and teamwork encouraged than to restrict the game's vehicles and try to force teamwork.


@Fla: I don't get how you can say that and then conclude it is okay to forego balance for the reason that people love lots of uncompromised power over others.

Seriously?

Go soak yourself.


I have NEVER said it's okay to forego balance. Nor do I think that I or other people are desperately trying to increase individual power over other 1-crew vehicles in the game. You conclude that solo-driven MBTs are imbalanced, that's your view, not the word of God or concrete fact, in fact there is no concrete fact about what is over powered in the game because Beta has only just started, and even in Live there's a very good chance they'll patch things for the sake of balance when necessary.

In the mean time: I have said over, and over, that the likely balancing factors for 1-crew MBTs are:

1. Lower individual firepower.
2. Lower flexibility.
3. When used in place of being a gunner for another MBT: greatly increased resource costs.


In my view, pending costs, a 1-crew MBT should be about as powerful as a Lightning (including "intangibles" like speed and manueverability) in total with focus on different areas (AV firepower and/or Health vs. Speed being the main example but not the only one). If it is particularly expensive in relation to a Lightning (like, 225%) then that can go up slightly... again as long as resources are balanced/meaningful, and only slightly.


You say people are horribly underestimating the value of 2 1-crew MBTs, and I say you're likely overvaluing it. I also say that there isn't enough information because the resource system isn't balanced yet (at least such that we have any good information on it).

You also say that 1-crew MBTs don't encourage team-work... then go on to describe how multiple MBTs with just driver can work together to flank multi-crew MBTs... I'm not sure how that isn't teamwork even if that turns out to be viable when you consider everything else, like infantry, terrain, and air support, which is dubious to me on top of resource considerations. Teamwork doesn't only mean being in the same vehicle. Teamwork means working with others, whether it be other friendly tanks, crew-members, infantry, air support or whatever. 2-crew MBTs inherently support teamwork but it isn't the only thing that does.

We aren't at this point talking about the difference of 2 and 3-crew optional variants with the same overall capabilities. We're talking about 1 vs. 2 crew and why it is balanced because resource to resource the capabilities are cut in half in Firepower, group maneuverability, adaptability, and battle-field awareness. I understand in PS1 the limiting factors were spawn timers and people with certs, but there are new mechanics now, you can't base everything on manpower alone.

[EisenKreutzer]

Smedley on driver/gunner tanks: (http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/wju1y/a_ps1_beta_testers_impressions_of_ps2_after/c5dydjt) I realize a lot of PS1 players are going to look at stuff like this and be uncomfortable. The truth is part of our job is to get more people able to play the game right when they jump in.. but we have to balance that with making the game still be Planetside. Changes like this are just straight up more fun

[Zedek]

Driver/Gunners... YES!

It's my tank, I want to shoot the cannon.

If you want that "dedicated gunner experience", then I would not be opposed to ALLOWING the owner of the tank to designate dedicated gunners. In fact, I think that would be awesome.

Driver/Gunner does not diminish teamwork. It frees up more people for tanks and requires even more coordination between more tanks for effective field dominance.

You don't need to discourage soloing. You don't need to give a buff to people who coordinate. It will happen passively as coordinating people will have an innate advantage. Solo Tank VS Dedicated Gunner Tank - They have the same cannon, but one will be more mobile because the driver can watch where he's going.

It takes care of itself, and it's nice to not have to sit around waiting to get a gunner.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

I'm sure the new setup will work fine. And in practice, as people have mentioned, the backup gunner watching your six will be critical, since tanks can be nearly one-shoted from behind now. Intelligent crews will "do their jobs" while idiots will not.

It's just a preference thing, more than anything else. I don't like certain aspects of the current system, but it really isn't "the end of the world".

And what is Buggsy even doing here? He left PlanetSide, I thought. Get going already!

[Azren]

You don't need to discourage soloing. You don't need to give a buff to people who coordinate. It will happen passively as coordinating people will have an innate advantage. Solo Tank VS Dedicated Gunner Tank - They have the same cannon, but one will be more mobile because the driver can watch where he's going.

It takes care of itself, and it's nice to not have to sit around waiting to get a gunner.

The point is not to discourage soloing, it is to encourage teamplay both in vehicles and overal. This is what Planetside is, this is why it is still around unlike all those BF and CoD games that came before the latest release.

There is a major problem with the suggestion to allow dedicated gunner as a cert for the tank: You would need one extra man to operate with the same firepower as a tank with drivergunner.
That is a hefty price to pay and not balanced. For this to work right, a tank with the optional dedicated gunner would have to sport greater armor than the normal counterpart.

This also doesn't solve the problem with the magrider. There the devs could create a secondary model (with rotatable turret of course) which gets spawned if the cert is active.

I'm sure the new setup will work fine. And in practice, as people have mentioned, the backup gunner watching your six will be critical, since tanks can be nearly one-shoted from behind now. Intelligent crews will "do their jobs" while idiots will not.

No. An intelligent crew does not get in a situation where they can be shot in the 6 in the first place. Situational awareness is where it's at! Exactly what will be lacking with the drivergunner setup.

Besides, you can not seriously belive that your gunner will watch your 6... he will look forward just like you, probably shoot the same enemy as you. Or do you think he will keep watching 6 when he knows that his tank is being damaged by an enemy at 12?

[Zebasiz]

Besides, you can not seriously belive that your gunner will watch your 6... he will look forward just like you, probably shoot the same enemy as you. Or do you think he will keep watching 6 when he knows that his tank is being damaged by an enemy at 12?

I've been the secondary gunner sometimes on PS1 and I do watch the 6. as well as all the other time slots. It's why I'm in there. So yeah, some people will support the tank and watch its flank.

[ruskyandrei]

See, this is what I was talking about. You contradict yourself here.

First you say:

There is a major problem with the suggestion to allow dedicated gunner as a cert for the tank: You would need one extra man to operate with the same firepower as a tank with drivergunner.
That is a hefty price to pay and not balanced.

What I take from that is that you believe that having a cert for a dedicated gunner seat would be bad because it would be a weaker setup than a drivergunner + secondary gunner alone.

But then you say this:

No. An intelligent crew does not get in a situation where they can be shot in the 6 in the first place. Situational awareness is where it's at! Exactly what will be lacking with the drivergunner setup.


From which I understand that you consider a drivergunner setup inferior due to the lack of awareness caused by having a person as both the driver and gunner.

And if having a dedicated gunner is better isn't that balanced ?

So which is it ? Is drivergunner bad because it's too powerful, or because it's too weak ?

[BlueSkies]

Solo MBT < MBT with main driver/gunner + secondary AV gunner
Solo MBT < Air configured for air to ground
Solo MBT < MBT with main driver/gunner + secondary gunner when presented with multiple targets.

Simple fact: You are gimping yourself and wasting your own resources/cooldowns if you don't get yourself a secondary gunner.

So... whats the problem exactly?

[KaB]

Smedley on driver/gunner tanks: (http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/wju1y/a_ps1_beta_testers_impressions_of_ps2_after/c5dydjt) I realize a lot of PS1 players are going to look at stuff like this and be uncomfortable. The truth is part of our job is to get more people able to play the game right when they jump in.. but we have to balance that with making the game still be Planetside. Changes like this are just straight up more fun

I have an advice for j_smedley :

The more you wanna hit people, the less you will.
The more you wanna make your game universal, the less you will make a distinguished and original creation, and consequently, an interesting life span for your game.

Especially for a F2P, a good life span is really important. Whereas common games can take a rest after the first month if the sales have been effective.

Just saying.

[SgtExo]

I have an advice for j_smedley :

The more you wanna hit people, the less you will.
The more you wanna make your game universal, the less you will make a distinguished and original creation, and consequently, an interesting life span for your game.

Especially for a F2P, a good life span is really important. Whereas common games can take a rest after the first month if the sales have been effective.

Just saying.

But they are not making a game that can do everything.

This game is just a massive persistent PvP game.

That is their niche, but allowing the most gameplay choices within that niche is what a game that is full of content is all about.

[KaB]

Adding some fun to game at the expense of its coherence is not the solution.

[Tehroth]

I agree with this, The large tanks and airships should have a crew that works together and shares kills, xp and the experiences of the game together. I am fine with smaller vehicles being single manned.

[Azren]

See, this is what I was talking about. You contradict yourself here.

First you say:


What I take from that is that you believe that having a cert for a dedicated gunner seat would be bad because it would be a weaker setup than a drivergunner + secondary gunner alone.

But then you say this:


From which I understand that you consider a drivergunner setup inferior due to the lack of awareness caused by having a person as both the driver and gunner.

And if having a dedicated gunner is better isn't that balanced ?

So which is it ? Is drivergunner bad because it's too powerful, or because it's too weak ?

You should not take things out of context.

What I wrote in the first quote is that if you take a tank where the driver guns the main gun, but has a gunner and put it up against a tank where the driver drives and the two guns are handled by gunners, they will have the same firepower, armor, but will require one extra man to operate effectively.
This immediatly would bring up the issue if it is better to pull 3 MBTs each with drivergunner setup, or one with gunners... Who would win a 3v1 fight you think?
Still, if balanded right, this could work. The need for an extra gunner should be compensated in some way, for example with an armor bonus.


On the second quote I talk about battlefield conditions, not straight up balance. That is where the dedicated driver comes into play, he is your lifeline basically. A driver who is not preoccupied with shooting has a far greater situational awareness.

See? There is no contridiction here. You just have to read everything in it's right context.

I find it hilarious by the way how easy you talk about drivergunners getting a gunner for their tank. It is hard to find random gunners in PS1 where you take control of the main gun, you think it will be easy in PS2, where you are stuck with secondary? Well, no, it will not be. Honestly, since everyone can now pull an MBT from the first second, they will just do that.

[ruskyandrei]

You should not take things out of context.

What I wrote in the first quote is that if you take a tank where the driver guns the main gun, but has a gunner and put it up against a tank where the driver drives and the two guns are handled by gunners, they will have the same firepower, armor, but will require one extra man to operate effectively.
This immediatly would bring up the issue if it is better to pull 3 MBTs each with drivergunner setup, or one with gunners... Who would win a 3v1 fight you think?
Still, if balanded right, this could work. The need for an extra gunner should be compensated in some way, for example with an armor bonus.


On the second quote I talk about battlefield conditions, not straight up balance. That is where the dedicated driver comes into play, he is your lifeline basically. A driver who is not preoccupied with shooting has a far greater situational awareness.

See? There is no contridiction here. You just have to read everything in it's right context.

I find it hilarious by the way how easy you talk about drivergunners getting a gunner for their tank. It is hard to find random gunners in PS1 where you take control of the main gun, you think it will be easy in PS2, where you are stuck with secondary? Well, no, it will not be. Honestly, since everyone can now pull an MBT from the first second, they will just do that.

Resources, you're forgetting about resources! 3 MBTs cost 3 times as much as 1 (duh :P ) so while 3 MBTs might win against a single three man MBT, that simply because that is what should happen when you spend three times as many resources.

And battlefield conditions making having a dedicated gunner an advantage is related to balance.

So everyone will be pulling their own MBT all the time right ? Even when out of resources, even when it's on cooldown ? Even when they could just as easily jump in that nice TOW launcher on that new MBT the guy in front just spawned ?

[Buggsy]

Resources....

Will be removed from the game, or won't function the way you think it will function. Do you seriously think players on the losing team are going to stay on the losing team if they can't spawn anything? Hahahaha, that's not how ti goes.

Resources will be removed from the game before BETA is over.

Solo MBT < MBT with main driver/gunner + secondary AV gunner
Solo MBT < Air configured for air to ground
Solo MBT < MBT with main driver/gunner + secondary gunner when presented with multiple targets.

Simple fact: You are gimping yourself and wasting your own resources/cooldowns if you don't get yourself a secondary gunner.

So... whats the problem exactly?

The problem is that vehicles will be gimp from square 1, simply because one player can drive and gun it.

[SgtExo]

Will be removed from the game, or won't function the way you think it will function. Do you seriously think players on the losing team are going to stay on the losing team if they can't spawn anything? Hahahaha, that's not how ti goes.

Resources will be removed from the game before BETA is over.

That wont happen, resources are PS2's endgame.

[ruskyandrei]

Will be removed from the game, or won't function the way you think it will function. Do you seriously think players on the losing team are going to stay on the losing team if they can't spawn anything? Hahahaha, that's not how ti goes.

Resources will be removed from the game before BETA is over.


:huh:

Err, no, they won't be removed.

[EisenKreutzer]

Will be removed from the game, or won't function the way you think it will function. Do you seriously think players on the losing team are going to stay on the losing team if they can't spawn anything? Hahahaha, that's not how ti goes.

Resources will be removed from the game before BETA is over.


Yeah, no. Resources will not be removed from the game.

[fod]

Smedley on driver/gunner tanks: (http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/wju1y/a_ps1_beta_testers_impressions_of_ps2_after/c5dydjt) I realize a lot of PS1 players are going to look at stuff like this and be uncomfortable. The truth is part of our job is to get more people able to play the game right when they jump in.. but we have to balance that with making the game still be Planetside. Changes like this are just straight up more fun

how does he know whats more fun FOR ME?
this is a big hit out of my playstyle for ps2 - my main thing in ps1 was vehicle driving and getting gunners (auroras/leviathans/magriders) was NEVER a problem - infact i have a few dedicated gunners that ask me when i will be getting a vehicles next

im not saying make it ONLY my way with seperate driver/gunner but damn it i cant see any downsides to letting us have the option of which way we like it

where are those devs that said they are listening to feedback and will change things accordingly? this isnt some imbalancing feature or something its just OPTIONS to let us play how WE enjoy the game

[KaB]

Will be removed from the game, or won't function the way you think it will function. Do you seriously think players on the losing team are going to stay on the losing team if they can't spawn anything? Hahahaha, that's not how ti goes.

Resources will be removed from the game before BETA is over.

It sounds quite unthinkable, but I've also been thinking about it and a sort of ulterior motive makes me think that SOE will forget the ressources and will end up stucking on the Tribes' F2P model (buying xp boost).

Ressources might be really interesting financially, but it might also unbalance the game. We'll see how they deal with it, but here are my thoughts.

[Buggsy]

The truth is part of our job is to get more people able to play the game right when they jump in..

That's codespeak for: dumbing down.

let me translate that for you, "We are dumbing down the game so a 4 year old can understand how to play it. Nothing is more irritating than a 4 year old at Best Buy that insists on buying a game, weak willed parents always cave in."

The Most Annoying Sound In The World - YouTube

It sounds quite unthinkable, but I've also been thinking about it and a sort of ulterior motive makes me think that SOE will forget the ressources and will end up stucking on the Tribes' F2P model (buying xp boost).

Ressources might be really interesting financially, but it might also unbalance the game. We'll see how they deal with it, but here are my thoughts.

Oh come on, you don't have to be in BETA to know it would totally unbalance the game. Players on the losing side will log off en mass.

[KaB]

We are dumbing down the game so a 4 year old can understand how to play it. Nothing is more irritating than a 4 year old at Best Buy that insists on buying a game, weak willed parents always cave in."

Welcome in the future. Consumer is king, whatever is his age.

[AzureWatcher]

Oh well. I'm still very glad they made the change.

I also hope they ignore the very vocal minority and keep it the way it is. There's nothing wrong with the new system except some of the old PS1 vets won't get their fix of nostalgia.

[KaB]

There's nothing wrong with the new system except some of the old PS1 vets won't get their fix of nostalgia.

Blizzard had more respect for the Starcraft 1 vets, and I'm not sure PS2 will make better than SC2 in terms of success.

[SFJake]

Blizzard had more respect for the Starcraft 1 vets

Whaaat?

Yeah right. Thats not true at all.

[KaB]

Whaaat?

Yeah right. Thats not true at all.

I'll be more specific, and then it's your turn ok ?

A majority of the SC2's elite were the majority of the SC1's elite. I don't think it's going to be the case for PS2. At all !

[Ratstomper]

Oh well. I'm still very glad they made the change.

I also hope they ignore the very vocal minority and keep it the way it is. There's nothing wrong with the new system except some of the old PS1 vets won't get their fix of nostalgia.

Completely agree, and I played PS1 for many years. I HATED the MBT system.

It's just a handful of hypothetical theorists who can't see the forest for the trees.

I'll be more specific, and then it's your turn ok ?

A majority of the SC2's elite were the majority of the SC1's elite. I don't think it's going to be the case for PS2. At all !

For what reason?

[Buggsy]

Completely agree, and I played PS1 for many years. I HATED the MBT system.

It's just a handful of hypothetical theorists who can't see the forest for the trees.



There aint gonna be a MBT if the driver can gun, it will just be a glorified Lightening.

[BlueSkies]

hypothetical theorists who can't see the forest for the trees.



Heh, at least not while having to drive and gun they can't :D

Honestly, develop your spatial awareness instead of demanding game system changes.

[Ratstomper]

There aint gonna be a MBT if the driver can gun, it will just be a glorified Lightening.

Bullshit. There are pages and pages of reasons why this isn't the case. YOU just refuse to realize it.

[Vanir]

Smedley on driver/gunner tanks: (http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/wju1y/a_ps1_beta_testers_impressions_of_ps2_after/c5dydjt) I realize a lot of PS1 players are going to look at stuff like this and be uncomfortable. The truth is part of our job is to get more people able to play the game right when they jump in.. but we have to balance that with making the game still be Planetside. Changes like this are just straight up more fun

This only confirms that the driver will control the main cannon, it says nothing about having an optional cert to change that.

[fod]

There aint gonna be a MBT if the driver can gun, it will just be a glorified Lightening.
^this

and its more fun with a seperate driver/gunner than doing it all yourself - just give us the OPTION to let others gun for me and i will be happy

[Ratstomper]

Heh, at least not while having to drive and gun they can't :D

Honestly, develop your spatial awareness instead of demanding game system changes.

A moving tank wont be firing behind them anyway. A good tank driver will be firing in the direction he is moving. Let the secondary gunner handle the other directions.

Only time a main gun should be pointed away form the nose of the tank is when he's stopped somewhere to shell enemy fortifications or other target, away from the enemy line.

[fod]

Bullshit. There are pages and pages of reasons why this isn't the case. YOU just refuse to realize it.

there are also pages and pages of info in this thread as to why IT IS the case

[Ratstomper]

^this

and its more fun with a seperate driver/gunner than doing it all yourself - just give us the OPTION to let others gun for me and i will be happy

Why do you think this is the case? No ability is being taken away from you as a driver. How can something that's fun + a gun be less fun than before? Are you saying you're unwilling to learn to drive and gun at the same time? It's not that hard.

[Buggsy]

Bullshit. There are pages and pages of reasons why this isn't the case. YOU just refuse to realize it.

Son *puts hand on shoulder* once you've been around long enough you notice how things get balanced in games.

[KaB]

For what reason?

Because SOE wants PS2 to be fun !

Considering the fact that PS1 was unique, if PS2 lose all the good points that had PS1 only to become a random FPS with big vehicles/guns/graphics, it's like restarting from zero.

This tank feature from PS1 was actually one of those which made me play it. I dunno what type of vehicles you were driving, but maybe you should make your way on another one and stop rejecting what made games better.

[Ratstomper]

there are also pages and pages of info in this thread as to why IT IS the case

No there isn't. Every last one of those points have been refuted. The best thing that you guys have come up with are ridiculous hypotheticals that will rarely, if ever, happen in game.

[Buggsy]

No there isn't. Every last one of those points have been refuted. The best thing that you guys have come up with are ridiculous hypotheticals that will rarely, if ever, happen in game.

Actually balance happens in all games. In fact if game developers are good at anything, they are good at balancing something to the point where it doesn't matter what choice the player makes in doing this or doing that.

[AzureWatcher]

Why do you think this is the case? No ability is being taken away from you as a driver. How can something that's fun + a gun be less fun than before? Are you saying you're unwilling to learn to drive and gun at the same time? It's not that hard.

Pretty much this. This thread is full of posts about how difficult it is for them to drive and shoot at the same time. They want to nerf the game because of their own incompetence.

It's also full of the falsehood that the second gun is somehow weaker than the main cannon. It's not, and it can also be fitted to provide the tank with incredible versatility. In the Higby interview that was posted today, Matt mentions that you can fit your tank with an AA gun on the roof, or a second AT gun.

The MBTs still require teamwork for optimal performance. It's not like they are getting rid of it. They are just adapting it for a modern market. Driver&Cannon Operator + Roof Gunner instead of Driver + Cannon Operator.

So it's not that much of a change as you lot are making it out to be.

[Ratstomper]

Because SOE wants PS2 to be fun !

Considering the fact that PS1 was unique, if PS2 lose all the good points that had PS1 only to become a random FPS with big vehicles/guns/graphics, it's like restarting from zero.

This tank feature from PS1 was actually one of those which made me play it. I dunno what type of vehicles you were driving, but maybe you should make your way on another one and stop rejecting what made games better.

The same could be said of you buddy. Seems like the majority of the playerbase realizes it's a good idea and wants to keep MBTs the way they are. You people are the odd men out, yet haven't stopped to ask yourselves if you're maybe missing something.

The ONLY thing that PS2 changed from PS1 was made the combat more engaging. There's still the logistics. There are still the massive battles. There are still massive groups of people moving from base to base, just like in PS1. the only changes made are changes that the majority of people want (As a PS1 vet, I prefer them), because PS1's gunplay and MBT system were bad. Just awful.

Actually balance happens in all games. In fact if game developers are good at anything, they are good at balancing something to the point where it doesn't matter what choice the player makes in doing this or doing that.

What does this have to do with the thread topic?

Although, I would say that "balancing something to the point where it doesn't matter what choice the player makes" is not even remotely correct or the point of balancing. Balancing makes it so that the choices of the player are ALL that matter. Balancing makes it so if you choose to use tactics, you can beat someone with a gun that's maybe not as great in you current situation. If you choose to bring the wrong type of equipment, you may well be screwing yourself over if you don't choose to handle the situation correctly. Balancing isn't about neutralizing player choices, it's about emphasizing player choices and ability over hard, unfair game mechanics.

[KaB]

because PS1's gunplay and MBT system were bad. Just awful.

Gunplay will be upgraded with the new engine. Not replaced.

Whereas the MBT system is absolutely not an engine limitation and could be already replaced in PS1 if players really wanted it. Which didn't look to be the case, did it ?

[BlueSkies]

Gunplay will be upgraded with the new engine. Not replaced.

Whereas the MBT system is absolutely not an engine limitation and could be already replaced in PS1 if players really wanted it. Which didn't look to be the case, did it ?

Yes, I am sure that the microscopic population that PS1 had before the free month really enjoy the current system, or don't care either way. Others, prefer the new system.

[Ratstomper]

Gunplay will be upgraded with the new engine. Not replaced.

Whereas the MBT system is absolutely not an engine limitation and could be already replaced in PS1 if players really wanted it. Which didn't look to be the case, did it ?

Gunplay is more than just the new engine. I'm talking about the lower TTKs and overall small arms combat. The netcode and long TTK in PS1 was godawful and was a mark against it.

The MBT system had been established in PS1; they weren't going to change it, especially for a game that was pretty much dead. SOME people (evidently) liked it. Many did not and had to just get over it because it's what was in the game and (just like in PS2), the MBTs were far and away superior to lightnings in toe to toe warfare.

Now they have an MBT system that supports superior teamplay (even better than in PS1) and you're going to bitch about it because it's different. Big surprise.

[fod]

Why do you think this is the case? No ability is being taken away from you as a driver. How can something that's fun + a gun be less fun than before? Are you saying you're unwilling to learn to drive and gun at the same time? It's not that hard.

nothing to do with me "learning" to play this way - im a battlefield vet (since bf1942) that has played all the battlefield games (im a tank whore in them also) and i just have more fun driving with a separate gunner

and yes i lose the ability to ONLY concentrate on driving and letting my gunner concentrate on gunning - its MORE FUN having a dedicated job and co-ordinating my driving with my gunner, which i lose when i dont have this OPTION to have a separate gunner

i know what is FUN for me, im 35 years old i have been playing FPS games for freaking years so i KNOW what i enjoy doing

how can you tell me what is fun FOR ME?

[Klockan]

Oh come on, you don't have to be in BETA to know it would totally unbalance the game. Players on the losing side will log off en mass.
Yes, they might unlink resources to sites but resources will definitely stay in the game. They have too much mechanics around it.

Actually balance happens in all games. In fact if game developers are good at anything, they are good at balancing something to the point where it doesn't matter what choice the player makes in doing this or doing that.
Agreed, which is why they can give us a balanced cert that would give away the main gun to a passenger with some bonus added in on it and then everyone is happy.

[Zedek]

Solo MBT < MBT with main driver/gunner + secondary AV gunner
Solo MBT < Air configured for air to ground
Solo MBT < MBT with main driver/gunner + secondary gunner when presented with multiple targets.

Simple fact: You are gimping yourself and wasting your own resources/cooldowns if you don't get yourself a secondary gunner.

So... whats the problem exactly?

This.

Pretty much this. This thread is full of posts about how difficult it is for them to drive and shoot at the same time. They want to nerf the game because of their own incompetence.

It's also full of the falsehood that the second gun is somehow weaker than the main cannon. It's not, and it can also be fitted to provide the tank with incredible versatility. In the Higby interview that was posted today, Matt mentions that you can fit your tank with an AA gun on the roof, or a second AT gun.

The MBTs still require teamwork for optimal performance. It's not like they are getting rid of it. They are just adapting it for a modern market. Driver&Cannon Operator + Roof Gunner instead of Driver + Cannon Operator.

So it's not that much of a change as you lot are making it out to be.

And this.

Seriously, there is nothing to bitch about here. Except maybe wanting to have the option to let a buddy take over your cannon so you can focus on driving.

[Ratstomper]

nothing to do with me "learning" to play this way - im a battlefield vet (since bf1942) that has played all the battlefield games (im a tank whore in them also) and i just have more fun driving with a separate gunner

and yes i lose the ability to ONLY concentrate on driving and letting my gunner concentrate on gunning - its MORE FUN having a dedicated job and co-ordinating my driving with my gunner, which i lose when i dont have this OPTION to have a separate gunner

i know what is FUN for me, im 35 years old i have been playing FPS games for freaking years so i KNOW what i enjoy doing

how can you tell me what is fun FOR ME?

I, for one, don't care what's more fun FOR YOU. As someone who is older, I'd expect you to act more mature. It's not all about YOU. It's not all about ME. It's about giving the best gameplay experience to the most people possible. By your reasoning, why should the majority give up what they want just so you and a handful of others can get what you want (you may also want to ask yourself why so many people prefer it when it's such a bad design)? That's not working for the greater good of the game or the community.

You can say dedicated drivers are more fun for you, and they probably are for now. How about you do the sensible thing and wait to give it a shot before screaming that it is going to cause the next holocaust. You may find it's not so bad.

[Littleman]

This post is LONG. If you want to find the on-topic portion, find the dotted line and just concern yourself with everything below it. If the mods want to delete everything above the dotted line... well $#!%. Typing this took forever!

That's codespeak for: dumbing down.

let me translate that for you, "We are dumbing down the game so a 4 year old can understand how to play it. Nothing is more irritating than a 4 year old at Best Buy that insists on buying a game, weak willed parents always cave in."



Oh come on, you don't have to be in BETA to know it would totally unbalance the game. Players on the losing side will log off en mass.

Getting really tired of hearing this claim from people whom seem to forget FPS' started off rather humbly.

Let's take a look at the evolution of the shooter?

Wolfenstein 3D/DOOM/Quake = run around, dodging monster blasts, shoot back. $#!%%& netcode that failed on a LAN connection. Fun as hell co-op if you get it working though. Likr Diablo without the annoying stat juggling and where shotgun shells are precious, but not overly rare. Every FPS gamer should at least play through the first episode of (a modded for modern day controls) DOOM at least once in their lives, just to experience what really got the ball rolling.

Hexen: Classes. Though this really felt like something between a shooter and a hack-and-slash, each one played fairly differently, with different weapons to acquire and different ways to play. You didn't get up close as a wizard, while it was pretty much the only way the Warrior could fight effectively. Reference Team Fortress as another (popular) title that introduced classes.

Half-Life/Counter-Strike/Duke Nukem 3D(?) = Introduction of reload mechanics. You no longer just pulled ammo straight from your inventory. Pistols don't normally have 200 round magazines... (400 if you found the backpack.) As for DN3D, technically the hand gun reloaded every 12 rounds, though it was the only weapon with an actual reload animation/period.

Unreal Tournament/Quake III/Counter-Strike/Team Fortress = some of the first actually memorable multiplayer focused shooters (there were others... I think... they weren't as memorable.)

2001's Halo: Combat Evolved. Hello recharging "health" (shield.) Come Halo 2/Call of Duty 2, a "goodbye health packs" was added. This was also the age where console gaming really started to take off. Before the Xbox/Halo:CE, anything but a platformer on a console was fairly unwieldy.

2003's Call of Duty (1: ) first FPS to actually influence the industry with ADS mechanics. What were the games before CoD that had ADS? Yeah, I can't remember either. Well, CoD 2 actually influenced ADS more, due to the "next gen" console market boom, but CoD 1 was successful enough to make developing CoD 2 a no brainer.

Somewhere in there, weapon customization became a big thing too. Though in most cases, games really only cover an under barrel, magazine, and sight attachment.

Simplified, that's Shoot and run > classes > magazine reloads added/multiplayer focus > regen hp added > ADS added > "Build-a-Gun Workshop" added. Mind you, not all games today have all of these, though reloading has become practically a standard expectation across the genre since its inception just like with jumping and crouching.

Really, I look at a game like UT as a game easier for a newb to get into. The rules of a deathmatch are fairly simple: aim at another guy and pull the trigger. Capture the Flag: grab theirs, get back to yours. Online play and competitive play just demand actual aiming, dodging, and prediction skills (knowing where an enemy might show up) knowing map layouts and a good ping. The game itself wasn't complex by any means, players just made it complex.

Today, we have to worry about how much ammo we have in our magazine, how we move through an area due to very low TTK's not giving us time to respond to an ambush, instinctively knowing to ADS when the enemy is some distance away or sticking with shoulder/hip fire when they're in range (unless it's a "realism" game, then it's every time before you ever pull the trigger.) Properly using cover and using hand grenades to flush people out of said cover (or simply to deny them a strafing direction.) No longer does one rush off to find a health pack, they learn to stick with someone dedicating themselves to keeping their team mates alive. In light of weapon customization, now they get to tweak their gun, but they need to make sure it's not too horribly gimped in one department for the sake of improving another, especially accuracy (no matter how fast or powerful, if it can't hit anything, it's useless.) Finally, they need to plan their angle of attack based on the target, because they can't just engage a tank from the front using enough rockets, that's suicide. They need to work their way to it's rear, and watch out for anyone else that may stop them, it won't just be you, the tank, and a pile of rocks. As an aside, Engaging aircraft without some place with a roof to duck into is pretty stupid too.

Oh yes... PS2 is getting dumbed down. UT is as dumb as it gets in comparison. Strafing and bottomless magazines have been around since DOOM - it just took ten years and mods to make strafing anything but clumsy in DOOM which coincidentally made the game ultra fun again. Get Brutal Mod, it's REALLY well done and... sadistically satisfying.

The complexity in UT/Q3 was found in it's PvP and the variety of weapons people deftly wielded to brutal effect, not it's mechanics. Those were fairly basic compared to what we see today. People have more $#!% to worry about now, and the PvPers are STILL bringing the deeper complexity to today's games. Being able to kill someone with just pointing and shooting should work, but it won't be scoring anyone big kill streaks. Playing smart and mercilessly will, and experienced players WILL play smart and they WILL be merciless.

Planetside 2 will be no exception. Just because the game is easy to get into, doesn't mean the experienced guys are going to make it easy to survive, let alone win.

Complexity is best born from player ingenuity, not hard coded design decisions. The latter is simply static until the developers change it. Admittedly, player's do build the complexity off of said mechanics, and that complexity is something hopefully everyone can learn, master, and counter, making for an ever evolving meta-game. In theory. Depending on how the mechanics are set up, there may not be much to the meta-game. I suspect this is partly why Brink didn't turn out so hot... It just felt shallow, over simplified, and overall unsatisfying.

In terms of tanks, there's the concern of whom will be hopping OUT of the tank. Oh yes, this is complexity in and of itself. Saying that a Heavy Assault Shock Trooper driving/piloting and bailing a doomed wreck to use their launcher shouldn't happen is, in the typical fashion of those whom constantly call design decisions they don't agree with, what I consider "dumbing down" the game. That's ONE scenario. Another bailer might be a cloaker or an LA that will try and plant C4 on your tank, and they're both notably harder to track than an HA as you may never see the cloaker bail, or the LA might be too hard to hit in the air without an MG secondary gun. Alternatively, the bailer may be an engineer who could hustle over to ANOTHER standing tank and support it with repairs or with turret fire from an advantageous position, provided he isn't dealt with before he bails in time and survives to have the chance help win the battle (as with all other bailers sans the medic, he's a useless bailer overall as far as I can tell.)

NOTE: If you disagree with any of the above and want to say something, just reword my quoted text as "stuff" and tell me I'm wrong. This thread is for tank seats, not pointing out how the genre has actually gotten more complicated mechanics wise in general. I just wanted to get this off my chest before I hear anymore of these stupid "dumbing down" bull$#!% claims. I don't feel like getting into an argument over accurate FPS history anyway -_- The past is the past. PS2 is the near future and the only thing that matters!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requiring 1 or 2 people to make a tank work on the most basic level isn't adding any form of novel complexity or dumbing the game down so much as it's more of a trade off in complete control (D=G) vs. efficient control (D&G.) A coordinated Driver/gunner team with the third seat being filled would make for a tank that should last longer than a typical "driver-gunner" tank filled with two people in just about every scenario. In divvying up the responsibilities, people can better focus on a single task, making them just plain better at doing their job. But if people want to handle the responsibilities of working both the tank and the turret at once, I don't see why they shouldn't have the option to do that instead.

If we're talking just tank engagements, then yeah, the DG+G may win since they can field five tanks to the former groups three (+ a lightning/air cav/DG-MBT) if we're talking full squads of 10 soldiers, but this game is about mixed arms (that's already heaps of complexity) between hundreds to thousands of players (whom bring the real complexity) and the situations where it will be JUST tanks (let alone that many) slugging it out will be rare.

And if we're to be honest, there COULD be 10 single-manned tanks vs those three fully manned tanks (+1) but I'd be skeptical if those 10 had any coordination going on at all, and I'm of the believe the coordinated few can overcome the mindless gathering of many within reason. It's not impossible for a squad to coordinate 10, single-manned tanks, but those are 10 seriously vulnerable tanks, and no way their enemies' fly-boys won't take notice of 10 hostile tanks rolling through the battlefield as a group. In fact, it's down right irresistibly appetizing; At least until the lightning/infantry escorts start throwing flak their way.

[Klockan]

Blizzard had more respect for the Starcraft 1 vets, and I'm not sure PS2 will make better than SC2 in terms of success.
I'd argue to the contrary.

Here are some examples of things that many sc1 fans complained about saying that these things would ruin the game and needs to be changed:
Blizzard added multiple building selection greatly reducing the skill it takes to manage your production, allowed people to select almost infinitely many units greatly reducing the skill needed to control large armies, adding the ability to rally workers directly to gather minerals instead of having to go back and order each individual worker, removed the reaver and added the colossus instead, removed the lurker, basically removed the need to split workers, added smartcast which indirectly nerfed all the casters, added the mothership, made the game in 3d instead of 2d which would reduce the visual acuity of the game, changing the cliff mechanics from a miss chance to not revealing units on top, pathfinding being too good reducing the need to micro your armies, Blizzard not letting people chose their opponent in the automatching ladder like they could in BW, being unable to change your online ID in Bnet 2.0, no chat channels in Bnet 2.0, no Lan, can't watch replays with friends and that the automatch ladder would use blizzard created maps which would mean that it would suck.

If you actually watched the community you would know that they were in an uproar about every single thing changed. The few things blizzard listened to was mostly about the visuals on the units and a few units that were so bad that they were scrapped before beta, also they added a few things to make managing your production a bit more taxing to make up for the time freed up from having multiple building selection. But overall today most are glad that Blizzard didn't listen to many of those sc1 elitist whiners (some of those would have been nice though, but if we talk just about gameplay now) and most PS2 players will be glad that the devs didn't listen to you guys about forcing 2 players in each tank.

[Ratstomper]

This post is LONG. If you want to find the on-topic portion, find the dotted line and just concern yourself with everything below it. If the mods want to delete everything above the dotted line... well $#!%. Typing this took forever!


This may not be the thread for it, but we should frame that whole first part (before the line) and hang it above the doors to the PSU forums, imo. Very well said.

Man, I kinda miss Doom...

[Littleman]

This may not be the thread for it, but we should frame that whole first part (before the line) and hang it above the doors to the PSU forums, imo. Very well said.

Man, I kinda miss Doom...

DOOM is fucking awesome!

Grab the ID pack while Steam is having it's summer sale, then get Zdoom to make it work + have modern FPS controls (+ a bunch of other modifiers, like double ammo pick up, respawning enemies, respawning items, plus a crap ton more) and then I really recommend Brutal Doom as it does make the game a bit more difficult. It basically makes the game messier and faster. The minigun will eat through 400 rounds in about 30 seconds >.> But I'll be damned if it doesn't leave a shit eating grin on your face when the blood stops flowing.

[Ratstomper]

DOOM is fucking awesome!

Grab the ID pack while Steam is having it's summer sale, then get Zdoom to make it work + have modern FPS controls (+ a bunch of other modifiers, like double ammo pick up, respawning enemies, respawning items, plus a crap ton more) and then I really recommend Brutal Doom as it does make the game a bit more difficult. It basically makes the game messier and faster. The minigun will eat through 400 rounds in about 30 seconds >.> But I'll be damned if it doesn't leave a shit eating grin on your face when the blood stops flowing.

Sounds badass. I actually picked up a DOOM collectors set a while back for nostalgia's sake. It had DOOM, DOOM 2 and a bunch of custom maps with it. I should go find that...

[Flaropri]

Stuff

I'm disappointing in the lack of mention for the 1997 Goldeneye for the N64. For me (and many others) it was what really started the FPS console craze. Also Quake was one of the first games that was very mod-able, with the ability to put in entirely different weapons like grappling hooks and stuff, though modding FPS has died down a lot since Half-Life 2.


Otherwise fun post.

[Littleman]

I'm disappointing in the lack of mention for the 1997 Goldeneye for the N64. For me (and many others) it was what really started the FPS console craze.


Otherwise fun post.

I considered it. I really did. It introduced something of a mission system, I'll give it that, but I wasn't too sure it applied to PS2's mission system, and referencing what was relevant to PS2 (debated topics anyway) was my intent for the most part. It was a pretty revolutionary FPS on the consoles though, very well done. Preferred Turok, even if level progression was needlessly turned into a treasure hunt.

[RodenyC]

I don't see how having the driver as the main gunner is good change.It worked pretty well in PS1 don't see why it needed to be changed for the BF kiddies,but whatever.Sticking to PS1 since they aren't shutting it down.

[Zedek]

I don't see how having the driver as the main gunner is good change.It worked pretty well in PS1 don't see why it needed to be changed for the BF kiddies,but whatever.Sticking to PS1 since they aren't shutting it down.

Yeah, what a deal breaker...

[LtHolmes]

I definitely know how you feel about having a true gunner position. It felt good to work as a team and it was effective when the communication was there. But that is not always the story. There are just as many times when was not effective. Especially for the people that are part of less organized outifts or just casual players.

To think that you spend a couple levels in certs specifically for tanking and you can never enjoy the true power of heavy tanks by yourself. Not only that but you were limited in other roles for making that choice. Now, it is a choice and I can always choose to do something different or get some friends. :) But I think there is something to be said about spending certs/resources and to not be able to be remotely effective by yourself. I do think there should be some sort of option or a separate vehicle that does allow for the specific driver and gunner spot. They are valid no doubt. But that does not make it the only way or hell even the better way.

I love PS1 and I love BF3. The idea that one or the other is gospel is getting old. I understand that this is PS2 and has its roots in PS1, but that does not mean we have to broad stroke a whole genre as idiots that have no valid input.

[Marinealver]

V-N-G

I can see the reasoning, I had to hit thise keys too many times.

[Jerry Husky]

I can understand the rage about the MBT changes. (I don't care for them myself.) But perhaps if the devs aren't doing this already they'll make main gun control for a second person optional. Then everyone wins. And if I might go a bit off topic, it seems having the MBTs easily controlled by one person would make the Lightning useless. But then again without a gunner for the small AA gun on top of the turret (Which I assume will be available.) any MBT driver will be a sitting duck when encountering a Mossy, Reaver or Skythe. Of course MBTs can't hunt down Air Craft simply because their too slow. So a Lightning with an AA attachment could make a good mobile AA platform. (But still vulnerable to larger vehicles and infantry with AV weapons.) So tanks will still at least be balanced regardless of which road the devs take. This is all my theory anyway, just wanted to put it out there.

[Figment]

I think you should also consider resource cost here. Everything we've seen so far is in no way indicative of what effect resource cost (and cooldown) will have on vehicle use.

Your main point against the driver/gunner, soloable vehicles, seems to be that they would be too powerfull for a single person and everybody would get one.

Yet you never once considered the fact that these vehicles cost resources and have cooldowns (therefore cannot be spammed as you describe).

Both the resource cost, and cooldown will mean using 2 or more people in a single vehicle will almost always be beneficial in the long term (sure you could have everyone in your team pick up an MBT and not have any gunners but apart from the fact that they will get destroyed by AV infantry and air vehicles since they have no second gunner, this style of play will also leave your entire side resourceless in a very short timespan).

Because you are going to start as BR40 in this game: can't get a tank? Get something else till you can get a tank again. There's never a reason NOT to be in your own vehicle and in between you're going to have to grunt anyway as well, so it's pretty irrelevant from my point of view.

The possibility of having a cert that allows for 3 people to man an MBT has been suggested and it makes no sense that people still argue against that as well.

Plenty of reason, because you're going to fight solo versions of your own tank if that's the option PLUS you're going to waste certs on a vehicle that's supposed to be promoting teamwork. Now it's promoting solo play.

If you don't have any reason to complain fine, but if you don't get why we complain, don't complain about us complaining, you have no reason to.

On the one hand you have people opposing the driver/gunner system because it's "too easy", and on the other you have people saying it's "not as efficient as separating the driver and the gunner". Would you please make up your minds ? Which is it ? OP or not good enough ?

Because it's BOTH worse and better at the same time. FFS, it's not a paradox!

We want high standard tank combat and guaranteed team work vehicles provide a better performing opponent as an individual unit (with more crew). But with this system the worse performing individual solo tanks have significantly better performance in groups despite being crappier and less enjoyable as solo units, because they'll be using the leverage of numbers to their advantage!

What is so hard to get about that?


Seriously, if you read the full arguments, try to at least comprehend them.




From the most recent beta info obtained at SOE Live:

Normal timer on tank 15 minutes (900 seconds). With implant: 5 minutes (300 seconds).

Purchase cost MBT: 120 resources of A
Purchase cost Lightning: 80 resources of B (not resource A!)

Normal timer on Lightning 11 minutes, 20 seconds (700 seconds). With implant booster: 5 minutes (300 seconds).

TTK on a tank for infantry: around 4-6 shots with AV.

TTK MBT on infantry with main gun: single shot.

Keeping a tank alive for 3-8 minutes shouldn't be too hard if you're decent and working in a group. For the record, we have kept a group of 3 Deliverers/Thunderers (not the heaviest of vehicles) running for around 50 minutes at a time simply because the enemy had to spread their firepower over the three of us and with solo vehicles we'd have triple the group size, so it'd be even harder to kill us all. A timer of 3 minutes in PlanetSide never posed a problem, in fact if you did die, this usualy meant you had at most 10 seconds on the clock, since most of that timer is about getting to the battle.

And tank resources clearly don't matter in restricting your use of OTHER solo tanks, so there's no reason not to solo. TTK by infantry is low enough to not warrant a gunner either (IMO), because there's a big difference in the time you get to kill infantry if it needs 4-6 shots to kill both of you or 8-12 if you both get a one shot kill main gun. It certainly DOES NOT warrant a third crewmember though. The difference between 4-6 shots and 12-18 is waaay too big to let slip.

Note that the hit ratio on infantry dropped from a ratio of 1:4 to 1:6, to 1:12 to 1:18 shots. And with three firing, chances are someone hits sooner if you got an accuracy of 1 out of x shots hitting.


Very simple: driver=gunner >>> driver+gunner >>> driver+gunners, because you make maneuvrability irrelevant compared to endurance and firepower. But maneuvring and outmaneuvring (especially a good, unpredictable enemy) is where the fun in vehicle combat driving lays.

So yeah, I have everyone reason to disagree with the current setup.

A moving tank wont be firing behind them anyway. A good tank driver will be firing in the direction he is moving. Let the secondary gunner handle the other directions.

LOL. Yeah, no wonder your arguments are horrible in this debate.

"GUYZ, WE HAZ A 360 Deg GUNzor! Let's ONLY FIRE FACING FORWARD! SCREW PARTHIAN SHOT TACTICS!"

Noob.

Only time a main gun should be pointed away form the nose of the tank is when he's stopped somewhere to shell enemy fortifications or other target, away from the enemy line.

NOOoooOOOooOOoooob.


Ratstomper, how can you claim I don't want to learn to drive and gun, if I got 10.720 matches in SINGLE MAN TANKS in World of Tanks alone (and lordy knows how many Bassilisk/Fury/Lightning/Switchblade kills) and have excellent stats on all of them.

My accuracy is around 70% while firing solo tanks. My winrate is well above average. I kill more players than players kill me while driving and gunning.


BUT IT'S NOT MORE FUN THAN DRIVING A THUNDERER WITH TWO GUNNERS BECAUSE THE QUALITY OF COMBAT IS FAR HIGHER, MORE SOCIAL, BETTER BALANCED AND SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED. You can't tell me what's more fun, because you don't have any idea what fun is for someone else and all you want is YOUR OWN TYPE OF FUN, which you already have in PS2 in the form of the Lightning and other solo units!

For the record Ratstomper, what's your stance on BFRs? Pre-nerf and nerfed?

[Azren]

The same could be said of you buddy. Seems like the majority of the playerbase realizes it's a good idea and wants to keep MBTs the way they are. You people are the odd men out, yet haven't stopped to ask yourselves if you're maybe missing something.

You into politics? No? Well, you should be. You do exactly what politicians do; you try to make the opposition to your idea seam a minority, so the members of that group feel discouraged to speak up out of fear of being excoriated.

There are no previous polls that support your claim. In every single poll we had on this topic, around 50% voted to keep PS1 style MBTs, 30% wanted to make it optional and only around 20% wanted it to be PS2 style.

The majority of the PS2 setup supporters never played PS1 (see what I did there?). They came from Bf or CoD where they were only able to use drivergunner setup. For them, making it PS1 style would be a change to the unknown, when they would rather stick with what they know. Pretty much the same as what PS1 players feel, only diffrence is that more PS1 players have experience in drivergunner setup games than CoD players have with PS1 style tanks.

I have played games that use PS2's setup, for example warrock where I did enjoy being the driver and the gunner, but what worked there would never work in PS. The scale is simply too different.

The problem is that CoD players never experienced a battle where projectiles fly around from every direction, aircav attacks occure every so often, incomming artillery fire and bombers put waste to your front lines, ect. The sheer amount of events to keep track of is what makes a dedicated driver the better option here.

You might argue that there are a lot of solo vehicles already, how do they work based on what I said? Simple: they are fast. All solo vehicles are much faster than MBTs and are not meant to stick around on the battlefield for extended period of time. Their role is closer to hit and run tactics than slowly pushing forward.


I also like how you claim that tons of reasons to support PS2 tank setup were posted here before. They must have slipped my attention then. All I red was how much better it is this way because... oh wait, they hardly ever gave a reason. Well, it just is I guess...

Your side was never able to bring up an argument as why it nessesary to make MBTs this way when we already have a drivergunner tank and a great number of other solo vehicles.

In fact what we lack are group ground vehicles. There isn't a single one in game!

Please don't tell me how MBTs will still be group vehicles. We have brought up several arguments before (all of which your side was not able to negate) why MBTs will be mostly used as solo vehicle.

Resources.
I like how some of you drivergunner supporters bring this up as a last resort to support your case. Let me put down some pointers here that make any arguments that are based on resource cost invalid.
1 - we do not know anything about resource balance
2 - PS2 is a fast paced game with short TTK
3 - PS2 devs want to make spectacular large scale battles, not foot zerging.
4 - Point 2 and 3 result in making vehicles easealy accessable at any time.
5 - A high resource cost would contradict the above points.

If you are not dieing a minute after you pulled the MBT, you can be pretty sure the automated resource gain and the resources you get from your squad and the resources you get for yourself will be more than enough to buy a new one.

[Arkanor]

Ratstomper, how can you claim I don't want to learn to drive and gun, if I got 10.720 matches in SINGLE MAN TANKS in World of Tanks alone (and lordy knows how many Bassilisk/Fury/Lightning/Switchblade kills) and have excellent stats on all of them.

My accuracy is around 70% while firing solo tanks. My winrate is well above average. I kill more players than players kill me while driving and gunning.


BUT IT'S NOT MORE FUN THAN DRIVING A THUNDERER WITH TWO GUNNERS BECAUSE THE QUALITY OF COMBAT IS FAR HIGHER, MORE SOCIAL, BETTER BALANCED AND SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED. You can't tell me what's more fun, because you don't have any idea what fun is for someone else and all you want is YOUR OWN TYPE OF FUN, which you already have in PS2 in the form of the Lightning and other solo units!


Disagree, trying to maneuver something like a Chaffee or Patton in a "stuck-in" fight while hitting targets accurately is an exhilarating experience best had with single-crew tanks. Granted, your squadmates are still there, they just have their own vehicles.

That's actually one of the few situations where a 2 man crew might actually be more effective that I didn't think of, trying not to run into something when you're in a paper tank (like a Chaffee or AMX13/90) because you'll be more or less instantly screwed while still trying to hit other targets which are often moving themselves. Granted that's really more the Lightning style, but if we already have that tank (which is going to be HARDER to drive and gun for) then why should the MBT's require 2 people to do less work?

[Figment]

Disagree, trying to maneuver something like a Chaffee or Patton in a "stuck-in" fight while hitting targets accurately is an exhilarating experience best had with single-crew tanks.

Disagree with the "best had". You could drive and dodge rounds even better if just focusing on driving. My accuracy would be significantly higher on these tanks would I not use the horrible auto-aim WoT provides at extremely close range while driving scouts in a very busy area (the system that can't lead targets, nor fires at weakspots on top of an inaccurate CoF system).

Hence I pick my targets more carefully and go after those I don't need to hit weakspots for first. My PzIII is extremely adapt at that sort of combat.

Granted, your squadmates are still there, they just have their own vehicles.

That's the main issue that screws the balance.

That's actually one of the few situations where a 2 man crew might actually be more effective that I didn't think of, trying not to run into something when you're in a paper tank (like a Chaffee or AMX13/90) because you'll be more or less instantly screwed while still trying to hit other targets which are often moving themselves. Granted that's really more the Lightning style, but if we already have that tank (which is going to be HARDER to drive and gun for) then why should the MBT's require 2 people to do less work?

Well yes and no: I wouldn't say one of the few situations since it occurs every single WoT match many times over. At least if you play WoT like I do. Enemy tanks moving in WoT is far less likely than enemy tanks moving in PS1 though! That's why I say solo play provides less encentives for dynamic combat. Only if you have to to survive will you move and even then a lot of people in WoT stop dead in their tracks on their own accord when they shouldn't need to.

This goes for the flanker and flanked tank: both can use two crew to optimise their maneuvres in fighting the other tank and both would heavily improve their combat efficiency as individual tanks. But the only reason to do this would be if you can't get another tank and improve your combined efficiency even further.


The only WoT units who would not benefit from two crewmembers to improve their efficiency are tank destroyers and artillery. The main reason why the lights in WoT wouldn't be worth two crew is the overal last man standing combat and thus the ease of them being destroyed without getting to respawn.

Plus if your primary goal is to scout without firing (which is often the case for a scout in WoT), that second "crewmember" is wasted on a scout and best spend on a tank that can support the scout with firepower. So there is something to say for making a light scout single crew if it's not their main job to be competitive with heavier units in killing. Like the ATVs.

A MBT's job is killing though and doesn't have a fixed gun. So the argument doesn't apply to PS2 MBTs. The Lightning maybe, even though from what I've seen it's far more competitive than the PS1 Lightning wrt to the MBTs. Which is why a lot of people dub the PS2 MBTs heavy Lightings.

[PredatorFour]

I didnt realise there was timers for the tanks, oh god no. Not that it matters to me ;) but your going to get people not wanting to waste their vehicle and not go for the objective, kinda like a bfr in PS

As for this ongoing debate people that agree with drivers gunning are probably bf/cod fans who have played them styles in small matches - 6 v 6 , 12 v 12 ... If they played PS they would realise with so many targets around they need to be situationally aware at all times in busy fight (as someone said earlier) So a dedicated driver/gunner is a MUST, not only for staying alive but for having fun.

[KaB]

As for this ongoing debate people that agree with drivers gunning are probably bf/cod fans who have played them styles in small matches - 6 v 6 , 12 v 12 ...

Apparently that's the kind of people SOE wanna hit with their upcoming opus. They're pretty sure that this tactical will bring them a lot of money. But imo, it will bring them less than what they could have got making it more coherent (that's to mean with everything which worked in PS1).

[fod]

I, for one, don't care what's more fun FOR YOU. As someone who is older, I'd expect you to act more mature. It's not all about YOU. It's not all about ME. It's about giving the best gameplay experience to the most people possible. By your reasoning, why should the majority give up what they want just so you and a handful of others can get what you want (you may also want to ask yourself why so many people prefer it when it's such a bad design)? That's not working for the greater good of the game or the community.

You can say dedicated drivers are more fun for you, and they probably are for now. How about you do the sensible thing and wait to give it a shot before screaming that it is going to cause the next holocaust. You may find it's not so bad.

since when does giving us the OPTION to have a gunner for the main cannon stop others who are driver/gunners from having fun?

it seems it is you who are not thinking of the majority - if we have it BOTH WAYS then everyone is happy

all we are fighting for is the OPTION for us to play how we find fun - what you are trying to say is that people must have fun ONLY the way YOU like to have fun

again i dont need to give it a shot as i have played LOADS of games with driver/gunner tanks and i find it a lot more fun having a dedicated driver and a dedicated gunner

[Littleman]

since when does giving us the OPTION to have a gunner for the main cannon stop others who are driver/gunners from having fun?

it seems it is you who are not thinking of the majority - if we have it BOTH WAYS then everyone is happy

all we are fighting for is the OPTION for us to play how we find fun - what you are trying to say is that people must have fun ONLY the way YOU like to have fun

again i dont need to give it a shot as i have played LOADS of games with driver/gunner tanks and i find it a lot more fun having a dedicated driver and a dedicated gunner

If this is how you feel, you're actually barking at the wrong guy. I don't recall Ratstomper being opposed to the idea of giving drivers the option to have a dedicated gunner, I mean, why would he or anyone else that shares his opinion care?

It's the guys that want to force every tank driver to find a dedicated gunner that are the ones wanting to force their way on others on the misconception that the quick and fragile light tank plays anything like a slow, durable medium tank.

[Flaropri]

From the most recent beta info obtained at SOE Live:

[Numbahs!]

Was still in alpha, Resource balancing will happen throughout Beta regardless, those numbers (including which vehicle takes which resource) are placeholders, as are resource incomes.

In any event, it was pretty clear you could quickly run out of the ability to spawn MBTs even if you could spawn other vehicles. Having Lightning and MBT share a common resource might be the way to go though. Will need to test and see to confirm, but I agree that's a bit silly at least from the peanut gallery's viewpoint.

Resources.
I like how some of you drivergunner supporters bring this up as a last resort to support your case. Let me put down some pointers here that make any arguments that are based on resource cost invalid.
1 - we do not know anything about resource balance
2 - PS2 is a fast paced game with short TTK
3 - PS2 devs want to make spectacular large scale battles, not foot zerging.
4 - Point 2 and 3 result in making vehicles easealy accessable at any time.
5 - A high resource cost would contradict the above points.

It isn't a last resort, it's a discussion of impending game mechanics that CAN be used as a balance mechanism. Whether or not it is depends on the success of Beta and the skill of the Devs.

1. is spot on, but doesn't invalidate the argument any more than it invalidates the thought that resources are going to be "meaningless" as some people assume, it just means that assuming it will be one or the other makes an ass out of u and me. (it's why I always try to preface my argument with "if they are meaningful" when making that point) We do, however, know intent: They want reasources to be meaningful. And they also want people to have fun using vehicles.

2. is relative to PS1, but whether or not they are short in terms of general FPS is debate-able. In fact, there were several comments throughout E3 (again, not yet balanced so may be moot but the conversation leads to intent) about soldiers being able to live for a while, and a general discussion about TTK where they want to strike a balance between PS1 TTK and CS TTK (I'm paraphrasing mind).

3. This is mostly true, but that doesn't inherently mean everyone gets a tank or fighter all the time either. I don't think they have a problem with primarily infantry forces though, just not necessarily at the start of an attack.

4. Even if this is true, it doesn't imply tanks or fighters for everyone all the time, it could mean that most people have to use a Flash or hop in a transport the majority of the time.

5. Is no longer invalidated if my counterpoints hold up.

If you are not dieing a minute after you pulled the MBT, you can be pretty sure the automated resource gain and the resources you get from your squad and the resources you get for yourself will be more than enough to buy a new one.

That assumes that resource gain and costs will get you enough in a minute, which so far is very much not the case, nor does it seem to be the intent of the Devs. Even in alpha with placeholders that was no-where near the case. E3, designed to let players try out as much as they had made at the time (other than the larger map to encourage fighting) had several stations run out of resources in the first half of the first day (if not all of them, obviously they got the resources restocked by on-floor staff as they could, but it still happened in spite of all of that)).

It is possible that they might make resources unimportant or flood players with them, but based on stated intent they dont want to. They want to have taking specific resources from players a valuable meta-tactic for instance (even on Indar where we have confirmed that resources are spread out right now so you can't easily monopolize them). Wanting transports to be more highly valued by discouraging people pulling fighters and tanks as disposable personal transports and leaving that for the Flash.

The fact that they put the mechanic in in the first place means they want it to be important.

Whether they pull it off we don't know yet, but that is their stated goal. They want conservation of vehicles to matter, for people to want to capture locations to increase their ability to spawn specific vehicles and/or deny it to others, etc.


If they don't have balanced resources, than the game itself will be imbalanced. Not just vehicle to vehicle, but also vehicle to player. Someone having an advantage in say a Lightning over someone in a Flash is balanced by resources. If resources don't matter, than there is a much bigger problem than just people driving solo MBTs in a hypothetical against multi-crew MBTs.

[SgtExo]

I believe that for the resource cost it will be high for the big vehicles, but not so high that you cant buy a couple at a time. For example you should be able to buy 2 to 4 MBTs in a row if you die fast and buy it as soon as the cooldown is done. But after that, you should have run out of the needed resource and maybe have to wait for an hour for it to pool back in. You would have other resource for other types of vehicles like an aircraft or a Max, but because you wasted (or maybe you did achieve your goal) your resources, you will not be able to get another tank for a while.

This is where sharing the resource cost with a gunner can come in useful. Instead of having resource for x amount of MBTs now you could possibly have 2x the amount of resource for the tank. This will be useful for those really long gaming sessions that last for hours, a weekend for example. That is why you would want to have a second gunner in your tank becomes important, you maximize the efficiency of the vehicle towards the cost. Yes the other sides could bring in more solo MBTs, but in the long run they would run out of resource allot faster (taking into account that the resource gain is equal here), and thus their tank supply could potentially trickle down from having 20 tanks per fight down to 2 tanks per fight, while your side is still at a constant 10 tanks per fight.

[Azren]

I think it is time to end this debate.

The best idea that was brought up is to make the dedicated driver setup optional. It would be worth a thread to discuss the details of that, but here are my ideas:

- Make the option to have dedicated driver avaiable without having to put any points into the MBT tree.
- Do not reduce any of the vehicle's stats when the option is selected (since it will require one extra gunner, this is fair to say the least)
- Have a new model for Magrider which has a rotatable turret, just have it in a fixed position of the said option is not selected.

This should make everyone happy.

Image stolen from Erendil's signature to illustrate magrider change:

[Ratstomper]

Because you are going to start as BR40 in this game: can't get a tank? Get something else till you can get a tank again. There's never a reason NOT to be in your own vehicle and in between you're going to have to grunt anyway as well, so it's pretty irrelevant from my point of view.

The point he is making (and that you're continually missing) is that it's ALWAYS more cost effective and efficient performance wise to have a 2-manned tank over a solo manned tank as they have it now. The whole argument that you can just get other vehicles is irrelevant to the discussion.

Plenty of reason, because you're going to fight solo versions of your own tank if that's the option PLUS you're going to waste certs on a vehicle that's supposed to be promoting teamwork. Now it's promoting solo play.

If you don't have any reason to complain fine, but if you don't get why we complain, don't complain about us complaining, you have no reason to.

You're NEVER going to fight solo versions of your own tank, because all the MBTs are ES. Aside form that, it doesn't matter because the solo version will be highly susceptible to air and infantry attacks.

As has been stated over and over, it's not promoting solo play over teamplay, because a fully manned MBT will ALWAYS have the advantage over a solo-manned MBT.

Because it's BOTH worse and better at the same time. FFS, it's not a paradox!

We want high standard tank combat and guaranteed team work vehicles provide a better performing opponent as an individual unit (with more crew). But with this system the worse performing individual solo tanks have significantly better performance in groups despite being crappier and less enjoyable as solo units, because they'll be using the leverage of numbers to their advantage!

The ONLY reason you believe this is because you've completely disregarded all the legitimate points that have been made against it. there is NO less teamwork required with the new MBT system to make a fully effective tank. It's made it so it is posssible to use it solo, but it's going to be MUCH less effective in battle situations (which makes the lightning more cost effective and viable).

What is so hard to get about that?


Seriously, if you read the full arguments, try to at least comprehend them.

We understand what you're saying. You're just wrong.


From the most recent beta info obtained at SOE Live:

Normal timer on tank 15 minutes (900 seconds). With implant: 5 minutes (300 seconds).

Purchase cost MBT: 120 resources of A
Purchase cost Lightning: 80 resources of B (not resource A!)

Normal timer on Lightning 11 minutes, 20 seconds (700 seconds). With implant booster: 5 minutes (300 seconds).

TTK on a tank for infantry: around 4-6 shots with AV.

TTK MBT on infantry with main gun: single shot.

Thats still a legitimate resource cost difference, even if it is a different resource. You're going to have to buy other things with that resource still and few people will want to waste resources on a half-effective tank and NOONE will want to spend resources and certs on a tank to put all the offensive capability in the hands of someone they don't know.

It takes 4-6 shots form AV to kill a tank under what scenario? Are they hitting the weak spots from behind? Even if that's hitting the hard armor of a tank, it means having 4-6 AV capable people in your squad could equal an instantly dead tank. which is exactly why secondary gunners and teamwork are still integral parts of the new MBT system and also why it's necessary to split the guns; secondary guns seem to have WAY more importance in PS2 than they ever did in PS1.

So you can spend one of your 20-30 tank shells to kill ONE of potentially hundred of troops. Awesome. Way to waste that ammo.

Keeping a tank alive for 3-8 minutes shouldn't be too hard if you're decent and working in a group. For the record, we have kept a group of 3 Deliverers/Thunderers (not the heaviest of vehicles) running for around 50 minutes at a time simply because the enemy had to spread their firepower over the three of us and with solo vehicles we'd have triple the group size, so it'd be even harder to kill us all. A timer of 3 minutes in PlanetSide never posed a problem, in fact if you did die, this usualy meant you had at most 10 seconds on the clock, since most of that timer is about getting to the battle.

And what happens when you get focused? So you kept a few fully manned deliverers alive in PS1 versus what? A bunch of unfocused people? Dont forget they've given vehicles weak points in PS2.

And tank resources clearly don't matter in restricting your use of OTHER solo tanks, so there's no reason not to solo. TTK by infantry is low enough to not warrant a gunner either (IMO), because there's a big difference in the time you get to kill infantry if it needs 4-6 shots to kill both of you or 8-12 if you both get a one shot kill main gun. It certainly DOES NOT warrant a third crewmember though. The difference between 4-6 shots and 12-18 is waaay too big to let slip.

There are three resources from what we've seen and those resources will be used for all vehicles. That means pulling your one-man MBT will mean giving up potential resources for other things anyway, regardless of them being different resources. I don't see how you've made a relevant point at all. Resources are resources.

4-6 shots is NOTHING. again, that means 4-6 AV infantry can kill a tank nearly instantly.

Note that the hit ratio on infantry dropped from a ratio of 1:4 to 1:6, to 1:12 to 1:18 shots. And with three firing, chances are someone hits sooner if you got an accuracy of 1 out of x shots hitting.

I'm curious where you're getting all your facts and figures.

Very simple: driver=gunner >>> driver+gunner >>> driver+gunners, because you make maneuvrability irrelevant compared to endurance and firepower. But maneuvring and outmaneuvring (especially a good, unpredictable enemy) is where the fun in vehicle combat driving lays.

So yeah, I have everyone reason to disagree with the current setup.

There is NOTHING being taken away from drivers. They still have ALL the capabilities they once had and the game is MORE dependent on maneuverability and spacial awareness because of the addition of weakpoints.


LOL. Yeah, no wonder your arguments are horrible in this debate.

"GUYZ, WE HAZ A 360 Deg GUNzor! Let's ONLY FIRE FACING FORWARD! SCREW PARTHIAN SHOT TACTICS!"

Parthian Shots worked great for the steppe horse archers of eurasia. Not so much for a lumbering MBT, especially considering that other vehicles can move faster than they can and it's weakpoints are behind them...Or maybe you don't actually know what you're talking about when you reference ancient battle tactics. I'm guessing if you DID you'd know the lightning would be MUCH better designed for this type of tactic. The reasonf or this is that MBTs and lightnings have different roles: one more thing you've failed to recognize or admit.

The ONLY time an MBT should be moving AWAY from the enemy is if it's been badly damaged and is trying to retreat back to it's own lines. Although, this is likely a scenario where the driver has made mistakes leading up to doing something that a tank shouldn't need to do.

Noob.


NOOoooOOOooOOoooob.

This is the exact same bullshit that gives gamers the stereotype of being immature basement-dwellers who have no tact or social skills. Fucking stop it.

Ratstomper, how can you claim I don't want to learn to drive and gun, if I got 10.720 matches in SINGLE MAN TANKS in World of Tanks alone (and lordy knows how many Bassilisk/Fury/Lightning/Switchblade kills) and have excellent stats on all of them.

My accuracy is around 70% while firing solo tanks. My winrate is well above average. I kill more players than players kill me while driving and gunning.

Then what's your gripe against it? For someone who is so awesome at gunning and driving you talk a lot about how it's unfair.

BUT IT'S NOT MORE FUN THAN DRIVING A THUNDERER WITH TWO GUNNERS BECAUSE THE QUALITY OF COMBAT IS FAR HIGHER, MORE SOCIAL, BETTER BALANCED AND SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED. You can't tell me what's more fun, because you don't have any idea what fun is for someone else and all you want is YOUR OWN TYPE OF FUN, which you already have in PS2 in the form of the Lightning and other solo units!

A thunderer is not the same thing as a tank. those are designed as heavy squad carriers. The whole point is to pack a bunch of people in them. I'm saying you haven't even played the game yet and you're complaining that it's already no fun. You can theorize all you want, but it doesn;t change the fact that there are a TON of unknown variables that almost certainly make PS2 a different game.

I want what makes the most sense. To me it's the current system.

For the record Ratstomper, what's your stance on BFRs? Pre-nerf and nerfed?

I think they were an interesting idea. However, they were shoehorned in and made too stout. If they had made them more squishy (pre OR post nerf), then having a secondary gunner would have been viable and probably more fun.



You into politics? No? Well, you should be. You do exactly what politicians do; you try to make the opposition to your idea seam a minority, so the members of that group feel discouraged to speak up out of fear of being excoriated.

There are no previous polls that support your claim. In every single poll we had on this topic, around 50% voted to keep PS1 style MBTs, 30% wanted to make it optional and only around 20% wanted it to be PS2 style.

And when was this poll made? Back when the majority of players were PS1 vets who were still using the system? I want to know what the poll is now. From what I've seen in this thread alone, the majority of the people who say "keep the PS1" style gave no real reason for it. I looks like there may be many who have changed their minds.

You're right, I don't have hard numbers, but are you just going to dismiss all the non-PS1 players? A lot of non-ps1 vets seem to like the current system and it stands to reason why.

The majority of the PS2 setup supporters never played PS1 (see what I did there?). They came from Bf or CoD where they were only able to use drivergunner setup. For them, making it PS1 style would be a change to the unknown, when they would rather stick with what they know. Pretty much the same as what PS1 players feel, only diffrence is that more PS1 players have experience in drivergunner setup games than CoD players have with PS1 style tanks.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the PS1 MBT setup made all the way back in 2003 is a little outdated? Ever think that maybe there are good reasons for the change (plenty have been listed in this very forum)? Have you stopped to think that maybe the devs (who aren't some super l337 kiddies, but people who have been playing and designing games for years) know what works best in the game they're making and know the most of any of us about?

I have played games that use PS2's setup, for example warrock where I did enjoy being the driver and the gunner, but what worked there would never work in PS. The scale is simply too different.

How so? I would argue the scale makes driver/gunner more viable, as a secondary gunner will have a lot more on his plate than in a game like Warrock.

The problem is that CoD players never experienced a battle where projectiles fly around from every direction, aircav attacks occure every so often, incomming artillery fire and bombers put waste to your front lines, ect. The sheer amount of events to keep track of is what makes a dedicated driver the better option here.

See my last point. The sheer amount of what's going on is what makes sense to give the secondary gunner his own spot. If he's manning the main gun, the secondary gun is going to waste. It's much more effective and fun to have a driver position to pick his own targets than try to communicate toa gunner to do something. You may have some super l337 gunner that is on the same brainwave as you. Some of us are lucky to find people with brainwaves at all. It's unfair and not advantageous to give all the offensive power of a tank to someone who didn't give the resources, certs and effort to go pull the tank.

You might argue that there are a lot of solo vehicles already, how do they work based on what I said? Simple: they are fast. All solo vehicles are much faster than MBTs and are not meant to stick around on the battlefield for extended period of time. Their role is closer to hit and run tactics than slowly pushing forward.

Exactly. That's why MBTs require the second gunner position filled to be effective.

I also like how you claim that tons of reasons to support PS2 tank setup were posted here before. They must have slipped my attention then. All I red was how much better it is this way because... oh wait, they hardly ever gave a reason. Well, it just is I guess...

Your side was never able to bring up an argument as why it nessesary to make MBTs this way when we already have a drivergunner tank and a great number of other solo vehicles.

Go look at the walls of text over the last couple of pages. the pro-PS1 setup arguments are incoherent at best.

-----------------------

How about these:

I have never had trouble driving a tank and shooting at the same time. As a gunner I always know exactly where i need to be, and when to move, so i prefer to have it that the driver is the gunner. Unless you are part of a team that often play together, having separate driver and gunner seats are not effective.

It's a critical design decision, I for one am happy that they made it this way. I find games that use both styles of tanks to be fun, but having the driver gun is certainly more fun for me. The community will get their hands on in beta and we will see what its like, I anticipate that after the initial "OMG this is awful" rants then people will take time to use it and get good with it and then people might be happier.

Maybe

I think this has been done as it is you spending the resources on the tank. I'd be mad if. Spent my stuff on a tank and the gunner was a prat.
Iv never had trouble driving and gunning. Though I'm used to it. You have to relies it is not just vets playing. This has to appeal to the fps gamers of today.

But I do think it is down to your resources so you should be the one responsible for its survival.

--------------------------

That's three, right off the first page.

In fact what we lack are group ground vehicles. There isn't a single one in game!

Please don't tell me how MBTs will still be group vehicles. We have brought up several arguments before (all of which your side was not able to negate) why MBTs will be mostly used as solo vehicle.

MBTs shouldn't be group vehicles in the first place. I think they should reintroduce REAL group vehicles, but don't turn what is an offensive powerhouse with a specific purpose in itself into a squad delivery system. again, MBTs won't be primarily solo vehicles for the reasons we've said a million times (seriously, can I stop beating the dead horse please?)

Resources.
I like how some of you drivergunner supporters bring this up as a last resort to support your case. Let me put down some pointers here that make any arguments that are based on resource cost invalid.
1 - we do not know anything about resource balance
2 - PS2 is a fast paced game with short TTK
3 - PS2 devs want to make spectacular large scale battles, not foot zerging.
4 - Point 2 and 3 result in making vehicles easealy accessable at any time.
5 - A high resource cost would contradict the above points.

If you are not dieing a minute after you pulled the MBT, you can be pretty sure the automated resource gain and the resources you get from your squad and the resources you get for yourself will be more than enough to buy a new one.

"we do not know anything about resource balance"

Obviously, if that's the case, it will require balancing. The question is why would someone want to pull MBTs and die a few minutes later when they can just fill the second gun and be WAY more effective and live longer?

since when does giving us the OPTION to have a gunner for the main cannon stop others who are driver/gunners from having fun?

it seems it is you who are not thinking of the majority - if we have it BOTH WAYS then everyone is happy

all we are fighting for is the OPTION for us to play how we find fun - what you are trying to say is that people must have fun ONLY the way YOU like to have fun

again i dont need to give it a shot as i have played LOADS of games with driver/gunner tanks and i find it a lot more fun having a dedicated driver and a dedicated gunner


I don't mind an option for doing that. However, I don't think it's necessary and I don't intend to fight for it. I think it's needlessly complex, but is some thing they could do if they decided to change some of the tank designs around.

I think it is time to end this debate.

The best idea that was brought up is to make the dedicated driver setup optional. It would be worth a thread to discuss the details of that, but here are my ideas:

- Make the option to have dedicated driver avaiable without having to put any points into the MBT tree.
- Do not reduce any of the vehicle's stats when the option is selected (since it will require one extra gunner, this is fair to say the least)
- Have a new model for Magrider which has a rotatable turret, just have it in a fixed position of the said option is not selected.

This should make everyone happy.

This game is all about touting sidegrades. It would be easy just to treat it like a small arms attachment. Cert for it and choose that option when you pull the tank. Simple.

[Azren]

This game is all about touting sidegrades. It would be easy just to treat it like a small arms attachment. Cert for it and choose that option when you pull the tank. Simple.

That's what I said, only that the cert should be free and accessable right at getgo.

[EisenKreutzer]

Just out of curiosity: Will you guys (who think there should be a separate driver and gunner) still play and enjoy the game even if your suggestion doesn't make it into the final game for whatever reason?

[Ratstomper]

That's what I said, only that the cert should be free and accessable right at getgo.

Idea Vault forum is that way. I say you guys write up a thread.

You have my blessing.

[Sledgecrushr]

- Have a new model for Magrider which has a rotatable turret, just have it in a fixed position of the said option is not selected.

From the video I have seen it would appear to me that the magrider IS a floating turret. So really there is no reason to add a turret on top of a turret.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Just out of curiosity: Will you guys (who think there should be a separate driver and gunner) still play and enjoy the game even if your suggestion doesn't make it into the final game for whatever reason?

Most of them will, they're just fussy and going through withdrawals :P

[Azren]

From the video I have seen it would appear to me that the magrider IS a floating turret. So really there is no reason to add a turret on top of a turret.

You weren't paying attention. It is required if you want the turret to be used separetley from the chassis; ie: have separate driver and gunner

[Sledgecrushr]

You weren't paying attention. It is required if you want the turret to be used separetley from the chassis; ie: have separate driver and gunner

And Im saying adding a turret onto a vehicle that alread works as a turret could be a little bit overpowered. I dont think the devs want to unbalance what already seems like a nicely balanced system so you could jam in your third guy. Here if you have to have a third guy in the floating battle turret give him the TRIGGER on the main gun and he can shoot whenever your DRIVER pans over a target.

[KaB]

Just out of curiosity: Will you guys (who think there should be a separate driver and gunner) still play and enjoy the game even if your suggestion doesn't make it into the final game for whatever reason?

If it finally goes well thanks to many other factors, probably !

[Azren]

And Im saying adding a turret onto a vehicle that alread works as a turret could be a little bit overpowered. I dont think the devs want to unbalance what already seems like a nicely balanced system so you could jam in your third guy. Here if you have to have a third guy in the floating battle turret give him the TRIGGER on the main gun and he can shoot whenever your DRIVER pans over a target.

You don't understand the concept here.

We are not talking about adding new turrets.

We are talking about who controls the turrets.

The magrider does not act as a floating turret if a gunner operates the main gun. It would be impossible to drive it that way.








I have posted up a new topic on the optional dedicated driver certification, you can add your ideas here: http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=45169

[RodenyC]

Just out of curiosity: Will you guys (who think there should be a separate driver and gunner) still play and enjoy the game even if your suggestion doesn't make it into the final game for whatever reason?
Nope.Unless they change alot(a shit ton) during beta.Just don't see the teamwork in Planetside anymore.

[BlueSkies]

Nope.Unless they change alot(a shit ton) during beta.Just don't see the teamwork in Planetside anymore.

So.. the only teamwork you saw in Planetside was imposed by vehicle mechanics? Thats terrible...

Also.. as far as game mechanics and teamwork go, they are doing a wonderful job of encouraging teamplay simply be implementing the class system. No more Universal Soldier with every cert and the perfectly optimized loadout.

[KaB]

So.. the only teamwork you saw in Planetside was imposed by vehicle mechanics? Thats terrible...

It's just that this only feature can make us thinking they've worked and made decisions about other secondary features in the same way than this one. "Secondary features" that they werent able to share through a simple video with no more than a hundred of players

[SgtExo]

It's just that this only feature can make us thinking they've worked and made decisions about other secondary features in the same way than this one. "Secondary features" that they werent able to share through a simple video with no more than a hundred of players

Can you re-phrase that please, its a bit incoherent.

[BlueSkies]

It's just that this only feature can make us thinking they've worked and made decisions about other secondary features in the same way than this one. "Secondary features" that they werent able to share through a simple video with no more than a hundred of players

Simple fact is, teamwork is created by... A TEAM. The fact that they are building in VOIP so that even pick up squads will have voice communication, creating classes so that players have to rely upon each other, and encouraging outfit specialization, is going to bring the teamwork in PS2 leaps and bounds beyond that in PS1.

[KaB]

I can enumerate a lot of games which have TEAM, they have absolutely no working teamplay tho, cause they failed it.

I imagine how hard it can be to think that PS2 still can be a failure for premature fanboys, but you wont be able to ignore it if it's finally the case.

[Littleman]

I can enumerate a lot of games which have TEAM, they have absolutely no working teamplay tho, cause they failed it.

I imagine how hard it can be to think that PS2 still can be a failure for premature fanboys, but you wont be able to ignore it if it's finally the case.

Forcing a tank driver to find a gunner doesn't equate to teamwork either. It more often than not for non-buddy/outfit born tank crews meant the driver was hauling around a kill whore. There isn't teamwork in that.

Teamwork should happen because people want to work together.

Playing solo should be punishable by being inefficient, not incapable.

P.S. Forcing teamwork only works if it's a single loser and a single from the opposite sex working together... in fairy tales.

[BlueSkies]

I can enumerate a lot of games which have TEAM, they have absolutely no working teamplay tho, cause they failed it.

I imagine how hard it can be to think that PS2 still can be a failure for premature fanboys, but you wont be able to ignore it if it's finally the case.

It comes down to the players more than the game. "You can lead a horse to water..." and all that. The most they can do is give us some tools that facilitate teamwork (which they appear to be doing), beyond that, it is up to the players to function as a team. You can say all you want about "premature fanboys" or whatever, but you seem to want everything handed to you on a plate. How are the devs supposed to force teamwork on the level you seem to want without really screwing up the game? Here is a bit of advice: Find an outfit that operates on a level you enjoy (in terms of teamwork, skill level, humor, etc) and run with them. You do that and it really stops mattering what tools the game provides, you will have the teamwork you so desire.

[KaB]

Forcing a tank driver to find a gunner doesn't equate to teamwork either.

This sentence makes no sense. Who'll be "forcing a tank driver to find a gunner" ? SOE ?

And if you're trying to tell me that one player in a vehicle will bring more teamplay than two, well I think we can end this right now.

Find an outfit that operates on a level you enjoy (in terms of teamwork, skill level, humor, etc) and run with them.

What if the one I want is the tank with the gunner and driver splitted ?

[fod]

If this is how you feel, you're actually barking at the wrong guy. I don't recall Ratstomper being opposed to the idea of giving drivers the option to have a dedicated gunner, I mean, why would he or anyone else that shares his opinion care?

It's the guys that want to force every tank driver to find a dedicated gunner that are the ones wanting to force their way on others on the misconception that the quick and fragile light tank plays anything like a slow, durable medium tank.

all i know is he was trying to tell everyone what is "fun" i explained i have more fun as a separate driver and separate gunner and it blew up from there

all i want is a separate gunner and im happy - 95% of my playtime in ps1 has been driving with my friends as gunners, i just dont want whats "fun" for me to be taken away from planetside

[maradine]

What if the one I want is the tank with the gunner and driver splitted ?


Then you're looking for another game, it would seem. I do hope they cert in the split for those who want it, though.

[Littleman]

This sentence makes no sense. Who'll be "forcing a tank driver to find a gunner" ? SOE ?

Don't play dumb. Or maybe...? If tanks require a dedicated driver and a dedicated gunner, then drivers will be forced to find a gunner, even if it's as easy as asking an outfit mate to gun in their tank, they still NEED someone to gun for them.

Thankfully, tanks ARE one man capable, but having someone in the secondary turret makes them vastly superior to just the one guy.

And if you're trying to tell me that one player in a vehicle will bring more teamplay than two, well I think we can end this right now.

If your insinuating teamwork ends at the number of people there are in a tank, I know we can end this right now. You can throw 100 guys in a tank, it's ass isn't getting any less fragile to RPG fire. It doesn't matter how many heads the tank has, a tank that fights alone, dies alone.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Simple fact is, teamwork is created by... A TEAM. The fact that they are building in VOIP so that even pick up squads will have voice communication, creating classes so that players have to rely upon each other, and encouraging outfit specialization, is going to bring the teamwork in PS2 leaps and bounds beyond that in PS1.

As long as there's a mute option...

I don't want to be gal driving if there's some punk playing "ride of the valkyries" over the top of my orders...

[not talking to Blueskies here, this is a general comment]
Also, my version of fun is different to yours, and my version of skill/efficiency/teamwork/[insert word here] is also different to yours.

The key is to make the game (certs) flexible.

[Ratstomper]

all i know is he was trying to tell everyone what is "fun" i explained i have more fun as a separate driver and separate gunner and it blew up from there

all i want is a separate gunner and im happy - 95% of my playtime in ps1 has been driving with my friends as gunners, i just dont want whats "fun" for me to be taken away from planetside

Actually, you're the one insisting that others way wasn't "fun" for you. I was making the point that the new system makes more sense and is more rewarding than the old system.

Ya know...things that are actual tangible pieces of logic.

[Retaliation]

all i know is he was trying to tell everyone what is "fun" i explained i have more fun as a separate driver and separate gunner and it blew up from there

all i want is a separate gunner and im happy - 95% of my playtime in ps1 has been driving with my friends as gunners, i just dont want whats "fun" for me to be taken away from planetside

Making drivers be forced to have gunners to fight would be you telling everyone else what is "fun". Fortunately the devs have found a solution to that conundrum by giving both the driver and gunner guns. That people get caught up on the idea that a secondary gunner must have a gun weaker than or equal to the primary gun isn't the devs fault. I can think of so many ways to make a secondary gunner preferable to simply taking another tank (without factoring resources mind you).

[BraavikStal]

I've always preferred to be able to control the main cannon as the driver in a tank. I know where I'm going and where I need to aim. It would be annoying to leave it up a stranger, hell even the secondary gunners are useless most of the time.

[Sledgecrushr]

Making drivers be forced to have gunners to fight would be you telling everyone else what is "fun". Fortunately the devs have found a solution to that conundrum by giving both the driver and gunner guns. That people get caught up on the idea that a secondary gunner must have a gun weaker than or equal to the primary gun isn't the devs fault. I can think of so many ways to make a secondary gunner preferable to simply taking another tank (without factoring resources mind you).

Thing is a secondary gun will probably round out the tanks offensive firepower. A tank is pretty helpless against air and infantry in most situations. This is where the secondary weapon will really shine. Mounted with an aa secondary weapon the tank will probably prove to be equal against agile fighters. With ai secondary infantry will be mowed down wherever they are found. The secondary weapon allows the tank to be more versatile, hence its overall power grows significantly. A tank with only a driver/gunner is a sitting duck against its air or infantry counters.

[fod]

Making drivers be forced to have gunners to fight would be you telling everyone else what is "fun". Fortunately the devs have found a solution to that conundrum by giving both the driver and gunner guns. That people get caught up on the idea that a secondary gunner must have a gun weaker than or equal to the primary gun isn't the devs fault. I can think of so many ways to make a secondary gunner preferable to simply taking another tank (without factoring resources mind you).

i dont want to force anything on anyone
i say have it BOTH ways

if you want to drive and gun thats fine - i want to have separate so there should be an OPTIONAL cert that lets me do this

i dont understand why people are against having it BOTH ways

[Sledgecrushr]

i dont want to force anything on anyone
i say have it BOTH ways

if you want to drive and gun thats fine - i want to have separate so there should be an OPTIONAL cert that lets me do this

i dont understand why people are against having it BOTH ways

The issue for me mostly stems with the magrider being a floating turret already and how is this going to translate into a third person.

[Littleman]

i dont want to force anything on anyone
i say have it BOTH ways

if you want to drive and gun thats fine - i want to have separate so there should be an OPTIONAL cert that lets me do this

i dont understand why people are against having it BOTH ways

I haven't actually seen anyone say they want MBT's to be strictly to be driver=gunner, but there are those that believe anything less than driver+gunner is broken in terms of balance, encouraging "teamwork," etc.

The solo driver=gunners really don't have a problem with people wanting others to dedicate to a single role, they just have a problem with being forced into a single, dedicated role because someone else thinks that's how it should be. The back and forth just obscures that point underneath all the venom until someone mentions the best case scenario like it's a novel idea in this thread.

[Retaliation]

Thing is a secondary gun will probably round out the tanks offensive firepower. A tank is pretty helpless against air and infantry in most situations. This is where the secondary weapon will really shine. Mounted with an aa secondary weapon the tank will probably prove to be equal against agile fighters. With ai secondary infantry will be mowed down wherever they are found. The secondary weapon allows the tank to be more versatile, hence its overall power grows significantly. A tank with only a driver/gunner is a sitting duck against its air or infantry counters.

It doesn't even need to be an AA or Anti infantry gun. A tank with a guided rocket launcher as a secondary gun would be awesome. You could give it longer range and higher up front damage. I'm just trying to argue against the notion that it's an inherently flawed system and that everyone will go for 2 tanks. If that is the result it's the devs that have the problem not the system.

@fod: Sorry I didn't get that from your post. I think the problem is that there is no perfect solution to give both sides what they want. As a result you have people arguing for their solution so their fun isn't compromised.

[Sledgecrushr]

It doesn't even need to be an AA or Anti infantry gun. A tank with a guided rocket launcher as a secondary gun would be awesome. You could give it longer range and higher up front damage. I'm just trying to argue against the notion that it's an inherently flawed system and that everyone will go for 2 tanks. If that is the result it's the devs that have the problem not the system.

@fod: Sorry I didn't get that from your post. I think the problem is that there is no perfect solution to give both sides what they want. As a result you have people arguing for their solution so their fun isn't compromised.

I see your two one manned MBTs and raise you one air2ground reaver. I see I have you in checkmate.

[Klockan]

I see your two one manned MBTs and raise you one air2ground reaver. I see I have you in checkmate.
Not really, the 2 one manned mbt's just switch to aa mode and annihilate the reaver.

[Sledgecrushr]

Not really, the 2 one manned mbt's just switch to aa mode and annihilate the reaver.

As you are driving focused on your path, I would certainly be able to kill one tank before you know what hit you. If I could escape the aa guns from the second tank then that second tank is either immobilized waiting for me to come back or its going to be dead meat when it does move off. You have limited yourself being in a two manned vehicle and you deserve to die under the guns of my reaver.

[RodenyC]

I see your two one manned MBTs and raise you one air2ground reaver. I see I have you in checkmate.

I see your air2ground reaver with the AA lighting following behind.Who wins now?

[Flaropri]

I see your air2ground reaver with the AA lighting following behind.Who wins now?

The one with the Orbital Strike. (Most likely a TR infiltrator hiding behind a rock enjoying watching the NC and VS blow each other to smithereens.)

[Littleman]

I see your air2ground reaver with the AA lighting following behind.Who wins now?

The one with the Orbital Strike. (Most likely a TR infiltrator hiding behind a rock enjoying watching the NC and VS blow each other to smithereens.)

I would have said the one in the MBT smart enough to take out the lightning first. It'd be quick if their aim is good.

Though I'd wonder why that lightning gunner isn't in one of the MBT's...

[Sledgecrushr]

LOL this whole series of events would have been different if only the MBT would have had a second gunner manning the AA turret.

[Ratstomper]

LOL this whole series of events would have been different if only the MBT would have had a second gunner manning the AA turret.

*sad trombone* :D

[Sephirex]

Every time I come back and check on this thread I see the exact same posts, being made ad infinitum.

[Azren]

A suggestion in the Idea Vault on this topic: http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=45169

Show your support there if in favour, might just get it through to the devs

[RodenyC]

I would have said the one in the MBT smart enough to take out the lightning first. It'd be quick if their aim is good.

Though I'd wonder why that lightning gunner isn't in one of the MBT's...

How would the Two manned MBT take out the lighting when it's dealing with 2 solo MBTs?

[Goldeh]

I want to contribute to this thread.

I want it to reach 1k replies.

[KaB]

Then you're looking for another game, it would seem.

Sorry for being too much demanding, but I want this outfit in a game featuring thousand of players in a huge persistent map with three futuristic factions fighting all around composed by cooperative players who wants teamplay !

I do hope they cert in the split for those who want it, though.

I definitely hope so.

[Figment]

LOL this whole series of events would have been different if only the MBT would have had a second gunner manning the AA turret.

Indeed, both would die, in one go (meaning less shots are required), to the Reaver and MBT you two mentioned and are apparently present as solo players then the OS hit late.

Noobs.


I can adjust scenarios too, you know.

The point he is making (and that you're continually missing) is that it's ALWAYS more cost effective and efficient performance wise to have a 2-manned tank over a solo manned tank as they have it now. The whole argument that you can just get other vehicles is irrelevant to the discussion.

No, I'm not missing that point, I'm DISAGREEING WITH THAT POINT. FFS.

The point you are missing is that I've been saying this means squat (MEANING I DON'T GIVE THAT POINT CREDIT, I'M NOT MISSING IT) when you keep your tanks alive longer if you bring more.

Dude, really. Reading comprehension!

You're NEVER going to fight solo versions of your own tank, because all the MBTs are ES. Aside form that, it doesn't matter because the solo version will be highly susceptible to air and infantry attacks.

THE POINT YOU ARE MISSING... IS IT IS ABOUT CHOICE. WHAT IS BETTER TO CHOOSE.

And two MBTs of the enemy will be MORE DANGEROUS than ONE MBT of the enemy! So it's irrelevant that you're not fighting your own tanks, your gunner has a CHOICE to either gun OR to tank OR get another unit. HE WILL TANK/GET ANOTHER SOLO UNIT, because it will provide more power and flexibility for that player!

As has been stated over and over, it's not promoting solo play over teamplay, because a fully manned MBT will ALWAYS have the advantage over a solo-manned MBT.

ONE ON ONE.

But in NO other situation! And given there's 600 people a side that's a completely irrelevant situation that will HARDLY OCCUR.

The ONLY reason you believe this is because you've completely disregarded all the legitimate points that have been made against it. there is NO less teamwork required with the new MBT system to make a fully effective tank. It's made it so it is posssible to use it solo, but it's going to be MUCH less effective in battle situations (which makes the lightning more cost effective and viable).

Au contraire: INSTANT SEAT SWITCHING AND MORE ARMOUR.

We understand what you're saying. You're just wrong.

Given your above replies, you either deliberately ignore the points or you clearly don't understand what I'm saying. I'd wager the latter. Your first few replies clearly indicate the latter after all.

[quote]Thats still a legitimate resource cost difference, even if it is a different resource. You're going to have to buy other things with that resource still and few people will want to waste resources on a half-effective tank and NOONE will want to spend resources and certs on a tank to put all the offensive capability in the hands of someone they don't know.

And again you presume you work with someone you don't know. Idiot. A MBT in our setting is supposed to be for people who want to coordinate with others and can. You keep bringing up randoms who don't work together. Great. Don't work together and find someone you do know in a game with 70.000 players, surely you go to know a few hundred people you can work with over time?

I have in a game with only a few thousands players. So you keep bringing up non-issues and non-scenarios that only apply to anti-social people, who should just get a Lightning instead.

Done.

It takes 4-6 shots form AV to kill a tank under what scenario? Are they hitting the weak spots from behind? Even if that's hitting the hard armor of a tank, it means having 4-6 AV capable people in your squad could equal an instantly dead tank. which is exactly why secondary gunners and teamwork are still integral parts of the new MBT system and also why it's necessary to split the guns; secondary guns seem to have WAY more importance in PS2 than they ever did in PS1.

Dude... Why do you think there's a difference of 2 in there? TO ACCOUNT FOR HITTING WEAKSPOTS OR NOT. So ALL scenarios are in there!

So you can spend one of your 20-30 tank shells to kill ONE of potentially hundred of troops. Awesome. Way to waste that ammo.

HAHAHAHAHA. You honestly think people will care about what they're firing at if they can get a +1? Did you see anyone in the footage so far care that they killed an infantry or a tank if it was firing at them? "Oh hey I'm being fired at by an infantry guy, but I want to kill a tank, so I'll just ignore him while he damages and kills me within 10 seconds".

You honestly think people will care for ammo and that they won't just resupply? Man, you really are an idiot.

And what happens when you get focused? So you kept a few fully manned deliverers alive in PS1 versus what? A bunch of unfocused people? Dont forget they've given vehicles weak points in PS2.

Assumptions. We engaged groups of Magriders that regularly outnumbered us and usualy won through smart engaging and trying to take on as few of them at once, preferably from behind or side. That is called strategy. People tend to apply live-prolonging tactics in groups better than alone. That's the point, what's yours?

There are three resources from what we've seen and those resources will be used for all vehicles. That means pulling your one-man MBT will mean giving up potential resources for other things anyway, regardless of them being different resources. I don't see how you've made a relevant point at all. Resources are resources.

Four resources.

And I think you forgot about the bit where you're gaining resources again. As said before, the winning, usualy more numerous team, will never be short on stuff so they can get more units for the same amount of players. That makes them even stronger.

Geez, are you really just that dense that you completely forget about arguments made in other posts and can't cross-combine?

It does appear you forget a lot of arguments over and over and over.

4-6 shots is NOTHING. again, that means 4-6 AV infantry can kill a tank nearly instantly.

Indeed. So spread out your manpower over more armour to get more endurance, give them more targets and retain your TTK on them! Hooray!

I'm curious where you're getting all your facts and figures.

Source:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/wju1y/a_ps1_beta_testers_impressions_of_ps2_after/

Rawr. Informed opinion, deal with it.

There is NOTHING being taken away from drivers. They still have ALL the capabilities they once had and the game is MORE dependent on maneuverability and spacial awareness because of the addition of weakpoints.

Sigh. You just don't get it.

Parthian Shots worked great for the steppe horse archers of eurasia. Not so much for a lumbering MBT, especially considering that other vehicles can move faster than they can and it's weakpoints are behind them...Or maybe you don't actually know what you're talking about when you reference ancient battle tactics. I'm guessing if you DID you'd know the lightning would be MUCH better designed for this type of tactic. The reasonf or this is that MBTs and lightnings have different roles: one more thing you've failed to recognize or admit.

LOL. Yeah there's no difference between being able to fire on the retreat and not being able to fire on the retreat.

I'm sure that the moment you show someone your weakspot, you REALLY DON'T WANT ANY FIREPOWER AIMED AT THEM AT THE SAME TIME AND PREFER THEM TO BE HITTING YOUR WEAKSPOT.

Man, you ARE dense.

The ONLY time an MBT should be moving AWAY from the enemy is if it's been badly damaged and is trying to retreat back to it's own lines. Although, this is likely a scenario where the driver has made mistakes leading up to doing something that a tank shouldn't need to do.

Mistakes, or surrounded by solo tanks. You know, cause you can't hide your weak points to both units. Certainly not in your 'scenarios'.

This is the exact same bullshit that gives gamers the stereotype of being immature basement-dwellers who have no tact or social skills. Fucking stop it.

Stop pretending you can't get gunners first and imply you're the stereotype.

Then what's your gripe against it? For someone who is so awesome at gunning and driving you talk a lot about how it's unfair.

Experience lad, you should learn to appreciate it.

A thunderer is not the same thing as a tank. those are designed as heavy squad carriers. The whole point is to pack a bunch of people in them.

THEY REWARD TEAMWORK AND YOU CAN EASILY GET GUNNERS FOR THEM, WHILE IT'S FUN AND REWARDING FOR DRIVERS, BECAUSE IT IS BALANCED AROUND HAVING THREE PEOPLE INSIDE INSTEAD OF ONE AND YOU CAN KEEP THEM ALIVE BY MOVING IN GROUPS. THAT IS MY POINT ALL ALONG. The Thunderer/Deli references are there to indicate how you can deal with things and how we do that on a daily basis. Your ignorance and your keenness on disagreeing by simply not acknowledging the point is really annoying.

If you notice, I do acknowledge some points of yours, but then note that your conclusions are wrong.

I'm saying you haven't even played the game yet and you're complaining that it's already no fun. You can theorize all you want, but it doesn;t change the fact that there are a TON of unknown variables that almost certainly make PS2 a different game.

I want what makes the most sense. To me it's the current system.

Based on experience between driver and driver=gunner gameplay, I KNOW WHAT IS MORE FUN, because I know which type of gameplay is the most dynamic. I've got LOADS of experience with both. I don't need to know how balance is fine tuned in PS2 if there's more than enough information to know that you can't do the second more effectively than the first.

I think they were an interesting idea. However, they were shoehorned in and made too stout. If they had made them more squishy (pre OR post nerf), then having a secondary gunner would have been viable and probably more fun.

This is your stance on BFRs? Good lordy.

And when was this poll made? Back when the majority of players were PS1 vets who were still using the system? I want to know what the poll is now. From what I've seen in this thread alone, the majority of the people who say "keep the PS1" style gave no real reason for it. I looks like there may be many who have changed their minds.

Maybe because they did in the other threads about it and are bored of debating over and over with pricks like you who just pass them of as relics with uninteresting and outdated opinions?

Look at how dismissive and denegrating you speak of PS1 vets. That's an indication why people don't want to debate with you. Your dismissive and self-centered attitude is why I'm also acting so hostile and aggressive towards you. Most people don't find the frustration debating with ignorant fools worth it. But considering you're threatening to "win" the debate by bullying out everyone else by disregarding everything they say on the basis of flawed selfish arguments and character murder, I'm not going to just walk away.

And yeah, I'm sure you're keen on intimidating players out of these threads, but I'll happily return the favour. Consistently with arguments. Shame you keep missing the points on purpose, since you don't want to give our system a fair chance.

You're right, I don't have hard numbers, but are you just going to dismiss all the non-PS1 players? A lot of non-ps1 vets seem to like the current system and it stands to reason why.

They haven't got any experience with driver + gunner, so yeah, I don't think they've got a good grasp on the debate at all.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the PS1 MBT setup made all the way back in 2003 is a little outdated?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the PS1 MBT setup was way ahead of its time in social game design since other games never dared to make that step and have always continued to focus on the one player concept that exists since Wolfenstein 3D? What is outdated? YOUR variant is far older and based on a time where only single player games existed!

Ever think that maybe there are good reasons for the change (plenty have been listed in this very forum)? Have you stopped to think that maybe the devs (who aren't some super l337 kiddies, but people who have been playing and designing games for years) know what works best in the game they're making and know the most of any of us about?

Most of them worked on PvE questing games, some worked on PS1 (and not all the ones that made the good decisions) and not all have them have worked on multiplayer shooters. And I'd say most have never worked on a game with a multiplayer of this scale. So I honestly don't care about this argument you're trying to make. I'd also say that given the way they fought in those videos while they were BO, didn't make them come of as very experienced gamers for PS1.

Honestly? They came off as reasonably new, zergling level, average players. That's not a flattering compliment sadly. I had hoped it would be different, but anyone who wants to use a Harasser (even says they NEED an Harasser) that's half dead and being spammed by a Reaver, or brings an Aurora or Marauder to an aircav battle is just being more than a tad dense... And both Higby and T-Ray made those comments, I could have accepted those mistakes from the MMORPG guy, but really, that was stupid. A Deliverer or Skyguard were the only viable choices they could make and considering they had three at the time, a Deliverer would have made most sense.

That gives me more than enough reason to not give them card blanche and criticize them when they make a wrong move.

How so? I would argue the scale makes driver/gunner more viable, as a secondary gunner will have a lot more on his plate than in a game like Warrock.

See my last point. The sheer amount of what's going on is what makes sense to give the secondary gunner his own spot. If he's manning the main gun, the secondary gun is going to waste.

...oh ffs. If you man that secondary gun, the potential armour increase you could have with two tanks is going to waste.

It's much more effective and fun to have a driver position to pick his own targets than try to communicate toa gunner to do something.

Incredibly subjective. Don't you dare try to speak for me and others. Go use a Lightning and leave the MBT alone for those players that do think it's more fun.

Why can't you just accept ONE COMBAT UNIT existing that simply can't be used solo?

Why? Why are you so adamant that you don't want to rely on gunners, yet want to have gunner spots? What is it that makes you so self-centered you can't have it that people who want to work together get their own unit that's balanced design choices just around their play style and not around soloing it?

Why are you acting like such a selfish bastard that you HAVE to be able to use EVERYTHING alone in a MMO?

You may have some super l337 gunner that is on the same brainwave as you. Some of us are lucky to find people with brainwaves at all. It's unfair and not advantageous to give all the offensive power of a tank to someone who didn't give the resources, certs and effort to go pull the tank.

Again, FIND ONE. There's hundreds out there!

Exactly. That's why MBTs require the second gunner position filled to be effective.

Go look at the walls of text over the last couple of pages. the pro-PS1 setup arguments are incoherent at best.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH A *breath* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

How about these:

Acknowledged existing subjective opinions. Some I consider uninformed, however, I acknowledged on own experience that driving=gunner is easy for me and I indicated I'm above average with that in World of Tanks. In fact, it's why I've been saying all along that multiple solo tanks trumps using one multi-tank despite being slightly less effective on a one by one unit basis, but more effective on a two vs one unit basis.


So really. What's your point? That you don't get what I'm saying and that you're the one who simply doesn't get there's no inconsistencies? I got that already when your type keeps asking us to "make up our minds".

Even though we have: it's worse one on one and provides worse quality gameplay (worse quality (more static) tank game play experience), while being more effective because it's more forgiving due to the increase in optional flanking tactics and the increase in endurance (2x increase in efficiency), making the multi-crew vehicle lose despite of having a maneuvring advantage ONE ON ONE, which is the only reason why you'd want to use two players. (PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF HUMANITY do note that you're disadvantaged if they can reach around to your weakspots, which they can more easily if they outnumber you! So it's you who doesn't take weakspots into account in this whole argument: the two player unit can't fend off units as easily because its weakspots will be exposed more often)



Seriously, I'm done with argueing with you now. Consider yourself on ignore if you keep this up for two more posts. I can't stand your ignorance and incompetence at grasping our points and running in circles with you.

[Azren]

I will just keep spamming this link:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=45169

It is a suggestion which should end this debate, write supportive replies to it so the devs will notice

[Figment]

Just out of curiosity: Will you guys (who think there should be a separate driver and gunner) still play and enjoy the game even if your suggestion doesn't make it into the final game for whatever reason?

How about I turn that question around?

Will you play if you have to buddy up with someone in order to gain access to the most powerful units? (While still actually having access to a ton of solo unit alternatives).

Meaning, do you honestly think this decision would affect you at all if you get the choice to still play solo, just not in that unit?

[EisenKreutzer]

How about I turn that question around?

Will you play if you have to buddy up with someone in order to gain access to the most powerful units? (While still actually having access to a ton of solo unit alternatives).

Meaning, do you honestly think this decision would affect you at all if you get the choice to still play solo, just not in that unit?

Me, personally? Absolutely. As I said upthread, I could go either way. I wasn't asking to set up some killer argument later on, I am genuinely curious about just how important this issue is to the community. :)

[Figment]

Me, personally? Absolutely. As I said upthread, I could go either way. I wasn't asking to set up some killer argument later on, I am genuinely curious about just how important this issue is to the community. :)

To me it's pretty vital for a fun game. It will always gnaw on me even in 20 years, I'd still be upset about the missed opportunity for showing the world good teamplay can be done better by other means than with solo units.


PS1 vehicle systems are too advanced for some noobs in this thread and they genuinly missed the point of why it was done in PS1.

I don't think Ratstomper for instance will ever admit that there's a hell of a lot of design reasons why you'd want to numerically limit your units and enhance social and dynamic game play in one go.



Actually, come to think of it, I don't think we even mentioned that one of the reasons was that other, lighter solo/teamwork units (including infantry) could deal better with heavier units because they'd come in smaller numbers with their enhanced firepower and endurance?

People like him are way too focused on their own selfish interests and have no interest at all in what's good for the game's balance and game play, let alone that you want to encourage communities forming in a MMO to retain players over time.

[fod]

Just out of curiosity: Will you guys (who think there should be a separate driver and gunner) still play and enjoy the game even if your suggestion doesn't make it into the final game for whatever reason?

yes but it would be a big black mark against the game for me (i will play but not sure if i will enjoy it though)

newer games are getting simpler and simpler - features that were great ideas that make games more fun and teamwork based are being removed to cater to i guess the younger audience (im guessing here i dont really know who is responsible for making games more simpler so dont bite back at me)

commander mode in battlefield is another one i was disappointed with them removing

for me pc gaming has been about depth complexity and teamwork and removing the ability for me to have dedicated gunners reduces the teamwork aspect and makes it less fun overall (for me)

if planetside goes to driver/gunner ONLY model then what games can i play if i like the separate driver and separate gunner setup in a FPS game? all FPS games i know of have copied the driver/gunner model now so there is no choice for us

[StumpyTheOzzie]

So wait...

Do you want drivers to gun or do you want gunners to gun?

I'm confused.

And sort of trolling.

All this min/maxing and CAPS ON AND quote /quote and stuff is all very interesting :rolleyes: but I still don't understand what it's got to do with me and my mates.

If it's an even number, we'll fill tanks. If it's an odd number, we'll fill most of the tanks and have one gunnerless.

Fuck the zerg. They're there to get shot and give me XP so who gives a shit if they're rolling more tanks? That's just more XP for me and the crew.

[Sledgecrushr]

I agree that there should be an optional cert that allows a dedicated driver...if the magrider is put on tracks like the other es tanks.

[Azren]

I agree that there should be an optional cert that allows a dedicated driver...if the magrider is put on tracks like the other es tanks.

No need for that. It works just fine in PS1. The diffrence is in the firepower. Magrider needs 3 direct hits to kill an infantry, the other two empires need one.

I imagine PS2 power balance will be similar

[fod]

I agree that there should be an optional cert that allows a dedicated driver...if the magrider is put on tracks like the other es tanks.

why should the VS give up their empire defining ability?
then the TR should shoot slower? and the NC hit with less damage?

So wait...

Do you want drivers to gun or do you want gunners to gun?

I'm confused.

And sort of trolling.

All this min/maxing and CAPS ON AND quote /quote and stuff is all very interesting :rolleyes: but I still don't understand what it's got to do with me and my mates.

If it's an even number, we'll fill tanks. If it's an odd number, we'll fill most of the tanks and have one gunnerless.

Fuck the zerg. They're there to get shot and give me XP so who gives a shit if they're rolling more tanks? That's just more XP for me and the crew.

if thats directed at me (im guessing it is with the way i capitol important words) all i want is the ability to have separate driver and gunner instead of the driver doing it all like the way it is now in PS2

i have much more fun in a vehicle when i am a dedicated driver and i have a dedicated gunner

[Sledgecrushr]

why should the VS give up their empire defining ability?
then the TR should shoot slower? and the NC hit with less damage?

I think its a given that the new magrider is an incredily agile tank as it is now. The video footage I have seen bears this out. Adding a turret to this configuration would make the magrider the quickest vehicle to acquire targets and be the most nimble vehicle. I say the mag would be quickest to acquire targets because it can rotate on its z axis while moving in any direction and also pivot its turret at the same time, while moving..at full speed...this just seems like a humongous advantage against the other MBT s. Other than this little wrinkle I think an optional cert for a three man setup would be cool.

[Figment]

If it's an even number, we'll fill tanks. If it's an odd number, we'll fill most of the tanks and have one gunnerless.

That's a questionable claim if you get more of an advantage by not filling them. Which IMO very unfortunately, the current system seems to do.

Meaning if you can run with all your tanks gunnerless and be better for it, you will. The perks of having them gun needs to outweigh the perks of not having them gun. Currently, they do not seem to.

Whatever happens, I'm going to assume that like any gamer, you'll go with whatever makes your group the most effective and exploit the game's systems in a legit manner to the utmost efficiency.

I think its a given that the new magrider is an incredily agile tank as it is now. The video footage I have seen bears this out. Adding a turret to this configuration would make the magrider the quickest vehicle to acquire targets and be the most nimble vehicle. I say the mag would be quickest to acquire targets because it can rotate on its z axis while moving in any direction and also pivot its turret at the same time, while moving..at full speed...this just seems like a humongous advantage against the other MBT s. Other than this little wrinkle I think an optional cert for a three man setup would be cool.

You forget though that currently the Magrider is severely disadvantaged because it has to expose its hull weakspots the moment it gets flanked to some tank and will get flanked more easily and is less suited to flanking than other tanks.

Play some World of Tanks as a tank destroyer, you'll see what I mean. It's not quite as bad since you can strafe and prevent some flanking, but all in all you'll end up with just the gunner being able to fire, while that's not true for other tanks.

(Of course, in World of Tanks you can use stealth to your advantage and that makes TDs lethal to the point they're among my best units.)

[Sledgecrushr]

That's a questionable claim if you get more of an advantage by not filling them. Which IMO very unfortunately, the current system seems to do.

Meaning if you can run with all your tanks gunnerless and be better for it, you will. The perks of having them gun needs to outweigh the perks of not having them gun. Currently, they do not seem to.

Whatever happens, I'm going to assume that like any gamer, you'll go with whatever makes your group the most effective and exploit the game's systems in a legit manner to the utmost efficiency.

On another thread they mentioned a cert that reduces the bailout timer. I bet this would also go with switching seats. When we get into beta I dont really think that switching seats is going to be instantaneous. I think its going to be kinda hard to solo a MBT and run that vehicle as an optimal unit. Like I said in an earlier post tanks are pretty susceptible to non armor threats when the second gunner position isnt filled.

[Azren]

I think its a given that the new magrider is an incredily agile tank as it is now. The video footage I have seen bears this out. Adding a turret to this configuration would make the magrider the quickest vehicle to acquire targets and be the most nimble vehicle. I say the mag would be quickest to acquire targets because it can rotate on its z axis while moving in any direction and also pivot its turret at the same time, while moving..at full speed...this just seems like a humongous advantage against the other MBT s. Other than this little wrinkle I think an optional cert for a three man setup would be cool.

If the magrider gets a turret, it works just like the other MBTs apart from strafing. Strafing in itself is not OP since it's speed is far lower than normal movement speed. It's just an issue of balancing firepower armor and speed.

[fod]

I think its a given that the new magrider is an incredily agile tank as it is now. The video footage I have seen bears this out. Adding a turret to this configuration would make the magrider the quickest vehicle to acquire targets and be the most nimble vehicle. I say the mag would be quickest to acquire targets because it can rotate on its z axis while moving in any direction and also pivot its turret at the same time, while moving..at full speed...this just seems like a humongous advantage against the other MBT s. Other than this little wrinkle I think an optional cert for a three man setup would be cool.

its not at OP as you think
they balanced this ability in PS1 just fine (where it can do exactly what we are asking for)

[Littleman]

On another thread they mentioned a cert that reduces the bailout timer. I bet this would also go with switching seats. When we get into beta I dont really think that switching seats is going to be instantaneous. I think its going to be kinda hard to solo a MBT and run that vehicle as an optimal unit. Like I said in an earlier post tanks are pretty susceptible to non armor threats when the second gunner position isnt filled.

You have no idea how many times I've mentioned this and it still goes way over his head, probably because it's another point that weakens his argument, which is horribly biased and gets even more trollish with every response. CAPSLOCK!

He's obsessed with what goes on within the tank as the only point of teamwork or balance, seems to think he can actually compare how tanking works in WoT with how it will work in Planetside 2 (which is laughably hilarious due to mixed arms and massive player counts in PS2) and for some reason is only capable of fabricating tiny scenarios where it's his own sorry ass and a **** buddy are engaging opponents in a setup that gives them the advantage, and he's going in without any back up what-so-ever as a justification why 1 man tanks need to go. Like he can't find 2 other guys to fill a second tank and whoop their ass with the combined might of two FULL tanks, or a squad of foot soldiers that can flank around, or aircraft support...

A tank that fights alone, dies alone. It doesn't matter how many people are in it.

If this is your enemy comprised of infantry, tanks, and aircraft or any mix of the three:

[]****[]T
**T*[]**


[]
^
If you are here

And you're allies are back there V












***T***[]****T*****[]
***[]***T******[]***
[]***T*[]****[]**T**[]

You are doing it wrong!

[Figment]

Nice way of illustrating how far you miss the point Littleman. As usual.


I am the one that stresses use in numbers, where I regularly indicated that where we use 3 units now, we'd use 9 in the new scenario of solo use (!). Really? I would be the one talking about isolationist use and limited scenarios? Wow.

YOU are the one who stresses isolationist use. I simply indicate that having a multi-crew vehicle halfs the numbers of units you can bring to a fight and this makes you both alone or in a group easier to flank and concentrate firepower on.

But that's lost on you, isn't it?



Please indicate how come I always speak about group use and your pro-solo side always speaks about how a single solo vehicle is going to get its arse kicked?

Troll? Here's a mirror.

[Littleman]

Nice way of illustrating how far you miss the point Littleman. As usual.


I am the one that stresses use in numbers, where I regularly indicated that where we use 3 units now, we'd use 9 in the new scenario of solo use (!). Really? I would be the one talking about isolationist use and limited scenarios? Wow.

YOU are the one who stresses isolationist use. I simply indicate that having a multi-crew vehicle halfs the numbers of units you can bring to a fight and this makes you both alone or in a group easier to flank and concentrate firepower on.

But that's lost on you, isn't it?



Please indicate how come I always speak about group use and your pro-solo side always speaks about how a single solo vehicle is going to get its arse kicked?

Troll? Here's a mirror.

We're advocating filling the damn tanks up and not going along JUST as driver/gunners. I'm also aware that there will be MORE on the field than other tanks. While those one manned tanks might be bigger in number, they're fodder for just about everything else. You're crying about imbalances over the number of tanks available on the field. I'm telling you even less aircraft will run rough shot over them if those tanks don't have AA support. Since you honestly thought seat switching was instantaneous despite there being certifications that indicate otherwise, I have little doubt you, in fact, have no ****ing clue what you're talking about.

Read up on the game some and come back when you realize there's more in Planetside for an MBT driver to worry about than MBT's.

[Marinealver]

Even though I doe perfer the Driver/Gunner crew system instead of the Steer and Point Pilot control of the Planetside 2 tanks they made that change for a reason. Tehy want PS2 to be a much faster pace, so making it that a single person can crew a tank instead of a driver having to V-N-G spam untill someone quits the zerg and hops in would make it so that more tanks are avalible. I don't see the secondary guns being used as much as anything else other than an Air Defence weapon. The splash damage from the ground cannon makes an effective anti infantry weapon.

[Figment]

@Littleman: So who cares if you require certs for speedier seat switching or even switching at all? A dedicated solo driver who doesn't intend to play with a gunner will just cert that: solo-problem solved. Why the hell would you assume solo drivers wouldn't spec out their character and vehicle for solo use? What a bullox assumption.

And why the hell do you expect solo drivers to only bring one type of firepower? The Lightning can be customized to AA, so no, they won't do without AA firepower, you just don't think of that kind of use of solo vehicles: separating the roles of your group instead of all using the exact same unit. Consider that with the 9 people I refer to, you can have a spread of 9 people over different roles. Including AA. So no, they won't get their arse kicked by aircav.

Next questions please.


And you accuse me of only putting up one scenario for solo use. Seriously?

[Azren]

@Littleman: So who cares if you require certs for speedier seat switching or even switching at all? A dedicated solo driver who doesn't intend to play with a gunner will just cert that: solo-problem solved. Why the hell would you assume solo drivers wouldn't spec out their character and vehicle for solo use? What a bullox assumption.

Simple: solo driver puts AV on main gun and AA on secondary. If aircav comes, how-swaps to AA. Sure, he won't be able to move, but he still has a better chance to live than with the AV cannon, depending on situation of course.

_________

A topic in the Idea Vault for optional "dedicated driver" certification. If you are in favour, show your support there;
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=45169

[Sledgecrushr]

Simple: solo driver puts AV on main gun and AA on secondary. If aircav comes, how-swaps to AA. Sure, he won't be able to move, but he still has a better chance to live than with the AV cannon, depending on situation of course.

_________

A topic in the Idea Vault for optional "dedicated driver" certification. If you are in favour, show your support there;
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=45169
Your setup will only allow you to deal with one threat at a time, and that my friend is an inherit weakness in a combined arms game like ps2. Guess we will have to wait for beta to see how this pans out.

[Littleman]

@Littleman: So who cares if you require certs for speedier seat switching or even switching at all? A dedicated solo driver who doesn't intend to play with a gunner will just cert that: solo-problem solved. Why the hell would you assume solo drivers wouldn't spec out their character and vehicle for solo use? What a bullox assumption.

And why the hell do you expect solo drivers to only bring one type of firepower? The Lightning can be customized to AA, so no, they won't do without AA firepower, you just don't think of that kind of use of solo vehicles: separating the roles of your group instead of all using the exact same unit. Consider that with the 9 people I refer to, you can have a spread of 9 people over different roles. Including AA. So no, they won't get their arse kicked by aircav.

Next questions please.


And you accuse me of only putting up one scenario for solo use. Seriously?

Why do you assume the certifications will make the switching instant? If a guy is in a bloody tank, and is up against a tank and an aircraft, he has two really $#!%%& choices: engage the tank, get stomped by the air, or switch seats to fight the air, but is immobile to the tank. He could have other allies nearby, however. So should the tank/air cav combo, and if there's cover, the tank could out maneuver the extra, opposing tank to get at the other guy's back side. So many possibilities. Then we have to consider simple numerical imbalances solely due to player counts, and infantry support, engineers, HA, etc.

No one's going to really care about the driver and gunner being separate roles when engaging the tank.

And don't bring in the lightning excuse. You're side doesn't get to say "oh, but drivers need to concentrate!" and then go "grab a lightning for your AA." Wouldn't you rather the AA to not have to worry about where they're driving? The real pro to the lightning is that it may bring the superior AA however. Hrm... trade offs...

I'd still prefer a fully loaded tank and my third guy in the lightning as opposed to requiring 3 people like YOU want to. Or maybe I prefer a fully loaded tank and mossy support?

Or perhaps I just won't drift away from the main force like an idiot and the rest of my team can cover my weaknesses while I cover theirs. Bring the three single manned MBT's. I'm not gonna say good luck with the AA gun, because if those three MBT's are doing it right, they'll be sticking with their main force which in all likelihood will have infantry, and those infantry will gladly jump in to rip apart those mean old mossies/reavers/scythes if they have a modicum of common sense.

So really, it won't matter if there's a gunner in the second slot or not if you are doing it right, as your "gunner" will be fighting outside the tank until there's a need for that gun.

I want more to shoot at, and when I see a tank, I'm not concerned with how many are in it sans the simultaneous use of the extra guns, I'm just concerned with it being a tank. Driver/gunners put one more guy in the field and still sell the illusion of a full tank crew.

Stop arguing. You should know as well as I SOE won't back down from this decision. This decision was made despite how PS1's tanks handled, and they are a hell of lot more cognisant of what works today.

[Azren]

Stop arguing. You should know as well as I SOE won't back down from this decision. This decision was made despite how PS1's tanks handled, and they are a hell of lot more cognisant of what works today.

They are more cognisant of what makes money today. They do what they think the majority of the players will prefere, what they feel comfortable about, what they are used to. Time will tell if this is the right strategy.

At any rate, why be biased and only have one or the other? Just make it optional how the MBT is setup and everyone will be happy ˇ_ˇ

[Figment]

Why do you assume the certifications will make the switching instant?

Please point out how stating "speedier switching" as you attested is assuming instant? I did not suggest that at all in that post.

If a guy is in a bloody tank, and is up against a tank and an aircraft, he has two really $#!%%& choices: engage the tank, get stomped by the air, or switch seats to fight the air, but is immobile to the tank.

Sure. Nice scenario drafting. Oh wait, it assume solo tank in isolationist situation. Again? HHMMMMMMMmmmmMMmmmm.

He could have other allies nearby, however.

Ah! So you do admit that's a possibility. Hohum.

So should the tank/air cav combo, and if there's cover, the tank could out maneuver the extra, opposing tank to get at the other guy's back side. So many possibilities. Then we have to consider simple numerical imbalances solely due to player counts, and infantry support, engineers, HA, etc.

...what? Difference situations can occur? REALLY?! Wow. [/sarcasm]

No one's going to really care about the driver and gunner being separate roles when engaging the tank.

...Yeaaaah about that... No. It makes all the difference on how you approach an enemy unit. You check for a units capabilities, check the context (their friendlies) and determine your course of action from there by your own available options and friendlies.

And don't bring in the lightning excuse. You're side doesn't get to say "oh, but drivers need to concentrate!" and then go "grab a lightning for your AA."

Yes we do, because we state that while your driver will be worse off, in a group they get more endurance.

Stop being an uptight arse and for once hear us out, because this is what we've been saying from the first page of the first driver/gunner discussion.

Wouldn't you rather the AA to not have to worry about where they're driving? The real pro to the lightning is that it may bring the superior AA however. Hrm... trade offs...

Yes we would, but we would also like to see some survivability added to that because otherwise it's moot.

I'd still prefer a fully loaded tank and my third guy in the lightning as opposed to requiring 3 people like YOU want to. Or maybe I prefer a fully loaded tank and mossy support?

WANT to? NO. I'm saying this is what would happen because it'd be more effective and we're not stupid that although we'd WANT a full vehicle, we'd USE IT IF IT WAS THE WORSE ALTERNATIVE! Ugh. Stop being so horrible at reading comprehension and stop putting words in my mouth to make it mean what you want it to mean! Ffs man!

Or perhaps I just won't drift away from the main force like an idiot and the rest of my team can cover my weaknesses while I cover theirs.

Oh hey, there's your isolationist scenario again. Hi, we missed you.

Bring the three single manned MBT's. I'm not gonna say good luck with the AA gun, because if those three MBT's are doing it right, they'll be sticking with their main force which in all likelihood will have infantry, and those infantry will gladly jump in to rip apart those mean old mossies/reavers/scythes if they have a modicum of common sense.

Which three single manned MBTs? Could be two MBTs and a Lightning depending on what's the best solo-mix for the context. Wrap your head around that.

So really, it won't matter if there's a gunner in the second slot or not if you are doing it right, as your "gunner" will be fighting outside the tank until there's a need for that gun.

Uhm. So you're argueing that "instant" or "timed" switching won't be enough to save a tank from aircav, BUT if infantry have to leave their position to jump in a gunner position of a tank that moves faster than they do and doesn't always know you want to gun and creates all sorts of communication and logistical issues, not to mention is very situational, etc... this is suddenly a better solution than a dedicated gunner?

Wow.

I want more to shoot at, and when I see a tank, I'm not concerned with how many are in it sans the simultaneous use of the extra guns, I'm just concerned with it being a tank. Driver/gunners put one more guy in the field and still sell the illusion of a full tank crew.

Good for you, but stop being selfish by pretending that's best for the game or everyone else.

Stop arguing.

Please stop indeed.

You should know as well as I SOE won't back down from this decision.

Whatever happend to "everything can change in beta, just wait for beta to give your feedback" and "SOE will change everything based on our feedback", which was your side's primary reason to tell us to wait with feedback? :lol:

Or hey, maybe that's why we've been argueing about this and other things since earliest alpha, since nothing is "as permanent as temporary" and needs to be retained for optional change for as long as possible until we're sure it's good or not?

And as you can tell, there's no concensus on this at all. And please stop pretending that in contrast to creating new units, the MBT question is a matter of coding who provides what input and changing the description of a minor number of certifications.

This decision was made despite how PS1's tanks handled, and they are a hell of lot more cognisant of what works today.

Really? I'd love to see your objective factsheet about that.

[SgtExo]

I will repost what i believe will make it a better choice to use MBTs that have two gunners instead of being solo tanks.

I believe that for the resource cost it will be high for the big vehicles, but not so high that you cant buy a couple at a time. For example you should be able to buy 2 to 4 MBTs in a row if you die fast and buy it as soon as the cooldown is done. But after that, you should have run out of the needed resource and maybe have to wait for an hour for it to pool back in. You would have other resource for other types of vehicles like an aircraft or a Max, but because you wasted (or maybe you did achieve your goal) your resources, you will not be able to get another tank for a while.

This is where sharing the resource cost with a gunner can come in useful. Instead of having resource for x amount of MBTs now you could possibly have 2x the amount of resource for the tank. This will be useful for those really long gaming sessions that last for hours, a weekend for example. That is why you would want to have a second gunner in your tank becomes important, you maximize the efficiency of the vehicle towards the cost. Yes the other sides could bring in more solo MBTs, but in the long run they would run out of resource allot faster (taking into account that the resource gain is equal here), and thus their tank supply could potentially trickle down from having 20 tanks per fight down to 2 tanks per fight, while your side is still at a constant 10 tanks per fight.

[LBurrows]

personally i like having a solo tank options, the times i get a vanguard out and some prat jumps in starts chatting away not paying attention and we get blasted, or they decide they need to loo right at the point of battle leaving you to get blasted, it gets frustrating the 90 millionth time it happens lol.

Also if you tar every lightning driver with the same brush you might find some very skilled solo drivers trying to find you all over PS2, Infact that would add to the fun, Right everyone except me is rubbish in a tank :P come find me :-)

[MrBloodworth]

Play with friends/outfit mates.

If your not in an outfit, you are doing it wrong.

[maradine]

Unified Driver/gunner works well in numerous other games.

This game was designed with unified driver/gunner in mind.

Team-play minded individuals are given an additional configurable crew slot that enhances the tank's lethality and, presumably, survivability.


It's really that simple. You don't have to like any of those points, but they are all, in fact, true.

[Sephirex]

I'm totally prepped for 50+ more pages of the exact same points being made over and over.

[KaB]

Unified Driver/gunner works well in numerous other games.

This game was designed with unified driver/gunner in mind.

Team-play minded individuals are given an additional configurable crew slot that enhances the tank's lethality and, presumably, survivability.


It's really that simple. You don't have to like any of those points, but they are all, in fact, true.

As your first point is totally wrong and your second probably not (did you actually already play PS2 ?), well no, it's not that simple. By giving nothing more than your opinion, you won't add anyting useful to this debate.

[Sephirex]

As your first point is totally wrong and your second probably not (did you actually already play PS2 ?), well no, it's not that simple. By giving nothing more than your opinion, you won't add anyting useful to this debate.

Your first point stating his opinion is wrong is also completely an opinion, further demonstrating the pointlessness of this entire thread.

Second point, you're totally correct. The developers are not developing Planetside 2 with 1 man tank game mechanics in mind.
In fact, I understand it's being balanced around mounted combat, which is really terrible since there's no horses.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

@Kab

I think anything "useful" quit being added to this debate 30+ pages ago...

[SgtExo]

, I understand it's being balanced around mounted combat, which is really terrible since there's no horses.

LOL. :rofl:

[Azren]

Go to the thread in my sig and write down your opinion. I belive that suggestion should end this debate.

[maradine]

I beg to differ.

Let's start with 2. The designers, by virtue of designing the game, have designed it around its own feature set. The second bullet is a tautology. If you would like to argue a tautology, I have nothing for you.

For your objection to number 1 to be valid, it would have to be false that there are multiple games where unified driver/gunner works well. Would you like me to list some for you? Or would that be a waste of my time and bandwidth? I'm being serious - if I say "Battlefield 3" and you say "Battlefield 3 was crap because the driver and gunner was unified", you've gone circular. If you would like to use circular logic, I have nothing for you.

I stand by the three assertions.


@Azren - I already agree that this would be a good thing to include. I'd even go so far as to say I don't care which option is the default state and which is the certed addition. My objection is to individuals who feel that it must be their way. I disagree, as does the current state of the game.

[EnderGraff]

I think that the driver should have control of the maneuvering of the tank as well as the control of the main gun.
The gunner should have access to the secondary weapons such as a machine gun that can rotate 360 degrees around the tank to deal with infantry that the driver cannot see.

That honestly makes the most sense, as being nothing but a driver would be very boring.

[KaB]

Your first point stating his opinion is wrong is also completely an opinion, further demonstrating the pointlessness of this entire thread.

I felt Muuch more teamplay in every games featuring tanks requiring 3 pilots.

We can't just say "this game has no teamplay". However We can say this :"this game has more teamplay than this other one". And I just wanna compare Planetside 2 to a 4 hours game into Project Reality (less realistic than ArmA FYI) and you'll discover what IS teamplay. I can guarantee that Battlefield has no more teamplay since BF2.

Second point, you're totally correct. The developers are not developing Planetside 2 with 1 man tank game mechanics in mind.
In fact, I understand it's being balanced around mounted combat, which is really terrible since there's no horses.

I forgot the word "true". So his second point's probably wrong too. I hope this is how you understood it.

1 driver/gunner is just such a casual feature in a game which can hardly make it be anything else than a casual one. Which means fast success, and long death.

[Flaropri]

Go to the thread in my sig and write down your opinion. I belive that suggestion should end this debate.

I find that debates don't end when people talk past each other, they just get "louder." Which is unfortunate especially when there are actually decent points to be had from (most) all participants.


Anywho...
In fact, I understand it's being balanced around mounted combat, which is really terrible since there's no horses.

Surely I can't be the only one that wants the Planetside version of this game:

► WTF Is... - War of the Roses (pre-alpha footage) ? - YouTube

[maradine]

Looks a lot prettier than Mount & Blade! :)

[Sephirex]

I'm glad a few people caught the joke of the mounted post, but sadly it seems I have to spell it out.

Arguing that a game with single driver/gunner tanks was designed and balanced for seperate driver/gunners is like saying a game without horses was designed for mounted combat.

Unfortunately, that's also why we'll probably never see separate driver/gunner's now that the game's so far along.

Also, War of the Roses looks awesome.

[Azren]

I find that debates don't end when people talk past each other, they just get "louder." Which is unfortunate especially when there are actually decent points to be had from (most) all participants.

Debates end when we find a solution both sides can agree on. That is what I posted in the idea vault (was actually suggested several times in this thread).

Nothing constructive was posted here for the last 20 pages, I think it is time to end the debate and talk of the solution's details.

[Flaropri]

Debates end when we find a solution both sides can agree on. That is what I posted in the idea vault (was actually suggested several times in this thread).

My point was that debates won't end if people fail to compromise or fail to acknowledge (not necessarily agree mind) what the argument is actually about, which people often do both in this thread an elsewhere.

Nothing constructive was posted here for the last 20 pages, I think it is time to end the debate and talk of the solution's details.

Hey! I posted constructively! Well... sometimes...

I think the Idea forum threads are a better place to discuss details (though I wish they'd only had one thread instead of two), but I also think we still lack too many details and will continue to until at least 2-3 iterations into Beta to really work on specific details instead of just concept.

[KaB]

vVRedOctoberVv you should edit your first post adding a list of ideas and constructive arguments which have been already said again and again, so we can say to any further replies "see first post" if it's been already said, or "we dont care about your life bro" when it comes to be a personal experience absolutely unable to convince anyone, like "I dont want it because I dont lke it" (I dont say it's forbidden, but we'll invite you to clarify it in order to make it more convincing).

[fod]

Unified Driver/gunner works well in numerous other games.

This game was designed with unified driver/gunner in mind.

Team-play minded individuals are given an additional configurable crew slot that enhances the tank's lethality and, presumably, survivability.


It's really that simple. You don't have to like any of those points, but they are all, in fact, true.

1 separate driver gunner works well in ps1 which is closer to ps2 than any other games

2 can game designs not change? (see killcam) and would giving us an option to play the way we like (choice of driver/gunner OR dedicated driver and dedicated gunner) really change the balance or break anything? no it will not

3 yes this is true but it doesnt help with pure tank driving those "Team-play minded individuals" like to concentrate on a single task what they can do well (drive or gun main cannon) and this has been taken away which cannot be replaced with a 2nd weapon

[maradine]

Hey man, I already said I'd like it both ways :)

[fod]

Hey man, I already said I'd like it both ways :)

ahh sorry i missed that
i want options for both ways also :p
(not against driver/gunner but im against it ONLY being that way)

[Furber]

For the sake of the game, I really hope they allow both ways. The balancing can be sorted out in beta, that's part of what beta's for.

[Xeller]

Please forgive me if this has already been said, but I don't want to shift through the previous 700+ posts.

I believe the compromise is that people who want to do a driver/gunner configuration have the Lightning, and those who want to do a tactical driver plus gunner configuration has the main battle tank. This was how it was in PS1 and I think it worked really well. My concern is that the driver/gunner option was added in PS2 to add accessibility to new players. The REXO being able to drive closed vehicles is another example of this.

[Azren]

If you want the option to use a driver-only MBT, support the suggestion in my signature.

[Xyntech]

I believe the compromise is that people who want to do a driver/gunner configuration have the Lightning, and those who want to do a tactical driver plus gunner configuration has the main battle tank. This was how it was in PS1 and I think it worked really well. My concern is that the driver/gunner option was added in PS2 to add accessibility to new players. The REXO being able to drive closed vehicles is another example of this.

The point about the Lightning is a fair one, but the point about rexo is not.

There is no rexo in Planetside 2, end of line, period.

HA is not really PS2's version of Rexo beyond some superficial similarities. HA is a class that is balanced against the other classes. HA has not been shown to be a superior AA or AV platform like the MAX, and therefor there is currently no reason to exclude it from driving. If HA can't drive, than neither should LA or Engi, because those look to be pretty effective combat classes in their own right as well.

But back on topic, I think that the main reason they are going with driver controlled main guns on MBT's is that without a gun to control, tank drivers don't have that much to do. I'm not knocking the PS1 system which I actually prefer, but the control scheme for MBT's in the first game is kind of light.

Compare MBT's to something like the Liberator (in both games). Flying uses up all of your mouse and keyboard movement controls and is a lot more engaging to fly, yet the Liberator also gets a nose gun for the driver to control on top of all of that. I think they just want to bring MBT's up to Liberator standards.

In some ways, this subject is going to come down largely to how effective the secondary guns are. Obviously AA guns will be powerful air defense, but if the guided AV rockets end up being even more powerful against vehicles than the drivers main cannon, we may end up with solo MBT's who universally get slaughtered compared to tanks that either protect themselves further from aircraft or infantry, or who are extra devastating in tank vs tank battles with a secondary AV weapon.

I'm assuming the developers aren't oblivious on the MBT vs Lightning issue, so for the time being I'm going to assume that there are going to be legitimate power and resource reasons why you would want to either bring 2 people in one MBT instead of 2 solo MBT's, or just bring a Lightning or two instead. For me, until I get in game and see otherwise, I'm going to assume it will be balanced out by various factors. Either the system is totally broken and they'll have to fix it, or it will work pretty well and there will be nothing to worry about.

In my opinion, the debate over solo-able vs mandatory 2 man MBT's is entirely about personal preference. The preference of some tank drivers to put all of their focus into driving, and not having to worry about shooting, or losing combat effectiveness because they aren't shooting.

In regards to the subject as a matter of personal preference, I think that a sidegrade to unlock dedicated driving which releases the main gun to the gunner would be perfect, especially if the cert increased the power of the main gun to compensate for the loss of extra firepower. It wouldn't be a balance issue as long as the regular MBT's are still much better with 2 people than one, it would just be a gameplay preference thing.

This is why I think it will work fine to have driver gunned MBT's be the default option, with a dedicated driver sidegrade being a short way into the customization tree. Remember that players can put cert points into one area while playing in another, so if you absolutely refuse to ever get into a driver gunned MBT, you can just wait a little while and dump all of your cert points into unlocking the dedicated driver sidegrade before starting to drive your MBT.

[Figment]

No Xyntech, it's not fine to give out an optional driver=gunner for the same unit others can use with one person or even two persons less.

This is simply not fair.

Anyone suggesting it is doesn't understand manpower is a resource a group of players can never adjust. Putting self imposed limitations on unit numbers without getting something substantial in return is simply unfair to players that want to work together in this particular manner (and no, driving maneuvrability is NOT worth it ALONE).

It is a playstyle preference, but any compromise where the solo unit ends up more powerful in numbers plays favourites for solo players and makes teamwork the stepchild. That is not a compromise that is acceptable. It is either solo or teamwork. NEVER both, UNLESS you put much greater constraints on the solo player: something like a solo mag that can't strafe, solo tanks can only fire forwards. That would be fair towards team vehicles, but not for solo mbt users wrt lightning users, nor fun or logical or even implementable.

Give a unit a separate shield (each worth 100% tank armour) for every player that is inside and you get somewhere. Balance has to be done per player, not just per tank and then add x players to the exact same unit. You can't balance the exact same unit for various amounts of crews. You can't!


I'm however very sad that the main reason for this decision in a MMO is egocentric selfishness and has nothing to do with providing healthy game play nor catering to various groups of players and is even based on fear and incompetence argumentation that underestimates all players on the premise of the incompetence or rather, laziness of a minority that 'can't find a gunner' and cries murder over having to find a gunner to use a really powerful, instant kill weapon.

Disgusting attitude, absolutely detestful, but now SOEs core fps target group. Hooray.

This decision only considers one target group who already had been catered to wealthily. This is utterly retarded from the perspective of teamwork, social and dynamic (quality) game play and community building.

It is one in a string of design decisions I not just dislike, but dread. Because it indicates what we can expect in the future: more ill-thoughtout design decisions to please noobs who never learned to participate in the community properly. Yes noobs, because anyone with a half decent outfit or even half decent driving and communication skills has never had problems with finding and working together with gunners.


If you had, consider you may have been doing things wrong, it is not always down to the game to simplify itself just because you can't cope!

This IS therefor dumbing down the game, simply because bad team players are being rewarded at the expense of team players.



Anyone okay with that can sod off to EA games afaic.

[Xyntech]

Remember back in the first Planetside? Remember how you could fly a Liberator solo, just using it's 35mm cannon to shoot at people?

I do. I've done it several times and it's always a lot of fun. It could actually be pretty effective as well (haven't recerted it in years, so I can't speak of more recent changes).

But whenever I did that, I was nowhere near as effective as when my Liberator was fully crewed, and I got chewed up and spit out by solo Reavers and Mosquitos too.

There's no need to be so dramatic about it. There is plenty of room for MBT balance to go in either direction, where it's dumbed down and imbalanced compared to Lightnings and 2 man MBT's, or where it's well balanced and all options are viable in their own way. Certainly there is room to speculate on how it could turn out for the worst, but there are also plenty of ways where driver controlled main guns on MBT's get incorporated naturally and fluidly into a balanced Planetside 2.

The problem the dev team is addressing is that tanks are meant to be combat vehicles not logistical vehicles like the Galaxy and Sunderer, and simply driving around doesn't feel particularly engaging to a lot of players the way that both driving and shooting at the same time does.

It's a matter of taste, pure and simple, and if there is a way to balance it to have both options, then everybody wins. If there is no way to balance it, I would default to supporting dedicated drivers being mandatory, but I think it's ridiculously narrow minded to think there's no middle ground available, especially when it has already worked for another multi-crew vehicle in the first Planetside.

If it requires giving dedicated driver certed MBT's a more powerful main gun and more armor, or giving gunner turrets on the current PS2 style MBT's access to ridiculously powerful AV guns, so be it. I really don't think it's going to be that hard to strike a good balance.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

That's a questionable claim if you get more of an advantage by not filling them. Which IMO very unfortunately, the current system seems to do.

Meaning if you can run with all your tanks gunnerless and be better for it, you will. The perks of having them gun needs to outweigh the perks of not having them gun. Currently, they do not seem to.

Whatever happens, I'm going to assume that like any gamer, you'll go with whatever makes your group the most effective and exploit the game's systems in a legit manner to the utmost efficiency.


The way we play, 3 full tanks in tight formation will make a neater hole in the enemy than 9 spread out tanks which won't have as clean lines of fire to the target. 3 tanks lined up over 30m will be able to bring more guns to bear on the same target than 9 all spread out over 90m, unless the terrain is billiard table flat. The 3 "professional" drivers we have can keep tighter and neater formations if they don't have to worry about gunning too.

In addition, 3 tanks are easier to wrangle around. You can run at higher speeds easier than 9 tanks. Turns, wheels and point rotations are easier to accomplish. Calling out targets and distances are more clearly defined. Point's 2 o'clock is more likely to be everyone's 2 o'clock. If you have too many tanks all over the shop, calling 2 o'clock isn't as accurate.

You can run away easier while maintaining fire.

You can probably repair faster.

If your column is destroyed, you can get back into it faster at lesser resource cost.

If you are attacked by air or infantry you can fight back.

[KaB]

Remember back in the first Planetside? Remember how you could fly a Liberator solo, just using it's 35mm cannon to shoot at people?

I do. I've done it several times and it's always a lot of fun. It could actually be pretty effective as well (haven't recerted it in years, so I can't speak of more recent changes).

But whenever I did that, I was nowhere near as effective as when my Liberator was fully crewed, and I got chewed up and spit out by solo Reavers and Mosquitos too.

That's fun because I dont remember the planes' pilots could control and aim the gun like we can do in tanks, which mean in a different direction than the vehicles' direction.
If it wasnt the case I invite you to stop being an idiot and return back to the main subject : the tanks.

[Xyntech]

That's fun because I dont remember the planes' pilots could control and aim the gun like we can do in tanks, which mean in a different direction than the vehicles' direction.
If it wasnt the case I invite you to stop being an idiot and return back to the main subject : the tanks.

The PS2 Magrider can only aim in the direction that the vehicle is pointing as well, and the Liberator is perfectly capable of strafing. Considering that the Magrider will be balanced to be comparable to the other two MBT's despite this difference in control scheme, I'd say that the analogy is pretty appropriate.

The Liberator is a multi-crew vehicle which is at its best with multiple people, but which can also be used as a solo platform. The analogy isn't really meant to go any further than that, but that's far enough. Obviously there are a lot of different balancing concerns with a land vehicle versus an air vehicle, such as the fact that a tank driver can switch to a gunner seat without worrying about his aircraft falling out of the sky, but most of that shit can get sorted out in the details.

The point still stands, that we have first hand evidence from the original Planetside itself. You can absolutely have a multi-crew vehicle that can be effective solo, but that is still nowhere near as effective as the same vehicle with a full crew.

MBT's in Planetside 2 just need to find a way to strike that same balance as Liberators from Planetside 1, or else they will absolutely be stupidly imbalanced as solo capable vehicles.

[Figment]

Remember back in the first Planetside? Remember how you could fly a Liberator solo, just using it's 35mm cannon to shoot at people?

I do. I've done it several times and it's always a lot of fun. It could actually be pretty effective as well (haven't recerted it in years, so I can't speak of more recent changes).

But whenever I did that, I was nowhere near as effective as when my Liberator was fully crewed, and I got chewed up and spit out by solo Reavers and Mosquitos too.

I believe I made that argument before, but indicated this is primarily because a Liberator's multi-crew role differs and for solo aircav there are simply better options.

The comparison falls flat there for the MBT, because the Lightning is not the better solo option for for instance AV and since the main gun DOES instantly kill infantry, it's questionable if it's better for AI. At close range turret rotation speed may be important, but at longer ranges (over 40 meters) it's rather irrelevant since the sideways speed of infantry will only make for a few degrees/second rotational speed need. So honestly, that's more of a situational advantage than a clear-cut advantage.

There's no need to be so dramatic about it. There is plenty of room for MBT balance to go in either direction, where it's dumbed down and imbalanced compared to Lightnings and 2 man MBT's, or where it's well balanced and all options are viable in their own way. Certainly there is room to speculate on how it could turn out for the worst, but there are also plenty of ways where driver controlled main guns on MBT's get incorporated naturally and fluidly into a balanced Planetside 2.

ONLY if they're treated as they should be treated: on their own merits. Not on the basis of the same unit being fully operable (as in, combat effective) with a different amount of crew.

The problem the dev team is addressing is that tanks are meant to be combat vehicles not logistical vehicles like the Galaxy and Sunderer, and simply driving around doesn't feel particularly engaging to a lot of players the way that both driving and shooting at the same time does.

Bull, as MANY HAVE SAID BEFORE, that playstyle is well provided for so to argue every combat vehicle HAS to have that is absolute bullox. Look at PS1, look at how long this thread is. It's a complete myth propelled by people who only care for solo play. There are players who like to drive and gun and there are players who just like to drive or just like to gun. PROVIDE GAME PLAY FOR ALL OF THEM BY CREATING UNITS SPECIFICALLY FOR EACH GROUP OF THESE PLAYERS. And the first group has plenty of those. They don't need 100% of the combat units! If they don't care for the driver only units, so what!? DON'T USE THEM THEN.

Nowhere does it say that only transportation units should have multiple crewmembers to be worthwhile. In fact, this whole setup makes transportation units LESS interesting because you provide players with more options to do things on their own and be independent from another driver.

That has always been the main reason people didn't jump into Galaxies or Sunderers. Being able to do things alone.

It's like public transportation vs an own car. A lot of people will by default prefer personal transport, whether this is good for the environment (the game and game play) or not. They need incentives to work together and when you provide these, it can be glorious. But you have to invest in making it work. Putting together some sloppy token option isn't going to make anyone happy and even discourages the idea that teamwork units are viable.

It's a matter of taste, pure and simple, and if there is a way to balance it to have both options, then everybody wins. If there is no way to balance it, I would default to supporting dedicated drivers being mandatory, but I think it's ridiculously narrow minded to think there's no middle ground available, especially when it has already worked for another multi-crew vehicle in the first Planetside.

Name one. Prowler is the main example of why it didn't work, because that third gunner slot was usually not filled and the only reason it did get filled was that the third guy didn't have a better option. The main reason the Prowler was still viable with three crew was that the dual 100mm put out significantly more damage over time than the others, at the cost of higher arc and lacking AA (without switching).

If that third guy was BR40, like everyone in PS2, there's no reason for this person to man the third gun if he can get his own unit. In PS1 you could run out of certifications, you can't in PS2 after all.

If it requires giving dedicated driver certed MBT's a more powerful main gun and more armor, or giving gunner turrets on the current PS2 style MBT's access to ridiculously powerful AV guns, so be it. I really don't think it's going to be that hard to strike a good balance.

There's definitely going to be need for adapting to higher player count.

Unfortunately it can well end up a balancing nightmare, tbh. It would be much better if they just design units for specific manpower uses and then provide an additional support structure for this in game in order to find gunners.

Players who just like driving and gunning alone have no reason to complain for they already have their units. You can completely ignore this group of players (beyond fair balancing obviously) as they've been provided for in their game play. As a group, solists rather than as a given, existing background context (meaning other units to balance fairly with), are absolutely of no interest for this entire debate. They don't need to be catered to further, their part within game play is thoroughly provided and taken into account already with the ATV, all forms of infantry (yes they count as units), the Lightning and aircav. Why should they get to be the exclusive target group for everything designed for participation in direct combat? That doesn't make any sense!

So who should be considered then? Well what SOE did so far and some people here also indicated, was detect a group of players that couldn't find gunners. Again, a small group of players (who I still deem incompetent and at fault for not finding any, but fair enough, they're there). So that SOE noticed is good in and on itself, as apparently there was an issue for some players and they noticed it.

What SOE then did however, was retarded. As usual when SOE performs "fixes" to a game, they completely overreact. Look at their history of changes to core game play and balance patches and notice how they're never capable of striking a good balance, nor capacity for making subtle stepwise changes. No, it's always some sort of see-saw changing. Shades of grey aren't explored at all.


For instance, what they could have done was go out and find new ways to facilitate the searching for (a) gunner(s), stimulate and facilitate good interaction between driver and gunner(s) (even ignoring they already fixed part of this issue by providing quick and easy in game VoiP). Instead, they went and completely removed the need for gunners altogether by removing combattive team work vehicles completely (!). NONE are left aside from the Liberator. The MBT doesn't count right now and the transports are discard on destination units.

Prevention is better than curing? It would be, if it wasn't for the fact they NOW didn't at all consider those players who never had problems and loved the type of interdependent game play. Rather than also improving the game play of these people (with VoiP etc), they completely trashed it and basically told them all to become solists. How the bloody hell is that making good design decisions and catering to all groups? The majority of team players got screwed over royally and then some by this vocal minority of "waaaaah I can't find a gunner, waaaaah, I have to wait a minute because I don't know where I can find potential gunners, waaaah" and SOE responding in typical SOE style.


The compromise of "certing into a dedicated driver" that Higby said was something they might do, simply shows their complete disrespect and disregard for the entire game type and general team vs solo game play balance. If they took it serious, they'd design units and systems specifically for that type of game play, but they don't. They patch up solo vehicles for multi-crew use as a rather panicky response to these threads, hope that's enough to pacify the players by saying "Waitwaitwaitwait wait! See? We did have something for you! We listen to you! Really!" and call it a day. No.

That's not enough. Design specific solutions for the play style that are fair and balanced and not some sort of half arsed token solution where you can still clearly see the last minute stitches and patchwork.

As someone else in this thread said by refering to adding a cavalry mounted role in a game without horses: if you design a game for one type of thing, hot fixing it simply won't provide a workable solution. It has to be an integral part of the design philosophy and not a token solution.

I don't mind if it's not in at start of beta or even at launch, but team work combattive vehicles should be an intrinsic part of the PlanetSide design philosophy and currently it's the little stepchild that gets to mob the floors while the stepsisters go out and have a ball with full support from the parent.

[PredatorFour]

Ive said before, allowing the option of having BOTH `dedicated driver + gunner` or the `driver guns aswell`.. would potentially make the tanks unbalanced. You would get people whining that their specced out tank is useless against a two man tank and i don`t think Matt or the boys would like this going down the route they are going with the game.

[Figment]

Ive said before, allowing the option of having BOTH `dedicated driver + gunner` or the `driver guns aswell`.. would potentially make the tanks unbalanced. You would get people whining that their specced out tank is useless against a two man tank and i don`t think Matt or the boys would like this going down the route they are going with the game.

Worse, they'd be correct, thus it couldn't be done away with as "whining" (even though it will be done away with as whining, "bittervet" or whatever derogatory term people who are okay with the balance since it doesn't negatively affect them will use).

[fod]

Ive said before, allowing the option of having BOTH `dedicated driver + gunner` or the `driver guns aswell`.. would potentially make the tanks unbalanced. You would get people whining that their specced out tank is useless against a two man tank and i don`t think Matt or the boys would like this going down the route they are going with the game.

if a dedicated driver + extra person + (if they implement it) cert points for unlocking separate driver and gunner end up slightly better than a single person in a tank then i think thats perfectly fair because they are paying for it with cert points and the need for an extra person

[CorvicM]

Ive said before, allowing the option of having BOTH `dedicated driver + gunner` or the `driver guns aswell`.. would potentially make the tanks unbalanced. You would get people whining that their specced out tank is useless against a two man tank and i don`t think Matt or the boys would like this going down the route they are going with the game.

Wait so you're saying

1 person > 2 people?

Wheres the logic in that?

If 1 person > 2 people then 2 people > 4 people and half a person/afk person > 1 person???

If so, when we are afk we should get kills ??

[Flaropri]

Wait so you're saying

1 person > 2 people?

No, he's saying that 2 tanks are better than 1 tank even with equal players.

The argument is based on resources (and thus vehicles) being plentiful, so it becomes more valuable to have more of them than to use them more efficiently.

Hell, I disagree with that argument, and I hate how often people misrepresent it.

[fod]

No, he's saying that 2 tanks are better than 1 tank even with equal players.


you sure about that? i think you misread

Ive said before, allowing the option of having BOTH `dedicated driver + gunner` or the `driver guns aswell`.. would potentially make the tanks unbalanced. You would get people whining that their specced out tank is useless against a two man tank

imo if a 2 man tank (2nd man guns main cannon) ends up better then 1 guy in a tank then i think its fair because of the extra certs he has to spend for unlocking the extra person and finding an extra person to roll with

[Flaropri]

you sure about that? i think you misread

Entirely possible, but I believed he was referencing 3-man vs. 2-man tanks. All else being equal, you can field more 2-man tanks than 3-man tanks, thus the 3-man variant is "useless" in the eyes of others while it has the same firepower of the smaller crew. (Again, not that I agree with that argument when considering resources and long-term consequences.)

But I could have misread intent, I may have been reading too many of Figments posts and read his arguments into Predator's post. :D

In general, I agree with the idea that 2 people should do better than 1 on average (again, all else being equal).


Anywho, my apologies if I was mistaken.