Driver/Gunners... NO! [Archive] - PlanetSide Universe

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 03:21 PM

I made this comment in TRG forums, when someone brought it up, and I'm going to repeat it here.

In Arma 2, where you were saddled with AI that could neither drive nor shoot, I often wished you could solo a tank, at least as an option... However, in Planetside, there is no manpower shortage, so there is no reason to do away with multi-crew vehicles.

This is one of the tradeoffs for the increased firepower of the larger vehicles/tanks, requiring more people, more teamwork, and it also results in a more effective (depending on who's in it) tank. Driving AND gunning at the same time is a lot for one person to do, that's why it doesn't exist in hardly ANY context in RL. The only instance I can think of is the KA-50... which notably was dropped in favor of the KA-52, which is TWO man with a dedicated pilot and dedicated gunner.

Having a one man tank results in lots of terrible driving and bad aim, or a stationary/slow moving tank with ok aim. Don't believe me? Log in PS1 and watch the first Lightning driver that goes by :) Especially in the context of tanks, this is just a bad idea. There's plenty of people to go around to fill all slots in a vehicle.

Furret

2012-07-10, 03:23 PM

From what I've seen, the change was made because the player who put cert points into the vehicle only got to drive it around. I think they overreacted, and would've preferred that the tanks be set up like the Magrider, where the drive gets a weak, but effective anti-infantry gun, and the main gunner gets the powerful cannon.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 03:28 PM

@Furret

Ya know, you're right. I hadn't thought about that. I agree a concession of some sort might be more appropriate. However, the flip side of this is, when you cert for the tank, you know you're certing for the DRIVER position basically. If you want to gun, get in somebody else's tank.

A partial compromise, (in addition/besides what you said) since it is YOUR frickin' tank... Share kills made while you're in it.... Nevermind. Now that I think about it, being in a squad you DO share kills, in essence, or experience at least, same thing.

Coax MG for all drivers. He can still participate in fighting. He still needs to focus on his damn driving, and not trying to find stuff for himself to shoot.

SgtExo

2012-07-10, 03:28 PM

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 03:31 PM

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.

This is true. However, why does that necessitate Rambo gameplay? PS is intended to encourage teamplay. Join an outfit, find a gunny.

Also, they're talking about VOIP, so you'd probably be able to more efficiently communicate with the other person in the vehicle, even if they are a random.

-edit

Not saying you're wrong. It's just a discussion. There are always exceptions, and some people may have no trouble with it. It's more from the standpoint of encouraging group play. They're multi-man vehicles...

NumbaOneStunna

2012-07-10, 03:32 PM

If I am not mistaken in Planetside 2 the driver can give control of the main gun to the gunner.

If I am wrong, i guess I wont be tanking.

CorvicM

2012-07-10, 03:36 PM

If I am not mistaken in Planetside 2 the driver can give control of the main gun to the gunner.

If I am wrong, i guess I wont be tanking.

only by certing and thats not 100% guaranteed either

Neurotoxin

2012-07-10, 03:37 PM

I have taken down Prowlers, Vanguards, Magriders, even BFRs, 1v1 with a Lightning. I plan to use the Lightning in PS2.

That being said, the main gun / secondary gun and driver / gunner dynamics definitely need some revision. I like how they are now as one configuration option, but I also want to have configurations where I can have the gunner handle both weapons, or the main gun for the gunner and a less-powerful secondary for the driver.

Maybe more seating configurations too. Magrider 1 or 2 seats (linked forward fire), Vanguard 2 or 3 seats, Prowler 2 3 or 4 seats. That way weapons can be split to gunners, or (for the Magrider) the gunner can be replaced for more powerful forward-firing weaponry.

Don't worry, players will voice their opinions and concerns and desires, and if enough people want changes, they'll make changes. That is part of the point of the NDA on the volatile closed beta period, so people don't spread info about systems that may be getting replaced.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 03:38 PM

If I am not mistaken in Planetside 2 the driver can give control of the main gun to the gunner.

Of that was the case, that would be ok, I think. Being able to solo is one way to compensate for asshats (unfortunately always present online), but if it's optional, that might make it ok.

I have taken down Prowlers, Vanguards, Magriders, even BFRs, 1v1 with a Lightning. I plan to use the Lightning in PS2.

That being said, the main gun / secondary gun and driver / gunner dynamics definitely need some revision. I like how they are now as one configuration option, but I also want to have configurations where I can have the gunner handle both weapons, or the main gun for the gunner and a less-powerful secondary for the driver.

Maybe more seating configurations too. Magrider 1 or 2 seats (linked forward fire), Vanguard 2 or 3 seats, Prowler 2 3 or 4 seats. That way weapons can be split to gunners, or (for the Magrider) the gunner can be replaced for more powerful forward-firing weaponry.

Don't worry, players will voice their opinions and concerns and desires, and if enough people want changes, they'll make changes. That is part of the point of the NDA on the volatile closed beta period, so people don't spread info about systems that may be getting replaced.

That's not a bad idea, actually, and is a nice compromise... If the driver handles everything, then he has limited forward firing arc. That would make sense. Of course, some would prefer the one man full function thing... I just mean, from the standpoint of reasoning out making a multi-crew vehicle one man... this makes sense.

Turdicus

2012-07-10, 03:43 PM

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

Rivenshield

2012-07-10, 03:43 PM

I feel the same... but a week's worth of driving around yelling WE NEED A GUNNER in PS1 has made me much more sympathetic to the driver-as-gunner concept.

Three refinements I'd like to see:

1) Allow the driver to hand off either or both gunner positions to someone else. If all I want to do is drive, navigate, and keep an eye on the battle, I should have that option. (At least allow the Prowler this option. That's consistent with the TR as the professional military guys). That would promote tight-knit teamwork while still allowing the casual half-an-hour-before-I-go-to-bed gamer to have fun blowing things up.

2) Bring back vehicle certs. Allowing everybody to drive everything out of the box, even with a long cooldown timer, just makes me wrinkle my nose. This is a first person SHOOTER -- not a first person drive-in-circles-and-blast-things-er. Make people commit to something instead of handing it to them.

3) For the love of God, bring back the timer bar for entering, exiting, and changing positions in a vehicle. You cannot seriously allow people to insta-bail and start hosing down your position with gunfire. That robs me of my kill and lets my enemy use his vehicle as a launch platform with mondo ablative armor -- a way to close and kill me while remaining ten times tougher.

Also, if we aren't going to get entry/exit animations, I'll settle for a fade-out like we had on the vehicle pad in PS1, with maybe a slight particle effect thrown in. That's immersive enough to suit me.

Bags

2012-07-10, 03:44 PM

As of right now there is no way to be a dedicated driver only. sucks

RSphil

2012-07-10, 03:51 PM

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.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 03:54 PM

The FPS gamers of today? You mean whiney 12 year olds playing CoD? Or grown men who act like whiney 12 year olds playing CoD? No thanks.

twistnlick

2012-07-10, 03:57 PM

1) Allow the driver to hand off either or both gunner positions to someone else. If all I want to do is drive, navigate, and keep an eye on the battle, I should have that option. (At least allow the Prowler this option. That's consistent with the TR as the professional military guys). That would promote tight-knit teamwork while still allowing the casual half-an-hour-before-I-go-to-bed gamer to have fun blowing things up.

Why not make an MBT variant for each empire where the driver drives, and the gunner, you know...focuses on gunning? That way you can have the best of both worlds!

Provide an option for people who want to, you know, engage in TEAMWORK, or maybe even reward TEAMWORK play by providing a small armor or speed bonus, since for a 2-man/3-man tank to be effective, it requires TEAMWORK.

wraithverge

2012-07-10, 04:01 PM

rear armor weakness, vehicle has a single health pool, not a per side health pool. There is currently no advantage to driver and gunner as it would be better to face enemy at all times and slug it out.

Gandhi

2012-07-10, 04:02 PM

I'm still of the opinion that the Lightning tank is the solo vehicle, if you want to gun your own tank pull one of those.

I'll admit that finding a random guy to gun for you in Planetside 1 was never particularly fun, but it was tons of fun to have a squad mate who's on TS gunning for you. What the system needed was built in voice comms and a way to call targets for each other through the ingame UI, so that even two random people meeting on the battlefield could work together effectively. But instead of trying to improve the old system I guess they decided to just get rid of it altogether. It's not a gamebreaking change, people will get used to it, but I still find it disappointing.

Landtank

2012-07-10, 04:05 PM

I like the new solo tank design decision, it requires more skill, is more fun for me atleast, and will allow for larger tank battles. Should be fun!

Pancake

2012-07-10, 04:05 PM

I think the biggest advantage is that people who want to shoot the big gun don't need someone to drive them around. More accessible to the MW3 zergs.

Sephirex

2012-07-10, 04:07 PM

I think the biggest advantage is that people who want to shoot the big gun don't need someone to drive them around. More accessible to the MW3 zergs.

I think you mean BF3 zergs. Modern Warfare players don't even get the pleasure of tanks.

SgtExo

2012-07-10, 04:09 PM

This is true. However, why does that necessitate Rambo gameplay? PS is intended to encourage teamplay. Join an outfit, find a gunny.

Also, they're talking about VOIP, so you'd probably be able to more efficiently communicate with the other person in the vehicle, even if they are a random.

-edit

Not saying you're wrong. It's just a discussion. There are always exceptions, and some people may have no trouble with it. It's more from the standpoint of encouraging group play. They're multi-man vehicles...

For me being able to drive and shoot does not automatically = Rambo. The teamwork i imagine with PS2 is not having 1 person drive and 1 person shoot, its about having 50 ppl driving and shooting at another 50 ppl while there are another 50 ppl in the skies and infantry all around trying to survive.

And i agree that a multi person vehicle will be better because you will have that second turret protecting you from planes and infantry trying C4 you rear (which i always love to do, and that second machine gunner can often make the difference for the tanks survival).

So having teamwork in PS2 should not mean that you have to get a PUG to use vehicles. Because most ppl i know don't own gaming rigs, I have always appreciated games that let you play alone and with teams without punishing you for your decision, and PS2 seems like that game. There will be vehicles that will require multiple ppl to use; Liberator, Galaxy, Sunderers. Some will let you play alone, but be more effective; ES MBT, Lightning. And there will be single player vehicles; Flash, ES planes.

I am also sure that in future patches, there will be more vehicles of every type added. I appreciate what the devs are trying to do here, and with the way the game is distributed, it will be really easy and certain that you will get constant updates to keep the game fresh.

As an idea, they might want to put in a super heavy tank that needs allot of ppl to use because of its size and power.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 04:10 PM

Aberdash

2012-07-10, 04:13 PM

KaB

2012-07-10, 04:16 PM

Synapse

2012-07-10, 04:18 PM

...because when I buy a tank, I am SO looking forward to some WASD driving back and forth on treads action, it gets me so excited to drive around trying to dodge other tanks all day. No way in hell I want to touch the big huge gun mounted on it, no way.:rolleyes:

Single man tanks are the natural default, and it makes total sense in a game that wants to be fun.

I'm all for letting people split tanks later but the defaults are perfect as they are.

MrKWalmsley

2012-07-10, 04:19 PM

@Furret
However, the flip side of this is, when you cert for the tank, you know you're certing for the DRIVER position basically. If you want to gun, get in somebody else's tank.

You are forgetting a pretty simple and obvious solution to this. Build the damn thing, then get out, and let your partner get in, thereby taking the driver seat. Seriously, I cannot see how you did not see this blatant fix which would take only a few seconds.

wasdie

2012-07-10, 04:21 PM

The FPS gamers of today? You mean whiney 12 year olds playing CoD? Or grown men who act like whiney 12 year olds playing CoD? No thanks.

Such a terrible stereotype that is 100% incorrect. Keep believe it though, maybe it will come true.

Face it, Planetside was never that popular of a game. 10-30k people subbed at once max. That's a pretty damn small community compared to the big ones out there. You can't just keep making the game to appeal to that community if you want your game to grow.

Considering that Planetside is one of the very few games out there were a tanker cannot drive and gun at the same time (even the military sims have that), the number of people who would enjoy this feature is going to be limited to the very small amount of people who played Planetside. Even "hardcore" gamers are turned away by such a feature. You just defend it because it's what you know from Planetside.

It's a good change. If you work to cert out a tank you should be able to use the whole thing. Finding a decent gunner can be a completely pain the ass and if you're certed to drive a vehicle effectively, you can't really do anything else without despawning, changing your class, and respawning. Stuff is more focused now.

If you want the game to cater to a small, niche community, then you're basically wanting this now big-budget shooter that SoE put a lot of money into, to die just to keep some status quo of being a hardcore gamer.

Aberdash

2012-07-10, 04:21 PM

It's funny seeing people complain about the "dumb masses" and then complain that driving and shooting at the same time is too hard.

wasdie

2012-07-10, 04:24 PM

Generally speaking, I am against "dumbing things down for the masses". The masses are stupid, thus the term using "dumbing down". Is it gamebreaking? No. Is it disappointing? Yes.

@Exo

That's true. And this is just the first release of a long running game. Other things may be added in on down the road.

By "dumbing down" you mean "changing gameplay design decisions that have gamebreaking problems" then yes, they are dumbing down this game.

Take the nostalgia glasses off for a few minutes and take a good long look at Planetside. The game has a lot of very poor design decisions all built form a different time. It's just one of the reasons the game never got extremely popular. If you want the devs to keep making the game to play JUST how you remember it and for that same audience you deem "hardcore", then you're working against the game actually being successful.

Sirisian

2012-07-10, 04:26 PM

Honestly this discussion has been done to death. If they made the drivers a completely boring role then they should do the same exact thing to aircraft. Aircraft are given both AI guns and AV weapons capable of killing a tank. Can you imagine how much the aircraft people here would bitch if people suggested they need a dedicated gunner to pull the trigger for their missiles?

What the developers did is the best decision for the game. You have teamwork in a tank to balance it by making weaknesses without a secondary gunner. It doesn't force teamwork on players. That's how all the vehicles should be designed. Something players can pull and use, but can also greatly increase their survivability with a secondary player.

That and a vehicle shouldn't be boring. This is an FPS. Players expect to be able to shoot things, not pull a tank to drive it around while someone else gets kills. I get that some players enjoyed the Planetside 1 tanks, but I can assure you most of the time you could have just shot the gun yourself. Especially if you ever used a Magrider which was a long range vehicle. Most boring vehicle to drive for ever since all you did was strafe in the water or stand idle while your driver sniped things.

Soothsayer

2012-07-10, 04:26 PM

Cust -oh-my-zay-shun

Give us the option!

wasdie

2012-07-10, 04:27 PM

This feature is going to kill the teamplay for sure. It comes from Dice's BF who recently destroyed its franchise with its third failed opus.

Im really wondering how SOE dealed with the casual/hardcore balance of the game. I know they need to make money, but if PS2 becomes one other stupid casual game for retarded-gamepad-kids it'll piss me off.

Woah, so DICE has been breaking their game since Battlefield 1942 where you could drive the tanks and gun them?

Also BF3 sold more than any other Battlefield game and has the largest active community of any previous Battlefield game. If you call that destroying a franchise, then I have no idea what the hell you call success.

I'm sorry, but it's comments like yours that make me hate a lot of PC gamers.

Don't bring that mentality in here. The mentality of "games were better before", "this game is dumbed down for the casuals","casual gamers are stupid", "im better than casual gamers because I like hardocre games"... that's all what truly ruins a community. Smugness, arrogance, and elitism.

If this is how a good chunk of this community is going to be, Planetside 2 is in trouble. Nothing sucks worse than a crappy community full of elitiests who think they are better than the "dumb masses".

Plunkies

2012-07-10, 04:28 PM

Separating the driver and gunner is just plain boring. A lot of tanking involves sitting still or edging out of cover, popping off a shot, and then going back into cover while your gun reloads. Imagine doing that for a couple minutes WITHOUT the fun of actually shooting something. It's awful.

When you separate the positions, you've got one guy toodling around in a tank and one guy playing the linear turret game. It's less engaging and requires less thought from both players, not to mention additional effort just to get people to drive/gun for you. It makes it needlessly more complicated for a less fun and less coordinated experience.

Gandhi

2012-07-10, 04:31 PM

RSphil

2012-07-10, 04:32 PM

The FPS gamers of today? You mean whiney 12 year olds playing CoD? Or grown men who act like whiney 12 year olds playing CoD? No thanks.

Yup. Thems the ones. And you can't avoid it. If planet side 2 is to stay alive we will have to accept them in game. But wit maps so big and so many fighters on hopefully they will shut up lol. Tbh I still think it comes down recourses. Which I think Higby has talked about a while back.

MrKWalmsley

2012-07-10, 04:38 PM

It's funny seeing people complain about the "dumb masses" and then complain that driving and shooting at the same time is too hard.

Personally I am against having one man tanks but for a totally different reason. I find being in full control of the tank is too easy, co-ordination is challenging and thus fun. Also, away from my own personal love of a challenge, in terms of actual gameplay mechanics, it encourages lone-wolfing, which is something I really don't want to see much of, and is antithetical to the strong team work the game seems to be built around utilising. If no-one is attacking us in force them it's like swatting flies, and the fight becomes too easy.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 04:40 PM

Has nothing to do with PS1 nostalgia. I've only been playing PS1 for a week. And yes, I personally support making a niche game that caters to a smaller community and that is itself "better quality".

As for my stereotype... Stereotypes come about for a reason. Because 95% of the time they're true. It is the exceptions who prove the rule. And yes, assuming that most the population act like 12 year olds is a valid and understandable line of reasoning, because it's true.

Seriously, stop for five seconds and look at the world around and how whiney and instant-gratification oriented USA society is. Fuck the masses, they are their own worst problem.

Back OT... Wanting multiple crewmen, at least as an option, is not about "not being able to handle it", but about encouraging reliance on one another i.e. teamwork.

There ARE solo vehicles already, the smaller vehicles, the light tank, some of the aircraft (which don't really need multiple crew members since they pretty much fire straight ahead anyway, a second person would be more than a little redundant).

As for disliking the masses and then encouraging reliance on other people. Yes, that is somewhat of contradiction. However, I joined an organised group who are team oriented, therefore that is not such a problem for me. Zerglings or solo people, by their nature, will be less suited to this kind of "work together" sort of thing, although there are exceptions.

It's all preference, regarding the game. And if my way of doing things turns people off, well too bad. I personally would rather have something of good quality, than dumbed down so people coming from even more dumbed down shit can jump right in and feel at home.

As for my views on games being different from "the masses", you bet your ass. My views on morals, ethics, religion, politics, and a number of other things are also noticeably different from the majority. Generally, if something is "mainstream" it's fucked up in some way or other. Games are no different.

Vreki

2012-07-10, 04:43 PM

I feel its a shame that they have let one of Planetsides unique features go.

Its not that I cant drive and gun at the same time, but in games like BF it is less of "tank crew teamwork" and more of "you and that annoying guy who keeps giving away your position with the MG."

Light tanks for solo, MBTs for teams please.

wasdie

2012-07-10, 04:44 PM

Has nothing to do with PS1 nostalgia. I've only been playing PS1 for a week. And yes, I personally support making a niche game that caters to a smaller community and that is itself "better quality".

I think that's all I needed to know. They aren't trying to make a game that caters to a small community. If you want that, go play WWII Online. They've been bending over backwards to their community and the community's vision of "better quality" and it has nearly ruined that game.

MrKWalmsley

2012-07-10, 04:45 PM

Generally, if something is "mainstream" it's fucked up in some way or other.

Wow. Not elitist at all.

Aberdash

2012-07-10, 04:46 PM

Personally I am against having one man tanks but for a totally different reason. I find being in full control of the tank is too easy, co-ordination is challenging and thus fun. Also, away from my own personal love of a challenge, in terms of actual gameplay mechanics, it encourages lone-wolfing, which is something I really don't want to see much of, and is antithetical to the strong team work the game seems to be built around utilising. If no-one is attacking us in force them it's like swatting flies, and the fight becomes too easy.Making things harder just to make things harder is not good design.

Also I don't think you thought out your post very well. If you are lonewolfing you are going to get picked off. The point of the game is to take bases so enemies trickling in is likely to be rare.

Landtank

2012-07-10, 04:47 PM

Wow. Not elitist at all.

Lol agreed, this guy is the original hipster.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 04:47 PM

Yup. Thems the ones. And you can't avoid it. If planet side 2 is to stay alive we will have to accept them in game. But wit maps so big and so many fighters on hopefully they will shut up lol. Tbh I still think it comes down recourses. Which I think Higby has talked about a while back.

Yeah... I know... But I can still complain about it in the meantime :)

KaB

2012-07-10, 04:48 PM

Woah, so DICE has been breaking their game since Battlefield 1942 where you could drive the tanks and gun them?

Also BF3 sold more than any other Battlefield game and has the largest active community of any previous Battlefield game. If you call that destroying a franchise, then I have no idea what the hell you call success.

A successful game is a game that you start many years after its start (considering that you played at lot at its start) and you realize this game is still awesome. In the case that you still find players to play with of course.

What I'm saying is that BF was on a good way to become better. They got vehicles into games with BF1942, then other crazy games went into the fight like ArmA (let's say OpF HD), PS1, later RO1, and Project Reality of BF2. Im not only talking about these games because they have two seats in the tanks, but making a u-turn like in PS2 from PS1 is a terrible mistake. BF3 didnt bring two seats in the tank, but everything else got worse. BC2 became so boring, and this is what's BF3 going to be in few months.

Realism = Evolution.

And how much from you did play PS1 ? Was this feature bad for you ? Why didnt you complain about it already ? You dont really know what you want dont you. You just want a game with big awesome graphics, big guns, big vehicles, end of the story. Smart.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 04:49 PM

Wow. Not elitist at all.

It's not elitist to acknowledge that human society at all levels is screwed up. Turn on the news if you don't believe me.

Soothsayer

2012-07-10, 04:49 PM

Aircav = Lightning
Liberator = MBT

Or did I just blow your mind?

*Golf Clap*

Right on.

If you were in an armour outfit in PS1 you will remember that the synergy created by a good MBT (Main battle tank) crew far outweighed the effectiveness of a pair of Lightning drivers.

Planetside 2 should be able facilitating cool stuff to happen when people get together to accomplish more than they would be able to when working independently. This is a design philosophy that I am putting onto the game.

What use is a dedicated vehicle VOIP channel if all the guy you're talking to has is a crappy little pea shooter. He is a glorified spotter at that point.

Why have a multi-person crewed vehicle if it won't increase your combat effectiveness? Sounds a whole lot like the failed design philosophy of the TR in PS1 which was to increase the number of gunners while decreasing the potency of weapons.

The raider wasn't awesome, the prowler could just as easily have had a weapon toggle for the gunner between the mains and the MG.

If you can't include the option of assigning primary weapons to a dedicated driver you are essentially just adding a passenger seat to the MBT that will serve little to no purpose other having backup for when you get to your destination, get out of the tank and cap that point you drove them to.

Gandhi

2012-07-10, 04:50 PM

I think that's all I needed to know. They aren't trying to make a game that caters to a small community. If you want that, go play WWII Online. They've been bending over backwards to their community and the community's vision of "better quality" and it has nearly ruined that game.
CCP also made a game to cater to a small community and it's subscription base has been growing steadily for the last 10 years. I think they're over 400,000 active subs by now.

MrKWalmsley

2012-07-10, 04:50 PM

Making things harder just to make things harder is not good design.

But making things fun is, and if that means making it harder then that is the route that should be taken. But still, this is just my opinion, I do not think it should be implemented if the majority disagree with it.

Although I could just say the opposite:
Making things easier just to make things easier is not good design.
It's a ridiculous observation of my position.

rhilir

2012-07-10, 04:52 PM

so i think this is a great idea. that means you need more skill really. I love my lightening driving full speed and killing stuff too. It only takes practice really.

Aberdash

2012-07-10, 04:52 PM

But making things fun is, and if that means making it harder then that is the route that should be taken. But still, this is just my opinion, I do not think it should be implemented if the majority disagree with it.

Although I could just say the opposite:
Making things easier just to make things easier is not good design.
It's a ridiculous observation of my position.Making things easier makes it less frustrating and more accessible. The fewer number of times you have to yell at someone to shoot something the better.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 04:56 PM

CCP also made a game to cater to a small community and it's subscription base has been growing steadily for the last 10 years. I think they're over 400,000 active subs by now.

That was the example I was thinking of while writing. And LOTS of people hate Eve because it's so hardass about losing your gear in a world where most people are used to respawning and taking off at a full run again.

It all boils down to what the devs are after and how they view life, in a way. Are the making games cause they hope to "make it big" and each have a Ferrarri and a beach house, or are they making games because they love games and want to make something they can be proud of? I realise the devs need to make a profit, and they have to make concessions in order to make a living.

By all means, I support this. I intend to subcribe to PS2 for the sake of supporting it long term, if nothing else. I like F2P as an option, but if everybody does that, no more games. They NEED money, and I WANT them to have money. But Higby doesn't need a Porsche. Know what I mean?

It's like the difference between having a wife and having a prostitute. And too many people take the prostitute route.

This is all OffTopic, to an extent though. We're talking about tanks, not Higby's delusions of convertibles :)

LordReaver

2012-07-10, 04:57 PM

Sephirex

2012-07-10, 04:57 PM

Soothsayer

2012-07-10, 04:59 PM

Damn people.. It's such a simple solution.

Driver gets control of gun.
Driver has option of letting another player control gun.

Done.. Everybody is happy and problem is solved.

Yeah man, that's all I want.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 05:00 PM

not sure why BF3/CoD needs to be included in the discussion of such.

Mostly mentioned from the standpoint that this is the crowd SOE is trying so hard to draw into their game. As someone pointed out earlier, it is inevitable, unavoidable.... perhaps even necessary (shudder). But I don't have to like it :)

wasdie

2012-07-10, 05:00 PM

A successful game is a game that you start many years after its start (considering that you played at lot at its start) and you realize this game is still awesome. In the case that you still find players to play with of course.

What I'm saying is that BF was on a good way to become better. They got vehicles into games with BF1942, then other crazy games went into the fight like ArmA (let's say OpF HD), PS1, later RO1, and Project Reality of BF2. Im not only talking about these games because they have two seats in the tanks, but making a u-turn like in PS2 from PS1 is a terrible mistake. BF3 didnt bring two seats in the tank, but everything else got worse. BC2 became so boring, and this is what's BF3 going to be in few months.

And how much from you did play PS1 ? Was this feature bad for you ? Why didnt you complain about it already ? You dont really know what you want dont you. You just want big awesome graphics, big guns, big vehicles, end of the story. Smart.

No, what you're saying here is that you like realistic games. You started with games like BF1942 but found that you like games like Red Orchestra and ArmA. I am an avid player of military sims myself, but I am not going to try to mix the two and I can still find plenty of fun in arcade shooters. You should also know that OFP came out before BF1942, so the combined warfare thing didn't start with Battlefield. Tribes also had vehicles that had gunner and drivers spots too, but they were more along the lines of transport vehicles.

I've played enough PS1 to know that the tank mechanics lead to a lot of frustration. As much fun as it can be, it often ended up getting me killed because a gunner couldn't see the target right in front of the tank, nor could he hit it when aiming.

For the rest of your post you're just assuming the kind of games I like. Of which you're completely incorrect on.

The separate driver and gunner game mechanics have a lot core issues when it comes to communication. When a game needs to appeal to a much larger audience than the first, they need to make some changes that will appeal to a broader audience. They have to do this without alienating the original audience or they will end up pissing off both groups, kind of like Red Orchestra 2 did. Here they are making a pretty big change because they've noted the problems with it. They've realized that it won't work well on a larger scale geared to a wider audience. Game mechanics that rely that heavily on direct communication have way more problems to the average players.

KaB

2012-07-10, 05:02 PM

Too much easiness kills the game.
Too much hardness kills the game.
Too much players kills the game.
Too less players kills the game.

We already had enough games to figure that having two seats in tanks like in reality is not too hard, it improves the game and the teamplay and let players having some good times and good meetings (also bad sometimes) etc.

Dloan

2012-07-10, 05:07 PM

It's not elitist to acknowledge that human society at all levels is screwed up. Turn on the news if you don't believe me.

You're absolutely right! A handful of crazy people appearing on the news must be representative of a few hundred million! Talk about dumb masses...

wasdie

2012-07-10, 05:08 PM

CCP also made a game to cater to a small community and it's subscription base has been growing steadily for the last 10 years. I think they're over 400,000 active subs by now.

That is true, but name a game that competes against EVE online... you can't. There is far less competition against EVE. There is the Freelancer series and the X series that are single player versions, but neither of them have the scale or the persistence. All of them rely on AI. The whole draw of EVE is the economy is pretty much 100% player driven and cannot be manipulated and broken easily by exploiting flaws in game mechanics or AI.

The only thing that Planetside 2 really has going for it compared to other FPSs is the scale. This was an issue in 2003 and it's going to be an issue in 2012. The game being F2P is going to help a bit, but there is still far more games on the market competing for a slice. It's harder to keep players interested in a genre that constantly has new games and new competition being released on a yearly basis.

So it's in SOE's best interest to follow the standard conventions and play to its strengths.

As I said before, the ability to have both a driver and a gunner would be a great cert. I just don't want that to be the base gameplay of the MBTs. I would prefer the base gameplay to be a single driver/gunner with the ability to cert for a separate driver gunner.

There are a lot of advantages to having a separate driver and gunner. If you do the certs right, there could be even more.

Even Battlefield 3 has a "cert" for the tank which allows a 3rd player to man a laser sight in the tank. He does nothing else but paints targets. I see people use that all of the time because of the advantage it gives them in battle. PS2 could follow something like that and it would be fine.

SgtExo

2012-07-10, 05:15 PM

I personally found all the new shooters lacking in map design, not in shooting mechanics. Seemed like every part of the maps now are designed to funnel you towards the enemy.

Also, they've gotten boring because no one's pushed the limits recently. Battle's started getting bigger and more exciting starting with Tribes and Battlefield 1942 but now they've completely flat-lined with BF3 and COD.

Very excited about the persistence, map size and player count Planetside is bringing back to the table, this time with more functional mechanics. Couldn't care less if driving/firing requires one seat or two, and not sure why BF3/CoD needs to be included in the discussion of such.

If not for the boring, console centered map design (meaning primarily for infantry), i would have played BF3 for a lot longer. I have never before BF3, primarily played a BF game for its infantry combat (it was always too rigid and awkward, I played COD 1 and 2 for that). Other then its map design, BF3 feels great all around. The first BF was my favorite because it had some almost vehicle maps only, and i never had to work with other ppl in 1 vehicle to be effective, but work alongside other vehicles.

MrKWalmsley

2012-07-10, 05:17 PM

Making things easier makes it less frustrating and more accessible. The fewer number of times you have to yell at someone to shoot something the better.

No, you need to strike a balance. Being too hard frustrates people, being too easy creates boredom. Both are detrimental. In my opinion, having tanks require 2 people to function properly is not making the game frustratingly hard, it's just making it more challenging. I pitty the person who see's "quite easy" as more fun than "quite difficult".

Kayos

2012-07-10, 05:20 PM

If I was driving a tank I would want control of the main gun. It lets you be effective solo if need be as well. I usually will be playing with friends and don't mind the option of handing off control of the main gun if I want but if none of my friends are online and I want to jump in a tank I shouldn't have to wait for someone to mount the main gun just to be effective.

Xyntech

2012-07-10, 05:21 PM

Damn people.. It's such a simple solution.

Driver gets control of gun.
Driver has option of letting another player control gun.

Done.. Everybody is happy and problem is solved.

Do keep in mind, that if only the driver gets the primary gun on the MBT, nobody will ever mount the secondary gun. They will just go get another MBT and have two primary guns.

I still think that a full on sidegrade cert is the way to go, not just a button that releases the main gun to the gunner.

If it's just a release, then you still have the problem of 2 people being required to do the job of 1 person.

The only way to fix it is if the dedicated driver sidegrade also gives a noticeable boost to the vehicles armor.

The way I would handle it would be to call it a Heavy Battle Tank sidegrade. Nerf the speed slightly, buff up the armor (slightly in back, heavily on the front), and give the gunner control of the main gun. Possibly an even beefier main gun than the regular main gun.

At that point, you could even add a third seat for a second gunner to control an optional additional AA or other secondary turret.

The main design goal would be that a skilled dedicated driver and gunner pair would have 50/50 odds against a skilled driver of a normal MBT who had a second crew member controlling a secondary AV weapon, and 50/50 odds against two separate solo MBT's (depending on how well the solo MBT's manage to flank).

But I can absolutely envision an environment where dedicated gunners are not only viable, but desirable in a lot of situations while still coexisting with solo MBT's who would still be perfectly viable options for players who preferred that style.

Gandhi

2012-07-10, 05:23 PM

That is true, but name a game that competes against EVE online... you can't.
Name a game that competes with Planetside 2. There isn't one. You say the only thing it has going for it is scale and persistence, which is exactly what set EVE apart from its competitors. That and the incredibly hardcore, inaccessible gameplay which by all rights shouldn't have caught on at all.

Anyway this is beside the point. I don't want Planetside 2 to be anywhere near as hardcore as that, and I certainly don't want to turn it into a niche milsim. Keep the MBT team based and offer the Lightning as a lone wolf alternative, that's all I'm saying.

And for the record I adore the Lightning in PS1, it's easily my favorite vehicle. I lone wolf in it all the time, but I still love the idea of MBTs needing crews, being more powerful and more threatening because of it.

Kayos

2012-07-10, 05:24 PM

I still think that a full on sidegrade cert is the way to go, not just a button that releases the main gun to the gunner.

If it's just a release, then you still have the problem of 2 people being required to do the job of 1 person.

The only way to fix it is if the dedicated driver sidegrade also gives a noticeable boost to the vehicles armor.

The way I would handle it would be to call it a Heavy Battle Tank sidegrade. Nerf the speed slightly, buff up the armor (slightly in back, heavily on the front), and give the gunner control of the main gun. Possibly an even beefier main gun than the regular main gun.

At that point, you could even add a third seat for a second gunner to control an optional additional AA or other secondary turret.

The main design goal would be that a skilled dedicated driver and gunner pair would have 50/50 odds against a skilled driver of a normal MBT who had a second crew member controlling a secondary AV weapon, and 50/50 odds against two separate solo MBT's (depending on how well the solo MBT's manage to flank).

But I can absolutely envision an environment where dedicated gunners are not only viable, but desirable in a lot of situations while still coexisting with solo MBT's who would still be perfectly viable options for players who preferred that style.

Thats a good idea, I could live with that.

Gandhi

2012-07-10, 05:27 PM

The way I would handle it would be to call it a Heavy Battle Tank sidegrade. Nerf the speed slightly, buff up the armor (slightly in back, heavily on the front), and give the gunner control of the main gun. Possibly an even beefier main gun than the regular main gun.
Well it's a good idea, but isn't this exactly what the difference is between a Lightning and an MBT?

Aberdash

2012-07-10, 05:30 PM

No, you need to strike a balance. Being too hard frustrates people, being too easy creates boredom. Both are detrimental. In my opinion, having tanks require 2 people to function properly is not making the game frustratingly hard, it's just making it more challenging. I pitty the person who see's "quite easy" as more fun than "quite difficult".I'd say when your gunner is trying to shoot a reaver while there is a tank infront of you would be pretty frustrating. Making it require 2 people would pretty much be limiting them to people with mics.

Gonefshn

2012-07-10, 05:31 PM

I don't think it's a question of which is better. It's about player satisfaction. The decision they made makes some sense. People who aren't used to PS1 (most people in PS2 will be these people) will expect to be able to truly utilize their certs for vehicles. They will cert tanks because they want to use them not just drive around a gunner. The decision makes sense because of what people will expect and enjoy as a majority.

I, however feel it is a bit lazy to not allow at least a cert that can allow dedicated drivers or at least switching the main and secondary gun control (ala magrider in PS1).

Lot's of people love and cherish that way of playing. I'd say it's definitely more effective because the main turret gunner can focus all his attention into aiming.

Allow both, honestly they have to do this.

LordReaver

2012-07-10, 05:33 PM

Gandhi

2012-07-10, 05:34 PM

I'd say when your gunner is trying to shoot a reaver while there is a tank infront of you would be pretty frustrating. Making it require 2 people would pretty much be limiting them to people with mics.
Put your cursor over the tank, press E, it's automatically marked on your gunner's HUD as a priority target. There's usually simple solutions to these problems.

Aberdash

2012-07-10, 05:36 PM

Put your cursor over the tank, press E, it's automatically marked on your gunner's HUD as a priority target. There's usually simple solutions to these problems.Pretty sure a lot of people playing wont care what you mark since they obviously know better than you.

edit: Also from experience you have the whole "no angle" thing.

WorldOfForms

2012-07-10, 05:46 PM

Gandhi

2012-07-10, 05:46 PM

Pretty sure a lot of people playing wont care what you mark since they obviously know better than you.
Then find some good people to play with or pull a Lightning. You can't design the game assuming everyone is going to act like an idiot, else we'll end up with nothing but TDM on a massive scale. The only way to "idiot proof" a game is to remove all reliance on other people, everyone plays for themselves. There's plenty of those games on the market already.

MrKWalmsley

2012-07-10, 05:47 PM

I'd say when your gunner is trying to shoot a reaver while there is a tank infront of you would be pretty frustrating. Making it require 2 people would pretty much be limiting them to people with mics.

Well, let's transfer this situation to a single seat vehicle. You're sat there, shooting at a reaver. You cannot see the tank because you are not looking in that direction, you only know after it hits you, whereas before with a separate gunner, you could begin backing off to behind some cover to try and avoid the inevitable incoming fire so your gunner has time to realise.

The second you get hit by a tank shell I'm sure the gunner will turn to see the enemy tank just as quickly as you would if you were in the same position, only with control over the vehicle's movement.

Also, there are quick commands. Having three seater tanks in Project Reality did not make such builds limited to people with mics, it just made it slightly less effective. Plus with the spotter button I'm pretty sure the gunner would react immediately to the icon suddenly popping up on screen as the driver spots the enemy tank. If anything you should be arguing that in this situation having a gunner and driver separate makes it easier because it allows for extra field of view when the gunner is firing at angles off the central axis!

SgtExo

2012-07-10, 05:50 PM

The funny thing is, if they do put in the option for dedicated positions, those tank crews are going to wipe the floor with the default config tanks.

I really hope they put this option in, because if they do, I'll be hopping on VOIP with a friend and going tank hunting. It'll be hilarious when the other drivers end up crashing into trees and rocks while we effortlessly weave through them. Taking advantage of abrupt terrain changes will be great.

Man, they really better implement dedicated driver/gunner.

I don't know with who you play, but i have no problem weaving thru things while shooting ppl at the same time, its true that some ppl wont be able to do both, but i do believe those ppl a just not that good at gaming in general.

Aberdash

2012-07-10, 05:53 PM

We can go back and forth like this all day. I'll just say there are situations where being in complete control gives you an advantage and there will be situations where 2 people would be advantageous. I'd say making it optional is the best solution however if it was one or the other I'd go with 1 person.

Landtank

2012-07-10, 05:54 PM

It's not elitist to acknowledge that human society at all levels is screwed up. Turn on the news if you don't believe me.

Hmmmmmmm, I don't believe you. Society seems to be okay considering.

MrKWalmsley

2012-07-10, 05:55 PM

I don't know with who you play, but i have no problem weaving thru things while shooting ppl at the same time, its true that some ppl wont be able to do both, but i do believe those ppl a just not that good at gaming in general.

I think most of failed weaving would come when you are firing at an enemy who is not directly in front of you. This should be more common with the Lightning since it's not the best idea to take on a MBT head on, and so to circle around it you sort of have to look away from your central axis.

We can go back and forth like this all day. I'll just say there are situations where being in complete control gives you an advantage and there will be situations where 2 people would be advantageous. I'd say making it optional is the best solution however if it was one or the other I'd go with 1 person.

And my preference is with 2 people. 3 technically. But like I said before I don't think it should be mandatory if the majority dislike it.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 05:59 PM

I don't know with who you play, but i have no problem weaving thru things while shooting ppl at the same time, its true that some ppl wont be able to do both, but i do believe those ppl a just not that good at gaming in general.

People who can multi-task are the exception :P

"Then find some good people to play with or pull a Lightning. You can't design the game assuming everyone is going to act like an idiot, else we'll end up with nothing but TDM on a massive scale. The only way to "idiot proof" a game is to remove all reliance on other people, everyone plays for themselves. There's plenty of those games on the market already. "

This.

SixShooter

2012-07-10, 06:00 PM

As a long time lightning fan I'm not at all concerned with the diver/gunner issue. I will of course make sure that I have a good secondary gunner whenever I'm in a Mag. The top gunner can make all the difference in PS2 it seems.

MrKWalmsley

2012-07-10, 06:11 PM

Ah! Thanks for reminding me about a pretty big issue which contradicts my own desires for wanting gunning and driving to be separate and also brings up an interesting question about certs.

The magrider has no turret, so I guess it would be totally unbalanced to allow the TR and NC to have be able to separate those two positions, either way you look at it. Which then brings into question, what cert is unique to the mag which will replace or be the equivalent to the NC and TR position separation cert?

I've heard a lot of people (in fact I have seen a sig about it) putting forward the idea that the mag should actually become a turreted tank, which is something I oppose. There is a reason why the gun is axis fixed, and that is that the mag is so uniquely maneuverable, it had to have something to counterbalance that to make it fair on the battlefield. A tank which has moderate damage, and moderate speed and moderate armour, which can strafe, hover, skim across water and have a fully rotating turret would make the mag the most OP tank on the battlefield by a long shot. The only foreseeable fix for me is to remove strafing and other mobile abilities, or just keep the fixed gun.

Sorry for the rant!

KaB

2012-07-10, 06:15 PM

Having two pairs of eyes will definitely help finding some spots on large maps. Maybe the driver's view could be a sort of camera on the top of the tank which would allow him to zoom in and get a very good view of the field.

Light tanks should have only one seat to easily support infantry on close combat. But Heavy tanks would be used to support infantry from the top of the hill firing some far-distant spots and then should have two seats. Just like in PS1 I'd say...

Traingye

2012-07-10, 06:43 PM

I think teamwork here is an non-issue. The game is designed to have teamwork within an outfit, platoon, or squad, and not just one battle tank. If you are only working as a team within one tank, well then you are doing it wrong.

Also I don't think we should underestimate the importance of the AA turret manned by a gunner. I think with this position empty the tank is going to be a sitting duck to air vehicles.

RadarX

2012-07-10, 06:47 PM

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 06:52 PM

@MrKWalmsey

I don't see why you'd necessarily have to do anything like that. Not everything requires a specific and deliberate "balance" in place. Some things can just be what they are, I would imagine. In the case of the Mag... As you yourself described, the thing that makes the Mag attractive is it's greatly increased maneuverability. It's less affected by rough terrain, it can move side to side with equal ease. It circle strafe, basically.

I don't think the vehicles should all "be the same", necessarily. Differences and variation are just fine. The Mag is good example. Why should it have the same/similar restrictions to it that another tank does? It's very, very different from the others. It is not really a "turreted" tank so much, and there's nothing wrong with that. Hell, there's precedent for it in real life, even. Remember the old WWII turretless tank destroyers? Some of them were even designed for speed and maneuverability over armor.
Different vehicles can have different crew requirements/design philosophies, nothing wrong with that.

I have noticed several people bringing up the point that with the secondary gun being usually a MG, it's highly likely more people will opt to bring a second tank rather than man the gunner position. While being purely a choice on the individuals part, it would imply a tendency toward "tank spam" that gets itself killed by "Reaver spam" (although the Reaver is not the "gunship" anymore)

@RadarX

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

fod

2012-07-10, 06:53 PM

i think this idea of driving and gunning is a stupid idea, i cant see any negatives in having separate driver/gunner at all
all i do in ps1 is drive - its what i find fun and now im starting to rethink if i even want to concentrate on vehicles in ps2 like i did in ps1

imo they should have made MORE people required to drive tanks (3 people to drive a tank would be awesome) not less

Azarga

2012-07-10, 06:54 PM

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 06:57 PM

Dirver/Gunners.... Yes!

This isn't Arma 2. In the Arma series i fully expect this, being a mil sim and all, but this is a fps. A totally different caliber, and mainly i think that devs do this to prevent griefers. Really, who wants a driver in charge of three people to drive off a cliff because he is mad? Now when he was the gun and driver position, he will potentially only waste two lives.

KaB

2012-07-10, 06:59 PM

I believe Matt Higby has addressed this a few times. While the potential for gunners in certain vehicles is a possibility, many vehicles will have the driver as the gunner. This is the design system the dev team has chosen to utilize at this time.

Can we get an idea of what have been the reasons of that decision ? In the case that it doesn't belong to the professional secrecy of SOE of course.

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 07:01 PM

Can we get an idea of what have been the reasons of that decision ? In the case that it doesn't belong to the professional secrecy of SOE of course.

Because a irresponsible driver in charge of three people would waste more resources then being in charge of two people. Simple as that.

fod

2012-07-10, 07:02 PM

I'm all for Driver-gunners.

I drive well. I shoot well. I can efficiently do both at the same time. I buy the tank with my own resources. Why should I allow someone potentially decrease the effectiveness of _my_ tank by manning my tank's main gun and being bad at, well, shooting?

Shooting is basicaly half of the tank's usefulness, amirite? This person have to be very good gunner to rich the driver-gunner efficiency simply because driver-gunner always knows how his tank will move next moment, he doesn't have to react to it, he fully controls it.

Teamwork is great and stuff, but only when it contributes to efficiency, not limits it. Let the secondary gun be powerful enough, that will make a gunner a welcome addition to a unit if he's good, but won't cut unit's effectiveness by half if he's lame.

what if the driver cant shoot well?

I drive well. I buy the tank with my own resources. Why cant I allow someone to potentially increase the effectiveness of _my_ tank by manning my tank's main gun and being good at, well, shooting?

is this not contributing to efficiency?

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 07:03 PM

what if the driver cant shoot well?

I drive well. I buy the tank with my own resources. Why cant I allow someone to potentially increase the effectiveness of _my_ tank by manning my tank's main gun and being good at, well, shooting?

is this not contributing to efficiency?

Because you may drive off somewhere and he will be still focused on a target, then you will get blown to shit because he was still focused somewhere, atleast when you drive you are aware of your surroundings.

Khellendros

2012-07-10, 07:04 PM

I second the motion that the driver should have as many configuration options as possible, such as delegating main guns to driver and whatnot.

I consider this essential.

Sephirex

2012-07-10, 07:05 PM

what if the driver cant shoot well?

I drive well. I buy the tank with my own resources. Why cant I allow someone to potentially increase the effectiveness of _my_ tank by manning my tank's main gun and being good at, well, shooting?

is this not contributing to efficiency?

Agreed, I'm a terrible shot myself!
In fact for the infantry portions of the game, I would love Wii mote support. That way my nephew can work the gun and shoot at enemies, while I concentrate on movement.
I just don't see myself playing this game any other way.

fod

2012-07-10, 07:06 PM

Because you may drive off somewhere and he will be still focused on a target, then you will get blown to shit because he was still focused somewhere, atleast when you drive you are aware of your surroundings.

also he might see a threat that you did not and handle it without you even knowing

it can work both ways

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 07:06 PM

Agreed, I'm a terrible shot myself!
In fact for the infantry portions of the game, I would love Wii mote support. That way my nephew can work the gun and shoot at enemies, while I concentrate on movement.
I just don't see myself playing this game any other way.

:rofl: Thanks for the laugh man.

also he might see a threat that you did not and handle it without you even knowing

it can work both ways

Yeah, and you would still do jack shit. You would still drive off untill its too late.

Furret

2012-07-10, 07:08 PM

You are forgetting a pretty simple and obvious solution to this. Build the damn thing, then get out, and let your partner get in, thereby taking the driver seat. Seriously, I cannot see how you did not see this blatant fix which would take only a few seconds.

Did you even play ps1? You need the cert to drive it, not just to pull it.

Littleman

2012-07-10, 07:08 PM

If it's possible to give the driver the choice to hand off the handling of the main cannon to the "gunner," allowing the option is obviously the answer.

However, if it's not something that can be done without an overhaul of some kind (especially regarding the Magrider,) then sticking with the driver-gunners concept is for the best in my opinion.

fod

2012-07-10, 07:11 PM

Yeah, and you would still do jack shit. You would still drive off untill its too late.

"you would still do jack shit" i dont get this can you explain further?

there has been many MANY times in ps1 when my gunner/gunners have got kills that i did not know about - people behind me while i was concentrating ahead or while trying to escape battle the gunner takes out the tank following me

BorisBlade

2012-07-10, 07:11 PM

Also I don't think we should underestimate the importance of the AA turret manned by a gunner. I think with this position empty the tank is going to be a sitting duck to air vehicles.

No, not true at all. You can instantly magically switch to any seat in the vehicle without gettin out. So if you are driving along and need aa, hit your seat switch button and instantly fire your aa, just as easy as a fire mode switch. There is no real downside to not having a gunner unless your secondary gun is also AV in which case you'd want em both firing at the same time.

Letting drivers gun and letting them do instant magic switching inside the vehicle is just lame and boring. Teamwork comes down to working in vehicles too. Vehicles just turn into overgrown maxes when they are solo. Its simplistic and lame and not epic in the least.

Seeing a bunch of multi crewed tanks coming at you feels epic. When its just a bunch of lame solo tanks, its boring run of the mill and just seems like a bunch of people with an armor buff instead of actual tanks and a real battle.

The game just loses alot of its epic feel when its every man for himself and just a bunch of rambos runnin around with armor buffs rather than real multi crewed tanks.

Plus not having that fun of workin with teammates in a vehicle is lost and that is one of the best ways to keep people playing by giving them fun social experiences. In a game that needs to last more than an initial sell, the social aspect is very important. Just in a squad together is no where near the same as being in the same vehicle, not even close.

CorvicM

2012-07-10, 07:12 PM

I'm all for Driver-gunners.

I drive well. I shoot well. I can efficiently do both at the same time. I buy the tank with my own resources. Why should I allow someone potentially decrease the effectiveness of _my_ tank by manning my tank's main gun and being bad at, well, shooting?

Shooting is basicaly half of the tank's usefulness, amirite? This person have to be very good gunner to rich the driver-gunner efficiency simply because driver-gunner always knows how his tank will move next moment, he doesn't have to react to it, he fully controls it.

Teamwork is great and stuff, but only when it contributes to efficiency, not limits it. Let the secondary gun be powerful enough, that will make a gunner a welcome addition to a unit if he's good, but won't cut unit's effectiveness by half if he's lame.

As a long time lightning fan I'm not at all concerned with the diver/gunner issue. I will of course make sure that I have a good secondary gunner whenever I'm in a Mag. The top gunner can make all the difference in PS2 it seems.

So what im getting here is that you all want to shoot and drive at the same time, that's fine. but then why not remove the lightning as u are just about the same as one just beefier and slightly (if at all) slower.

thats the problem there is no need for the lightning. so u can fit a "gunner" that can have a peashooter. and the point is?

Littleman

2012-07-10, 07:13 PM

Boris, your sig, you'll be waiting a LONG time...

Seat switching has a timer attached to it. Certs reduce the time it takes to switch seats. Same for exiting the vehicle.

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 07:13 PM

"you would still do jack shit" i dont get this can you explain further?

there has been many MANY times in ps1 when my gunner/gunners have got kills that i did not know about - people behind me while i was concentrating ahead or while trying to escape battle the gunner takes out the tank following me

I've played ARMA 2 enough to where the point where i was gunning in the ABRAMS and im like Dude turn this fucking behemoth around theres a fucking tank on our 8 oclock man! Too late, we are dead.

Bruttal

2012-07-10, 07:15 PM

I believe Matt Higby has addressed this a few times. While the potential for gunners in certain vehicles is a possibility, many vehicles will have the driver as the gunner. This is the design system the dev team has chosen to utilize at this time.

I still think the magrider needs a redesign so they can have a poviting turret atop, ID inless they turn incredibly fast then its just a huge sitting duck.

KaB

2012-07-10, 07:16 PM

Because a irresponsible driver in charge of three people would waste more resources then being in charge of two people. Simple as that.

If the driver is the vehicle's buyer, and if he's able to get any passengers he wants out of the vehicle, that would solve your problem. Oh... But SOE already thought about this idea many years ago for PS1.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 07:16 PM

Because a irresponsible driver in charge of three people would waste more resources then being in charge of two people. Simple as that.

Nothing can be idiot proofed, so there's no point in going there with major design decisions. Idiots will be idiots, guaranteed. By that reasoning, the Gal is a bad idea because if the pilot gets pissed off he can he can kill 20+ people in two seconds... Unless they start bailing before he hits ground. That might be comical to see :P

Stew

2012-07-10, 07:17 PM

Not agains those tread are getting silly

Having gunner driver make perfect sens in a video game like this thanks

Azarga

2012-07-10, 07:19 PM

what if the driver cant shoot well?

I drive well. I buy the tank with my own resources. Why cant I allow someone to potentially increase the effectiveness of _my_ tank by manning my tank's main gun and being good at, well, shooting?

is this not contributing to efficiency?

I see your point.

Still the possibility of being dragged down by someone's incompetence worries me much more. I know well what I can do, but I'm not always sure what that-other-guy-in-my-vehicle can. It would not be a problem if I could eject him off gunner's seat and take someone more adequate, but I think that's too much to ask. :)

KaB

2012-07-10, 07:19 PM

Having gunner driver make perfect sens in a video game like this thanks

I'm glad not everyone uses such constructive arguments...

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 07:19 PM

If the driver is the vehicle's buyer, and if he's able to get any passengers he wants out of the vehicle, that would solve your problem. Oh... But SOE already thought about this idea many years ago for PS1.

Doesn't matter, he ends up killing more people then necessary. You're not getting the point of that post.

fod

2012-07-10, 07:20 PM

I've played ARMA 2 enough to where the point where i was gunning in the ABRAMS and im like Dude turn this fucking behemoth around theres a fucking tank on our 8 oclock man! Too late, we are dead.

so?
just because you want to solo and because you never had a good driver does that mean everyone should? why did you not tell your driver where he was? so you want to have solo vehicles because YOU got shot once in a bad situation

with 2 people in a tank you have 4 eyes scanning the area for enemys not 2 so if you did not communicate where the tank was effectively to your driver isnt that YOUR fault?

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 07:21 PM

Doesn't matter, he ends up killing more people then necessary. You're not getting the point of that post.

I would like to refer you to my Gal post.

On other:

What about this stunning concept... If you want to solo, use items/vehicles that are solo oriented, like the Lightning. If you want to use a multicrew vehicle, like a MBT, get some reliable friends.

If the opponents to my argument revolve around "So, dude, I got like this random guy I never saw before to gun (or drive) for me, and he turned out to be a fucking douche!" I can only say... You're doing it wrong. Go make some FRIENDS, who ARE reliable, and then you won't have this problem.

This reminds me of people in Eve complaining about the corporate warfare in Hi-sec thing. You can play 95% of the game, and do not NEED to join a player corporation, but when you do, the rules change slightly and, look, war mechanics come into play! It's an optional thing.

Just because you as a single individual can't do EVERYTHING is not a valid argument for why something shouldn't be included. For some things, you just need more people to do it effectively! If you don't like that... there's plenty of other things, approximately 95% of which do NOT require additional people. It's just a silly thing to argue against.

The arguments for driver/gunner mechanics are valid (asshats and imbeciles, mostly). And yeah, they're pretty damn frustrating. That's why if you want to do certain things where that becomes more influential (like you want to run tanks) you need a circle of reliable people. If you take random idiots, you get what you pay for, in essence. He might rock, he might suck (more likely the second).

-edit

At the end of the day, all arguments for wanting to be able to solo a tank boil down to either complaints about other people being stupid (which is your fault for not making good friends) or wanting to be able to Rambo it and not rely on other people.

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 07:21 PM

fod

2012-07-10, 07:23 PM

I see your point.

Still the possibility of being dragged down by someone's incompetence worries me much more. I know well what I can do, but I'm not always sure what that-other-guy-in-my-vehicle can. It would not be a problem if I could eject him off gunner's seat and take someone more adequate, but I think that's too much to ask. :)

how about the people that like single crew vehicles drive the lighning and the multi crew people have the other tanks

then everyone gets what they want

i can agree with there being a single person tank - i just cant agree that all tanks should work this way
it worked in ps1 and im 99% sure it would work in ps2

KaB

2012-07-10, 07:24 PM

Doesn't matter, he ends up killing more people then necessary. You're not getting the point of that post.

Sorry I really don't understand. With my original idea stolen from PS1, I'm just telling you that the people players should mistrust are the gunners Only.

The driver buys his vehicle using his own ressources, and takes his own responsabilities by choosing who'll be his gunner. That's all.

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 07:24 PM

how about the people that like single crew vehicles drive the lighning and the multi crew people have the other tanks

then everyone gets what they want

i can agree with there being a single person tank - i just cant agree that all tanks should work this way
it worked in ps1 and im 99% sure it would work in ps2

No, because the lightning can't stand up to other vehicles, kind of defeats the purpose.

Azarga

2012-07-10, 07:25 PM

how about the people that like single crew vehicles drive the lighning and the multi crew people have the other tanks

then everyone gets what they want

That would be perfectly fine by me.

Sephirex

2012-07-10, 07:26 PM

No, because the lightning can't stand up to other vehicles, kind of defeats the purpose.

What IS the purpose of the Lightning exactly then?

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 07:27 PM

What IS the purpose of the Lightning exactly then?

Anti infantry and anti light vehicle.

Lightning>sundy bus, light infantry and flash.

Everything else> lightning.

CorvicM

2012-07-10, 07:27 PM

What IS the purpose of the Lightning exactly then?

thats what i said in my post if they want to gun/drive, lightning was for that but now there is no purpose of the lightning

fod

2012-07-10, 07:28 PM

and yet we still get blown to shit sometimes because the driver keeps on rolling instead of actually pulling evasive maneuvers.

sounds like a bad driver or an unlucky situation to me

TONS of times in ps1 i have had gunner save my ass by telling me where a tank/heavy armor was so i could do manouvers and pull out of the battle or the gunner takes out a mosquito or reaver that i did not see while heading back to base for reloads

4 eyes are better than 2

SixShooter

2012-07-10, 07:29 PM

Sephirex

2012-07-10, 07:29 PM

Anti infantry and anti light vehicle.

Lightning>sundy bus, light infantry and flash.

Everything else> lightning.

So why would you ever grab a lightning over a MBT?

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 07:29 PM

sounds like a bad driver or an unlucky situation to me

TONS of times in ps1 i have had gunner save my ass by telling me where a tank/heavy armor was so i could do manouvers and pull out of the battle or the gunner takes out a mosquito or reaver that i did not see while heading back to base for reloads

4 eyes are better than 2

Two eyes are better than four.

So why would you ever grab a lightning over a MBT?

Exactly! Thats why i want to drive and control the gunners position in a MBT.

SgtExo

2012-07-10, 07:30 PM

so?
just because you want to solo and because you never had a good driver does that mean everyone should? why did you not tell your driver where he was? so you want to have solo vehicles because YOU got shot once in a bad situation

with 2 people in a tank you have 4 eyes scanning the area for enemys not 2 so if you did not communicate where the tank was effectively to your driver isnt that YOUR fault?

I would prefer to have that second pair of eyes in another tank that can give me covering fire, that is the kind of team play that makes the game better. Teamwork where you need to waste time to communicate with a driver or gunner so he can move to someplace or shoot the target just makes things more complex and obtuse for no good reason in a fast paced FPS (which is what PS2 will be). And you can have a second turret on the tank for AI and AA weapons and it might support AV weapons also.

But if you really want to have a tank that has more than just 2 positions I would prefer to see a heavy tank appear that would benefit from team play inside the vehicle, but that would also need to be part of a group of vehicles because it would be a big target to small sneaky things and kitting. That would be my solution for the problem, and it would also be great for outfits and large groups.

CorvicM

2012-07-10, 07:30 PM

Anti infantry and anti light vehicle.

Lightning>sundy bus, light infantry and flash.

Everything else> lightning.

u mean MBT>infantry, light vehicles, other main tanks....

so where does the lightning outperform the MBT?

cause OHK infantry, and easily kills light vehicle...

Superbus

2012-07-10, 07:31 PM

CCP also made a game to cater to a small community and it's subscription base has been growing steadily for the last 10 years. I think they're over 400,000 active subs by now.

CCP also killed its hardcore base in the process. As well as made it slightly more forgiving, due to how easy it became to transport goods through space.

fod

2012-07-10, 07:31 PM

No, because the lightning can't stand up to other vehicles, kind of defeats the purpose.

lightning would be able to stand up against other single crew tanks (lighnings) but not multi crew tanks - which is perfectly balanced imo, 2 people in a tank should always beat 1 in a tank (teamwork should win)

i really dont get the point of the lightning if everyone can drive a tank solo - who will actually use one?

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 07:31 PM

u mean MBT>infantry, light vehicles, other main tanks....

so where does the lightning outperform the MBT?

cause OHK infantry, and easily kills light vehicle...

That was what i was saying, please read my post more thoroughly

Traingye

2012-07-10, 07:32 PM

No, not true at all. You can instantly magically switch to any seat in the vehicle without gettin out. So if you are driving along and need aa, hit your seat switch button and instantly fire your aa, just as easy as a fire mode switch. There is no real downside to not having a gunner unless your secondary gun is also AV in which case you'd want em both firing at the same time.

Letting drivers gun and letting them do instant magic switching inside the vehicle is just lame and boring. Teamwork comes down to working in vehicles too. Vehicles just turn into overgrown maxes when they are solo. Its simplistic and lame and not epic in the least.

Seeing a bunch of multi crewed tanks coming at you feels epic. When its just a bunch of lame solo tanks, its boring run of the mill and just seems like a bunch of people with an armor buff instead of actual tanks and a real battle.

The game just loses alot of its epic feel when its every man for himself and just a bunch of rambos runnin around with armor buffs rather than real multi crewed tanks.

Plus not having that fun of workin with teammates in a vehicle is lost and that is one of the best ways to keep people playing by giving them fun social experiences. In a game that needs to last more than an initial sell, the social aspect is very important. Just in a squad together is no where near the same as being in the same vehicle, not even close.

If you are in the middle of no where and just happen to run into an enemy aircraft than I suppose. However, if you are in the middle of a big fight you can't just switch like this, timer or not. You become completely stationary and become even more of a sitting duck. You have no defense against enemy ground attacks now. Tanks can easily drive behind you and kill you quickly.

Why does having the tanks rolling at you being multi-crewed add to the epic-ness? Maybe its just me but seeing a bunch of tanks rolling is going to epic, regardless of how many people are actually in them.

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 07:33 PM

lightning would be able to stand up against other single crew tanks (lighnings) but not multi crew tanks - which is perfectly balanced imo, 2 people in a tank should always beat 1 in a tank (teamwork should win)

i really dont get the point of the lightning if everyone can drive a tank solo - who will actually use one?

Refer to the lightning vs post.

CorvicM

2012-07-10, 07:33 PM

That was what i was saying, please read my post more thoroughly

So you want the removal of the Lightning....

RADARX remove the lightning after all the work cause its useless now k thx.

fod

2012-07-10, 07:34 PM

Two eyes are better than four.

errr wrong

explain how 1 person sees more than 2?

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 07:34 PM

So you want the removal of the Lightning....

RADARX remove the lightning after all the work cause its useless now k thx.

No, i want to be able to control a MBT single handed rather than having to use a lightning to do it. Durp.

errr wrong

explain how 1 person sees more than 2?

Simple, humans have monovision. We see 180 degrees, (or atleast in my case i do) and we simply turn our head to see a spot. Also FOV, we can have a higher FOV than our gunners, thus making them useless. I rather see things with my own eyes.

WorldOfForms

2012-07-10, 07:36 PM

Did everyone forget that the lightning now replaces the skyguard? It has the most powerful vehicle-mounted AA weaponry.

So, yes, it still very much has a role.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 07:38 PM

No, i want to be able to control a MBT single handed rather than having to use a lightning to do it. Durp.

Exactly. You want to be able to Rambo it. There is no real substance to your argument than "because I wanna WIN!". Doing it this way, tanks become extensions of MAX suits. They're just bigger, heavier, louder.

There is already a solo tank. The Lightning. It is effective against most everything except the larger tanks. Again, not everyone needs to be able to do EVERYTHING. The whole concept is flawed. The larger tanks are effective against all the other land vehicles, except they require multiple crewmen.

SgtExo

2012-07-10, 07:38 PM

With the Magrider they would have to completely re-designed it to have it be more like the other MBT's. I'm down for learning how to master it how it is rather than have them take the time to redesign it since it would probably add another six months or so.

Having a turret less hover tank is not a hard thing to learn to use. When I played BF 2142, I would always take the hover tank over the normal one even if it didn't have a turret. Because of its strafing ability, it can use cover more effectively against other tanks and infantry by not having to show its side while going into and out of cover, it can keep its front armor facing the opposition all the time.

CorvicM

2012-07-10, 07:39 PM

Did everyone forget that the lightning now replaces the skyguard? It has the most powerful vehicle-mounted AA weaponry.

So, yes, it still very much has a role.

so then why have it be a tank then. and not dedicated AA?

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 07:39 PM

Simple, humans have monovision. We see 180 degrees, (or atleast in my case i do) and we simply turn our head to see a spot. Also FOV, we can have a higher FOV than our gunners, thus making them useless. I rather see things with my own eyes.

Ok, I'm starting to see what's wrong with you...

#1... Oh fuck it. I'm not even going to bother going into this...

fod

2012-07-10, 07:39 PM

Simple, humans have monovision. We see 180 degrees, (or atleast in my case i do) and we simply turn our head to see a spot. Also FOV, we can have a higher FOV than our gunners, thus making them useless. I rather see things with my own eyes.

simple if we can see 180 degrees then there will be a further 180 degrees that humans CANT see
unless you have eyes on the back of your freakin head

you can turn your head all you like but there will still be a 180 degree blind spot

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 07:40 PM

Exactly. You want to be able to Rambo it. There is no real substance to your argument than "because I wanna WIN!". Doing it this way, tanks become extensions of MAX suits. They're just bigger, heavier, louder.

There is already a solo tank. The Lightning. It is effective against most everything except the larger tanks. Again, not everyone needs to be able to do EVERYTHING. The whole concept is flawed. The larger tanks are effective against all the other land vehicles, except they require multiple crewmen.

"I wana WIN" Is a valid argument in a fps. Fuck, if you want that? Play ARMA like everyone else who want that fix of complexity (like me). But when i want a fps, I expect it to play as a fps.

Sephirex

2012-07-10, 07:40 PM

errr wrong

explain how 1 person sees more than 2?

Kinda makes me think of the Game of Thrones discussion King Robert has about 5 armies being better then one?

He holds up an open hand and wiggles his finger and says "Five".

He then holds up a fist and says "One."

Point was unity is always better then overall numbers.

Don't know if it applies, but still reminded me.

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 07:40 PM

Asisdead

2012-07-10, 07:41 PM

Was trying to read the whole thread but it was moving too fast so i decided to skip ahead to page 9 for my first post. I really think they need to at the very least make it an option for the driver to just drive and the gunner to just gun. Some people talk about people will need to get used to it, or one takes more skill than the other I just dont like that it makes certain things impossible.

Ive been playing planetside since 2004 on and off mainly as VS and with the magrider especially since you have the lowest armor knowing when to dodge and weave can be life or death if you can make the other gunner miss a few of his shots and use your gunners range advantage you can win. This is when i have the most fun tank driving knowing that my clutch driving saved our lives ducking into trees so my gunner can shoot in between cover.

What would I be doing in planetside 2? If i come up on a tank i'll look at it, and shoot it civil war style as we both sit there, or i'll move the tank backwards while aiming at the other tank and shooting while i cant see behind me at all? Will i have to have my gunner be my rear view mirror and call out if theres a tree on vent? I Really hope they think this tank design over or let us have the option to choose since customization has been the name of the game it seems.

Figment

2012-07-10, 07:42 PM

Alright... here we go AGAIN...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of those three arguments appeals to me.

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 07:42 PM

Azarga

2012-07-10, 07:43 PM

simple if we can see 180 degrees then there will be a further 180 degrees that humans CANT see
unless you have eyes on the back of your freakin head

you can turn your head all you like but there will still be a 180 degree blind spot

To achieve that the gunner will have to be turned to direction opposite to movement. Shooting from that position seems very situational to me.

fod

2012-07-10, 07:44 PM

Ever heard of 360 FOV? yeah.

cant have 360 fov in ps2 they have said it will be limited to something like 110 degrees

next.!

(just admit it you are a rambo solo player that wants to do everything himself)

Did everyone forget that the lightning now replaces the skyguard? It has the most powerful vehicle-mounted AA weaponry.

So, yes, it still very much has a role.

mbt's will also have AA weaponry so again there is no need for lightnings if everyone can solo drive a mbt

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 07:45 PM

cant have 360 fov in ps2 they have said it will be limited to something like 110 degrees

next.!

(just admit it you are a rambo solo player that wants to do everything himself)

mbt's will also have AA weaponry so again there is no need for lightnings if everyone can solo drive a mbt

Press v to look behind you. Take battlefield, go in third person, always spot people behind me.

fod

2012-07-10, 07:45 PM

To achieve that the gunner will have to be turned to direction opposite to movement. Shooting from that position seems very situational to me.

happens all the time in ps1

Press v to look behind you. Take battlefield, go in third person, always spot people behind me.

while you are pressing v to look behind you a chopper takes you out from the front because you wasnt looking in that direction :rofl:

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 07:48 PM

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

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

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

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

None of those three arguments appeals to me.

To leave the actual argument behind for a moment as to "which is better", I honestly believe you're spot on with the reasoning behind the change. And really, when you think about wanting to cater to the casual players coming in, this is the most logical reasoning behind it all, and they've very nearly said as much.

As I said previously, I understand the need for money to pay for their livelihood and for the development of future games... But I dislike the "selling out" prostitute mentality so many developers take (not necessarily referring to SOE, just in general).

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 07:48 PM

happens all the time in ps1

while you are pressing v to look behind you a chopper takes you out from the front because you wasnt looking in that direction :rofl:

Yah, because i obviously couldn't see a chopper flying 200 feet in the fucking air. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: Thats why i'm one of the best tankers in battlefield and in Arma.

Raymac

2012-07-10, 07:51 PM

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 07:51 PM

Yah, because i obviously couldn't see a chopper flying 200 feet in the fucking air. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: Thats why i'm one of the best tankers in battlefield and in Arma.

Just because someone makes goofy claims of superiority doesn't mean that it's so, you know... Especially on the internet. You already indicated in your earlier example, that you and your "excellent driver" buddy, are probably not all that hot afterall...

You reasoning on FoV just short of baffles me... In what world do you have 360 view? Especially in a game. I suppose you could put multiple monitors around you, to achieve something similar if a game supports it, but... I really just think you're full of shit.

Xaine

2012-07-10, 07:52 PM

I have taken down Prowlers, Vanguards, Magriders, even BFRs, 1v1 with a Lightning. I plan to use the Lightning in PS2.

Then no offence, but they were some awful tank operators.

fod

2012-07-10, 07:53 PM

Yah, because i obviously couldn't see a chopper flying 200 feet in the fucking air. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: Thats why i'm one of the best tankers in battlefield and in Arma.

good for you :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

i dont care what you say NOBODY can keep there eyes all over the battlefield - 2 people>1

4 eyes > 2

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 07:54 PM

Just because someone makes goofy claims of superiority doesn't mean that it's so, you know... Especially on the internet. You already indicated in your earlier example, that you and your "excellent driver" buddy, are probably not all that hot afterall...

You reasoning on FoV just short of baffles me... In what world do you have 360 view? Especially in a game. I suppose you could put multiple monitors around you, to achieve something similar if a game supports it, but... I really just think you're full of shit.

Arma 2 and battlefield 3 are two different ball parks buddy.

Full of shit? really? Thats how i like to expirence my gaming

Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead - Track IR - PC -1080p - YouTube

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 07:55 PM

This thread again?

OK fine. All this detail bickering is pointless. This is what it comes down to for me. The tank is an ASSAULT vehicle not a TRANSPORT vehicle. It's that simple. Let the pilots of assault vehicles control the main gun. For people that don't see a problem with the old PS1 style, I have 3 letters for you V-N-G. This can be a major problem for people that are not in organized outfits, and the game shouldn't cater to only us. If we learned anything from PS1, it should be that more players = more fun.

And don't even try to say that it removes teamwork because it takes plenty of teamwork to roll an armor column. Period.

So you want to be a taxi driver? Pull a transport, but let the people driving assault vehicles do what they do. Remember, this is a shooter, not a Driving Miss Daisy simulator.

Except it is NOT strictly an FPS. Everybody who keeps saying this is an FPS is at least partially mistaken. An FPS is Doom, Quake, CoD, Gears (kinda, although it's 3rd person). This has FPS elements in it, but all the vehicles and strategy overlay mean it is NOT an FPS. Therefore FPS reasoning is not NECESSARILY the end all.

As for noobs... Yeah, there will be noobs... There always are. And after a few days, they begin shedding their noobness. Why does everything have to cater to noobs at all levels? What's wrong with "Hey, this particular facet of the game, it really works better if you know some people and understand the game"

If something isn't good because it's not NOOB-friendly, then take out sniper rifles, mines, engineering, galaxies, and anything else that's fairly role or skill intensive because the FNG won't know how to do it properly. That's some of the more retarded reasoning I've heard YET.

Asisdead

2012-07-10, 07:56 PM

Press V to look behind you. I imagine a similar system in planetside.

What are you talking about? You cant do this in planetside (Unless im retarded) and I have not seen anything that says you can in the second one. Still doesnt solve the problem would be tapping whichever hotkey they add to make sure im not going to run into anything while driving backwards and shooting when they can just give people the option to do things as they were in planetside 1.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 07:58 PM

Arma 2 and battlefield 3 are two different ball parks buddy.

Full of shit? really? Thats how i like to expirence my gaming

Yes, you're right, they're two very different games. I did not imply otherwise... I implied you are full of shit, and I stand by my statement.

Moving on from you to TrackIR... Yes, TrackIR is awesomesauce.

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 07:59 PM

Yes, you're right, they're two very different games. I did not imply otherwise... I implied you are full of shit, and I stand by my statement.

Moving on from you to TrackIR... Yes, TrackIR is awesomesauce.

And i imply that i am not full of shit.

fod

2012-07-10, 07:59 PM

You already indicated in your earlier example, that you and your "excellent driver" buddy, are probably not all that hot afterall...

You reasoning on FoV just short of baffles me... In what world do you have 360 view? Especially in a game. I suppose you could put multiple monitors around you, to achieve something similar if a game supports it, but... I really just think you're full of shit.

Arma 2 and battlefield 3 are two different ball parks buddy.

Full of shit? really? Thats how i like to expirence my gaming

Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead - Track IR - PC -1080p - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46pig8K6SiQ)

is this your awesome skillz? (lol) :rolleyes: cant see 360fov there - where is this 360fov?

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 08:00 PM

is this your awesome skillz? (lol) :rolleyes: cant see 360fov there - where is this 360fov?

Its called youtube. And that is not me, its an example. For TrackIR you need to kind of have that kind of FOV

Sephirex

2012-07-10, 08:01 PM

And i imply that i am not full of shit.

I know of both a toilet and a 8 year old girl that say otherwise. :rofl:

Sorry, sorry, couldn't resist.

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 08:02 PM

i would only drive a tank that you cannot fire a gun if it is like this

Arma 2: OA | Tank Driver - YouTube

fod

2012-07-10, 08:07 PM

Its called youtube. And that is not me, its an example. For TrackIR you need to kind of have that kind of FOV

so wheres an example of this 360fov you use?

TheDAWinz

2012-07-10, 08:09 PM

so wheres an example of this 360fov you use?

Can't find any examples.

Raymac

2012-07-10, 08:10 PM

Except it is NOT strictly an FPS. Everybody who keeps saying this is an FPS is at least partially mistaken. An FPS is Doom, Quake, CoD, Gears (kinda, although it's 3rd person). This has FPS elements in it, but all the vehicles and strategy overlay mean it is NOT an FPS. Therefore FPS reasoning is not NECESSARILY the end all.

As for noobs... Yeah, there will be noobs... There always are. And after a few days, they begin shedding their noobness. Why does everything have to cater to noobs at all levels? What's wrong with "Hey, this particular facet of the game, it really works better if you know some people and understand the game"

If something isn't good because it's not NOOB-friendly, then take out sniper rifles, mines, engineering, galaxies, and anything else that's fairly role or skill intensive because the FNG won't know how to do it properly. That's some of the more retarded reasoning I've heard YET.

Planetside is absolutely an FPS first and foremost, it's just a very very big FPS, hence the inclusion of transport vehicles.

Also, I'm not talking about "noobs". I'm talking about players that don't have hours at a time to play the game. The players that only have about 20 mins to jump in the game, shoot a few things, and jump out again. Not everyone has 6 hours a day to play. It's not about being "noob-friendly" which isn't a major crime anyways considering the considerable learning curve for survivial in Planetside.

Bobby Shaftoe

2012-07-10, 08:14 PM

The tank is an ASSAULT vehicle not a TRANSPORT vehicle. It's that simple.

For people that don't see a problem with the old PS1 style, I have 3 letters for you V-N-G. This can be a major problem for people that are not in organized outfits, and the game shouldn't cater to only us.

And don't even try to say that it removes teamwork because it takes plenty of teamwork to roll an armor column. Period.

It's funny how wrong you are...

I bet you're in favour of the lobotomising of Infantry 'teamplay' with the creation of the medic class, forcing Infantry to go to someone for heals (aka teamwork), whilst at the same time, letting SOLO players sit in vastly more powerful vehicles and perfom multiple roles within those vehicles, do you not see any inconsistency in this, at all? Also, not only are they in vehicles, if they do lose those vehicles, they can hop out instantly and be on a perfectly even footing with the Infantry they were just fighting. I don't understand how the devs decided to implement medics/engineers, yet didn't seem to think of implementing a separate Driver/Pilot class, there's a pretty big distinction between Infantry and Vehicles no?

Remove the Jetpack from LA and give them a choice of SMGs/PDWs with some vehicle repair kits, voila, Pilot/Driver class. If they lose their vehicle, they can fight on at reduced effectiveness compared to those who CHOSE to fight as Infantry.

As has been mentioned, they've obviously been tailoring gameplay for vehicles to be the norm for PS2 fights (viz. open base courtyards, cap points appearing to be no more than 10 metres from any entrance) and 'encourage' people to spend money on boosters.

Baneblade

2012-07-10, 08:15 PM

I'm split on the driver = gunner thing. While I prefer a synergistic crew, I understand the issues of acquiring PUGs (Pick Up Gunner :lol:). I plan to fully investigate the best way to make use of the Vanguard regardless of whether or not I have to gun it myself while commanding hundreds of members across the battlefield.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 08:18 PM

Planetside is absolutely an FPS first and foremost, it's just a very very big FPS, hence the inclusion of transport vehicles.

Also, I'm not talking about "noobs". I'm talking about players that don't have hours at a time to play the game. The players that only have about 20 mins to jump in the game, shoot a few things, and jump out again. Not everyone has 6 hours a day to play. It's not about being "noob-friendly" which isn't a major crime anyways considering the considerable learning curve for survivial in Planetside.

It has FPS in it, yes. But it is not exclusively an FPS, no, and the vehicles are not just "for transport". I'll agree, at present, PS2 is MORE like an FPS now than PS1 ever was, but if people want to play an FPS, there are lots of them out there. Many of us don't want "CoD with space lasers and tanks"... We want Planetside, or at least the things that made it "it".

I'm not opposed to change. I've already said I'm newish to PS1, and there are things about it I don't like (many of which are fixed in PS2) but there are other things that make it different from the other games (which is why I convinced myself to sub). And I want to keep those things. Catering to the fast paced/CoD bunch, imo, is a mistake. I don't play CoD, because I don't like it. If increasing SOE's revenues means catering to the "larger number", then I would say to them to take a hike and urge SOE to accept a lower profit margin. PS1 couldn't have done too bad, those people didn't look like starving North Koreans and they were able to gather the funs for a sequel which probably cost lots of millions of dollars.

Well, you said VNG, which I assumed meant "very new guy". Related to casual players... That's fine. I don't have a problem with casual players. I am one myself. But I fail to see how much time a person has available has to do with whether or not they should be able to Rambo a battle tank. If you don't have time to go on a lengthy Gal-drop... then don't go on one.

If you just want to get in and blow some shit up, do so. But it's stupid to say "this multi-crew tank needs to be a one manner that way I can jump in it for a few minutes by myself!"

I just mean, it's not a valid stance for argument.

It's funny how wrong you are...

I bet you're in favour of the lobotomising of Infantry 'teamplay' with the creation of the medic class, forcing Infantry to go to someone for heals (aka teamwork), whilst at the same time, letting SOLO players sit in vastly more powerful vehicles and perfom multiple roles within those vehicles, do you not see any inconsistency in this, at all? Also, not only are they in vehicles, if they do lose those vehicles, they can hop out instantly and be on a perfectly even footing with the Infantry they were just fighting. I don't understand how the devs decided to implement medics/engineers, yet didn't seem to think of implementing a separate Driver/Pilot class, there's a pretty big distinction between Infantry and Vehicles no?

Remove the Jetpack from LA and give them a choice of SMGs/PDWs with some vehicle repair kits, voila, Pilot/Driver class. If they lose their vehicle, they can fight on at reduced effectiveness compared to those who CHOSE to fight as Infantry.

As has been mentioned, they've obviously been tailoring gameplay for vehicles to be the norm for PS2 fights (viz. open base courtyards, cap points appearing to be no more than 10 metres from any entrance) and 'encourage' people to spend money on boosters.

They're encouraging zerging and selling skins to more vehicles.

Highwind

2012-07-10, 08:27 PM

I'm pro driver gunning. I will admit that just driving can be a full time job in some cases, that is it supportive in nature, and can be the game play style some desire (losing that "gameplay style" is the only real loss here). On the other hand, driver gunning doesn't mean one man main tanks everywhere, in fact it makes 2 man tanks all the more effective while making one man tanks only foolish rather then worthless like PS1 without a gunner.

Driver gunning also raises the skill cap for what it means to be a fully operational tank by adding to the driver's required actions, which I think is a big plus. Driving and gunning at the same time is hard, but not undo-able and with practice for example not every PS1 lightning driver is a stop and shoot tin can even though the vehicle by design is weak. In the future a tank with a skilled driver/gunner AND secondary gunner team should be just as much if not more of a threat on the battlefield then PS1 tanks because both have room to "out skill / out shoot" their opponents tilting the battle in their favor more predictably then a lesser skilled team, I would hope.

I view "driver gunning" as demanding more of that player, and for me got my attention to the point that I can totally see my self being a prowler driver in my top 5 classes/vehicles cert wise (because you will need to use them all imo) as opposed to none at all and just gunning for someone else adding to the lack of tanks on the field like we see in the aged PS1.

I think added complexity is a good thing, and while it might look like a solo players dream to main gun a battletank (which is a positive too in my mind, like during low pop late night hours you can still run a tank) I think it also benefits any player willing to step up to the challenge of doing both jobs well, while making similar judgement calls as PS1 Drivers in terms of keep your 2nd gunner in range, or making the call to retreat or hold your ground etc.

I can't wait personally.

Raymac

2012-07-10, 08:32 PM

It's funny how wrong you are...

I bet you're in favour of the lobotomising of Infantry 'teamplay' with the creation of the medic class, forcing Infantry to go to someone for heals (aka teamwork), whilst at the same time, letting SOLO players sit in vastly more powerful vehicles and perfom multiple roles within those vehicles, do you not see any inconsistency in this, at all? Also, not only are they in vehicles, if they do lose those vehicles, they can hop out instantly and be on a perfectly even footing with the Infantry they were just fighting. I don't understand how the devs decided to implement medics/engineers, yet didn't seem to think of implementing a separate Driver/Pilot class, there's a pretty big distinction between Infantry and Vehicles no?

Remove the Jetpack from LA and give them a choice of SMGs/PDWs with some vehicle repair kits, voila, Pilot/Driver class. If they lose their vehicle, they can fight on at reduced effectiveness compared to those who CHOSE to fight as Infantry.

As has been mentioned, they've obviously been tailoring gameplay for vehicles to be the norm for PS2 fights (viz. open base courtyards, cap points appearing to be no more than 10 metres from any entrance) and 'encourage' people to spend money on boosters.

What was the name of the Driver/Pilot class in PS1? From what I can remember from playing the other day, you could drive any vehicle in Agile armor. You seem to be saying they are removing something that was never even in PS1.

Now, since you asked, I would prefer it if Heavy Assault couldn't pilot vehicles except for the ATVs, but that's just me.

As for the Vehicle combat vs. Infantry combat, I believe the devs have stated that their goal was to make it about 50/50 which sounds good to me. I grew extremely bored of the same clausterphobic stairwell battles over and over again. (but that is a whole other thread)

If you're trying to argue that having tank drivers control the main gun is part of some vast conspiracy to "'encourage' people to spend money on boosters", that is so out in left field I don't even know how to respond.

Purple

2012-07-10, 08:32 PM

Oranos

2012-07-10, 08:33 PM

This is the one thing I dislike about PS2.

Sitting on Skype and coordinating with a friend to effectively gun a Vanguard was something that made PS1 so great. I got to focus on positioning and calling out enemies for my gunner, while he focused on blowing shit up.

I feel that they are giving 1man too much power by letting him drive an MBT on his own, it was the main reason BFRs were so hated. The argument about needing a gunner for the AA weapon is rubbish, MBTs never needed them before, it's not like you'll be alone, needing support is what PS should be about.

If you want to drive a tank on your own, grab a Lightning. Seeing all those 1/2 tanks driving around on Higbys stream yesterday was depressing.

sylphaen

2012-07-10, 08:35 PM

Over the years, I met my share of bad gunners (but since I was the driver, it never lasted too long). On the other hand, I have also met exceptional gunners and enjoyed great times with them.

You will never share as much with a pick-up gunner than with someone you took time to know better.

Some of you talk about playing an "FPS" experience; what I enjoyed with dedicated drivers was sharing an experience. The fun is a lot more intense when it is shared and by then, winning or K/D is your least worry, it's just a part of the shared experience.

____________________

May come what comes, it does not matter in the end:
Some will play PS2, some will not.
Some will love PS2, some will not.
SOE will have its new customers and if they make mistakes, they will go. Free to play ! Live by the sword, die by the sword !

The sheer ambition of this dev team and PS2 should be applauded !

Now concerning Figment's post, the one-man tanks to boost customization transactions makes a lot of sense, business wise.

In just time, we'll see how things play out.

Raymac

2012-07-10, 08:38 PM

Well, you said VNG, which I assumed meant "very new guy". Related to casual players... That's fine. I don't have a problem with casual players. I am one myself. But I fail to see how much time a person has available has to do with whether or not they should be able to Rambo a battle tank. If you don't have time to go on a lengthy Gal-drop... then don't go on one.

With all due respect, that kind of shows how out of touch you are with one of the root problems of having a tank driver only. V-N-G was the voice macro for "We need a gunner." which you would have to spam for sometimes a very very long time in order to find someone to jump in your tank and gun for you. Sitting around waiting and begging for a gunner is not fun gameplay.

Traingye

2012-07-10, 08:38 PM

As I said previously, I understand the need for money to pay for their livelihood and for the development of future games... But I dislike the "selling out" prostitute mentality so many developers take (not necessarily referring to SOE, just in general).

It's not really selling out or prostituting. SOE is first and foremost a company. As such they only reason they exist is to make money. They sell products and they need to make their products appealing to the most people they can. Every company does this. If you really consider this "selling out" then that's something every company ever does.

Keep in mind here that there is a wide variety of players who will play this game. SOE will never be able to make everyone happy with each design decision they make. They will go with the ones that they think will make the most people happy, because of what I said above.

Also, and this goes more than just you, this is a very complex game. Just because there is one aspect of it you don't like or could be better does not mean the entire game is bad. Try not to dump the entire thing before it's even in beta.

Furber

2012-07-10, 08:40 PM

I know this was discussed to death a while ago, and it seemed as though we had reached a conclusion. In early April I believe, Higby mentioned in an interview that there would (probably) be a cert that allows a tank to have a dedicated driver and a dedicated gunner. However, there hasn't been any follow up on that, and it doesn't seem very apparent that it is in game, or that it is coming. I for one hope that I'm wrong and they are in fact planning on putting that in the game, it would be a great compromise instead of deciding one way or the other.

The argument of "You pay the certs so you should control the main gun" seems a bit flawed. I think it should more accurately be "You pay the certs so you get the choice". If they add in the dedicated cert, this will solve the issue.

sylphaen

2012-07-10, 08:43 PM

"You pay the certs so you get the choice". If they add in the dedicated cert, this will solve the issue.

For greater justice ! :rock:

it was the main reason BFRs were so hated

One big reason they are still bad post nerfs is that they can hold way too much ground alone.

I don't know if you've ever been in a magrider vs. that OP NC BFR canon but since it's impossible to get in range (because the particle canon is so damn powerful), you have to make a detour the size of a SOI to avoid it.

This totally disrupts a vehicle fight: it forces it to become more static and to mix in troops/aircav. Assuming the enemy have an equivalent amount of troops/armor/AA, BFRs (especially the NC AV one) are stalemate machines.

At least, the VS could go over water... Not sure how it feels for the TR (their prowler also has more armor than the mag).

One vehicle should never have such powerful area denial.

Also, and this goes more than just you, this is a very complex game. Just because there is one aspect of it you don't like or could be better does not mean the entire game is bad. Try not to dump the entire thing before it's even in beta.

Very good point to which I agree. I think I'm not the only one who said they might abandon driving ground vehicle to favor soldier/aircav gameplay instead. I tried to play in vehicles in BF2142 but it was boring me to death (the support class on the other hand :brow: ). If I get the same feeling in PS2, you simply won't see me in a ground vehicle as I'll be having fun capturing points !
:p

fod

2012-07-10, 08:45 PM

The argument of "You pay the certs so you should control the main gun" seems a bit flawed. I think it should more accurately be "You pay the certs so you get the choice". If they add in the dedicated cert, this will solve the issue.
^THIS EXACTLY

i dont care if someone wants to solo drive a tank - thats fine, but at least give us people that DONT want to solo drive a tank the choice, i dont mind spending the certs to be able to do this

also how would this work for the mag with its fixed gun?

Littleman

2012-07-10, 08:51 PM

there will be a driver and a gunner when buggys make it into the game right?

Regarding this subject, I'm on the fence, but definitely leaning towards separating the roles.

Driving and gunning for a tank is a cake walk compared to driving and gunning for a buggy. The latter is much faster, lightly armored and survives pretty much on its speed alone. Running into something because you weren't looking where you were driving and coming to a complete stop is a death sentence.

The same could be said for the lightning, which is why I'm on the fence. I can only imagine it being somewhat redundant for the buggy driver to be the main gunner as well when he could just opt for the lightning if he wants to drive and gun a lighter, faster land vehicle.

However, I really would like to drive and gun something as light and quick as a lightning/buggy that was empire specific. But again, redundancy.

The most combat capability a buggy driver might have available to them are simple forward set firing systems and maybe one hell of a grill for running down squishies. Mind you, all through certs. A little twisted metal in Planetside, if you will.

also how would this work for the mag with its fixed gun?

It would only work if the Magrider moved at it's maximum "forward" velocity regardless of where it's front was facing, and the gunner were handed controle over the main body of the tank while the driver focused on simply moving it by simply wanting to go in that direction, while possibly managing the secondary gun as well. The darn thing would handle like infantry would for the driver at this point.

Strangely... that actually still works into the VS model of minimizing their weaknesses/inconveniences, which is part of the point in the fixed forward main cannon - to keep the thickest armor facing the enemy!

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 08:52 PM

With all due respect, that kind of shows how out of touch you are with one of the root problems of having a tank driver only. V-N-G was the voice macro for "We need a gunner." which you would have to spam for sometimes a very very long time in order to find someone to jump in your tank and gun for you. Sitting around waiting and begging for a gunner is not fun gameplay.

Ummm.... No... It doesn't. It means I misunderstood you. My experience with the issue comes from a dozen other games, some of which are "driver/gunner" and some of them are "driver and gunner". Whether it's PS1 or an entirely different game, the base concept is the same.

"It's not really selling out or prostituting. SOE is first and foremost a company. As such they only reason they exist is to make money"

That's almost the definition of the word, dude :) If you're doing something SOLELY for money, that's not a good motivation. I know it's a business, and they have to make money. That's a given. To treat it any other way is just ridiculous. But whenever somebody starts thinking exclusively in "bottom line" terms, it does not end well. I don't want people making games JUST because it's a way to make money. I want them to be making games because they LIKE games.
My earlier comment was "I know SOE devs need a livelihood. They need a house, etc. They do not all need Ferraris and beach houses." The point being, as long as you can turn a profit and be successful, that's a good thing, and is the basis you should judge the endeavour off of. But the goal hopefully should not be "MOAR PEOPLE MEANS MOAR MONEY" cause that just ends in... Well, look at China's economic interaction with the rest of the world.

sylphaen

2012-07-10, 08:52 PM

also how would this work for the mag with its fixed gun?

If they can fix it, they can also turret it ? We are the Vanu, for Vanu's sake ! If the NC can make a MAX out of tincans, we sure as hell could laser weld a tank into shape. :mad:

Khellendros

2012-07-10, 08:52 PM

Sephirex

2012-07-10, 08:56 PM

also how would this work for the mag with its fixed gun?

Gunner gets to unleash the famed Vanu Laser Light Show, dazzling enemies and inspiring allies.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 09:00 PM

also how would this work for the mag with its fixed gun?

Wouldn't have to be anything done to it... Nothing wrong with an altogether different design. The Mag has its own completely different approach to everything, and there's nothing wrong with that necessarily. The whole idea of it is different.

Why is this issue framed as either/or? It should be BOTH.

Let the driver decide how his tank is configured. I mean, damn, PS2 is being touted as having cust-uh-may-zay-tion up the ass, so why suddenly, that's not the case here?

Devs: let the driver choose who guns what. Problem SOLVED.

Cause we like black and white :P

SixShooter

2012-07-10, 09:29 PM

Why is this issue framed as either/or? It should be BOTH.

Let the driver decide how his tank is configured. I mean, damn, PS2 is being touted as having cust-uh-may-zay-tion up the ass, so why suddenly, that's not the case here?

Devs: let the driver choose who guns what. Problem SOLVED.

I totally agree with but most people around here believe that it has be their way or the highway. I've seen this thread many times before and the arguments never change.

**edit**
There seems to be some misunderstanding around here. The only "one man tank" is the Lightning. The Magrider and Vangard are "two man tanks" and will only be 50% effective with only one person. The Prowler is a "three man tank" and as such will only be 33% effective with only one person.

Vexus

2012-07-10, 09:55 PM

I don't know. As a veteran of World of Tanks, I'm failry confident that one person can both pilot and gun a tank effectively in a video game. The two things I want to do in PS2 are to fly the 1 man aircraft (as a pilot and gunner) and operate the 1 man tank (as driver and gunner). Sure, there are other things that will be enjoyable too, but I'd rather interact as one tank in a tank column rather than simply be a driver/pilot.

When I play World of Tanks, I always wish I could join a battle of scale and importance, add in air and infantry assets and storm a meaningful target ... as opposed to a typical World of Tank match. Scale, complexity, enduring wins, constant combat ... yeah that's going to be fun. But I want to drive/pilot AND gun, because it's very fun for me.

If the devs removed the 1 man tanks/aircraft, that would really be a huge letdown to me.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 10:03 PM

We'll see how it works during beta. I'm sure the first couple weeks will be wild spam and craziness as everyone tries everything out (the first couple weeks almost don't count). After that, we'll have an idea what the "pulse" of the program is.

Bobby Shaftoe

2012-07-10, 10:07 PM

What was the name of the Driver/Pilot class in PS1? From what I can remember from playing the other day, you could drive any vehicle in Agile armor. You seem to be saying they are removing something that was never even in PS1.***

Now, since you asked, I would prefer it if Heavy Assault couldn't pilot vehicles except for the ATVs, but that's just me.

As for the Vehicle combat vs. Infantry combat, I believe the devs have stated that their goal was to make it about 50/50 which sounds good to me. I grew extremely bored of the same clausterphobic stairwell battles over and over again. (but that is a whole other thread)

If you're trying to argue that having tank drivers control the main gun is part of some vast conspiracy to "'encourage' people to spend money on boosters", that is so out in left field I don't even know how to respond.

Not my fault you can't see how the game mechanics are being skewed that way.

1: Bases are now very open, most observable control points within splash damage range of most vehicles, infact vehicles can drive 'inside' most structures.
2: Most bases have very little cover from air attacks.
2: Infantry now require (forced) medic 'support'.
3: Most POWERFUL ground vehicles now only need ONE person to be effective, instead of 2 as before.
4: Only MAX class restricted from using vehicles, RExo aka HA was previously heavily restricted.
5: Plethora of 'certs' designed to enhance vehicle survivabilty and self sufficiency, viz auto repair.

All the things I've seen in game point to them making it harder for someone to just go around footzerging should they wish to and far easier to just hop into ANY of the vehicles and just spam spam spam and then hop out and be just as effective as the guy that wants to play as Infantry, whilst having no drawbacks for certing into the vehicle side.

**
No, I'm saying they're not being consistent in making Infantry now REQUIRE teamwork to function effectively, whilst making things even EASIER for Vehicle users. There is no downside to using a vehicle, none what-so-fucking-ever.

It's like they saw the 'super-soldier' problem, redesigned bases to solve that problem (ie corridor spam fests, all control points well inside), then nerfed everything else intrinsic to that actual gameplay, whilst simultaneously giving a bunch of bonuses to vehicle users above and beyond the redesign of bases and make the most powerful of them not even require the annoyance of needing a second person to use them!

Soothsayer

2012-07-10, 10:16 PM

Ok, I'm starting to see what's wrong with you...

#1... Oh fuck it. I'm not even going to bother going into this...

Yeah, I got a new person on my ignore list...

With all due respect, that kind of shows how out of touch you are with one of the root problems of having a tank driver only. V-N-G was the voice macro for "We need a gunner." which you would have to spam for sometimes a very very long time in order to find someone to jump in your tank and gun for you. Sitting around waiting and begging for a gunner is not fun gameplay.

You've got no idea how fun I find a really intense prowler run, if you join the right outfit you don't have trouble finding gunners and you find people who are reliable that play in sync with your style of driving. Why do you expect a person to risk getting into your vehicle without knowing anything about you? It goes both ways with letting randoms into your vehicle and getting into random tanks. There's no limitation on what vehicles you can pull, if I couldn't find a gunner and I wanted to pull a tank I could just as easily pull a prowler that is set up for me to gun. Just toggle a button and you don't have to rely on anybody.

Why is this issue framed as either/or? It should be BOTH.

Let the driver decide how his tank is configured. I mean, damn, PS2 is being touted as having cust-uh-may-zay-tion up the ass, so why suddenly, that's not the case here?

Devs: let the driver choose who guns what. Problem SOLVED.

Yepp, that's about what it comes down do, no reason to have to make a choice other than to allow the choice to be made.

I don't know. As a veteran of World of Tanks, I'm failry confident that one person can both pilot and gun a tank effectively in a video game. The two things I want to do in PS2 are to fly the 1 man aircraft (as a pilot and gunner) and operate the 1 man tank (as driver and gunner). Sure, there are other things that will be enjoyable too, but I'd rather interact as one tank in a tank column rather than simply be a driver/pilot.

When I play World of Tanks, I always wish I could join a battle of scale and importance, add in air and infantry assets and storm a meaningful target ... as opposed to a typical World of Tank match. Scale, complexity, enduring wins, constant combat ... yeah that's going to be fun. But I want to drive/pilot AND gun, because it's very fun for me.

If the devs removed the 1 man tanks/aircraft, that would really be a huge letdown to me.

As it has been said, there are 1 man tanks/aircraft already. If you want a one man tank that is designed to be for 1 person, pull a lighting. If you want a solo airship, pull a reaver/mossie/scythe.

SgtExo

2012-07-10, 10:33 PM

But the lighting isn't really a tank, its a fast response vehicle and has no armor. Just because you don't know anyone or just want to play solo for a while, it should not mean that you cant has some armor.

The MBTs and Lightnings serve 2 different roles, so don't just say that soloers should go with the lightning.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 10:42 PM

The MBTs and Lightnings serve 2 different roles.

That's basically the core of the argument :)

It doesn't matter. I mean, really, short of a mass uprising (and probably not even then), they're going to do whatever the hell they've decided on and we'll just have to make the best of it. Hopefully, everything works out ok and everybody will be happy. If I'm displeased with the game (but still consider it playable) I'll sacrifice a few extra NC and VS on the altar of my rage.

Vanir

2012-07-10, 10:53 PM

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.

GrayWave

2012-07-10, 10:58 PM

i think this idea of driving and gunning is a stupid idea, i cant see any negatives in having separate driver/gunner at all
all i do in ps1 is drive - its what i find fun and now im starting to rethink if i even want to concentrate on vehicles in ps2 like i did in ps1

Here's a thought: perhaps instead of pouting, you can accept that it's not your ideal system and adapt to it anyway? We can't get everything we want, and certainly not in video games.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-10, 11:14 PM

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.

Thanks for the post. That does provide a lot of additional information. I still don't agree with the decision, but it might not be so bad as he described. Although, AGAIN, I don't see why everybody is worried about "how the Mag fits in"... They don't ALL have to be the same. It can be different in some way! He can move sideways and doesn't care about terrain so much, it's not like he's out in the cold.

CorvicM

2012-07-10, 11:14 PM

snip

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 agree with you here that would solve my problems by just letting a third person in the vehicle as a cert which removes your control of the gun.

Soothsayer

2012-07-10, 11:23 PM

i agree with you here that would solve my problems by just letting a third person in the vehicle as a cert which removes your control of the gun.

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

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

Stew

2012-07-10, 11:45 PM

I'm glad not everyone uses such constructive arguments...

I did not try to go to specifics because this all debate have been made over and over and iam kinda sick of the (( please copy and paste planetside 1 or a quit )) ! Its silly and out off sens

Also the secondary gunners in planetside 2 has many options that was NOT in planetside 1 like having AI,AA,AV weapons as secondary gunners these things do not exist in planetside 1 so its a huge improovement also they have allow people to not be compleatly useless in a vanguard if their is no ones to shoot for ya

It will be always better to have a secondary gunners it can be for AA suport or Ai suport or AV suports but it will always be a benefits to run a vanguard with 2 players instead of one

I hope this answer your questions and i can be even more specifics if you want a 3 pages of textes ;)

Raymac

2012-07-11, 12:13 AM

Not my fault you can't see how the game mechanics are being skewed that way.

1: Bases are now very open, most observable control points within splash damage range of most vehicles, infact vehicles can drive 'inside' most structures. There are a TON more structures populating the map now than there were in PS1.
2: Most bases have very little cover from air attacks. Wrong. The walls have ceilings and the bases have buildings scattered all around. They just got rid of the stupid repetative corridors and stairwells.
2: Infantry now require (forced) medic 'support'. I'm glad to see the able-to-carry-everything-1-man-armies disappear. It made the loadout options a false choice. Every grunt carried HA/AV/Med/Eng. I'm glad they are giving us real options now.
3: Most POWERFUL ground vehicles now only need ONE person to be effective, instead of 2 as before. Actually the tanks have 2 seats, so while they CAN be used solo, they will be far more effective with 2. You guys can't keep ignoring the 2nd seat.
4: Only MAX class restricted from using vehicles, RExo aka HA was previously heavily restricted. I'd actually agree with you here that I'd prefer if HA was limited to ATVs.
5: Plethora of 'certs' designed to enhance vehicle survivabilty and self sufficiency, viz auto repair. I thought having a ton of certs and near endless progression was a great addition since they first mentioned it a year ago. The devs know making things too OP will severely damage the game, which is why they state repeatedly that they will limit the power of these sidegrades. Trying to twist that into a negative just sounds silly.

All the things I've seen in game point to them making it harder for someone to just go around footzerging should they wish to and far easier to just hop into ANY of the vehicles and just spam spam spam and then hop out and be just as effective as the guy that wants to play as Infantry, whilst having no drawbacks for certing into the vehicle side. Have you seen the terrain? That can majorly limit vehicles effectiveness, and do so in a natural, non-contrived way. And really? Oh noes, massive vehicle battles? Sorry, that "complaint" doesn't work for me.

**
No, I'm saying they're not being consistent in making Infantry now REQUIRE teamwork to function effectively, whilst making things even EASIER for Vehicle users. There is no downside to using a vehicle, none what-so-fucking-ever. Yes there is a downside. See terrain. Also, Planetside 1 taught us that they did need to make things easier for vehicle users, that's why they added things like the Loadstar

It's like they saw the 'super-soldier' problem, redesigned bases to solve that problem (ie corridor spam fests, all control points well inside), then nerfed everything else intrinsic to that actual gameplay, whilst simultaneously giving a bunch of bonuses to vehicle users above and beyond the redesign of bases and make the most powerful of them not even require the annoyance of needing a second person to use them! Clearly we are viewing the maps, terrain, and bases VASTLY differently. I disagree with your premises so much that I'm just going to leave it at this.

You've got no idea how fun I find a really intense prowler run, if you join the right outfit you don't have trouble finding gunners and you find people who are reliable that play in sync with your style of driving.

Absolutely, people in outfits don't have problems finding gunners. I was talking about the more casual player that will jump in and jump out of the game, and only play for short periods of time. I don't think the game should deny them the ability to effectively play with a fundamental aspect of the game as PS1 did. Basically, I think it makes it considerably more fun for them and they should be allowed to have that fun. We can't forget about them because those players are not here on the forums disecting over a dozen pages of discussion about minor parts of the game. But as players, they will be the very lifeblood of the game. I have been on PS1 when I was one of less than 20 NC online on the entire server. I don't want that to happen to PS2. Let them have fun with the big tanks for goodness sake. It's not like these things are BFRs.

Stardouser

2012-07-11, 12:15 AM

I believe Matt Higby has addressed this a few times. While the potential for gunners in certain vehicles is a possibility, many vehicles will have the driver as the gunner. This is the design system the dev team has chosen to utilize at this time.

Perhaps I have missed something that has been said by Matt Higby recently, but the last thing I remember on this topic is that the possibility existed of a cert that would allow tanks to have a dedicated gunner. Your post has a very tangible tone of finality to it, does this mean that such a cert is no longer being considered?

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-11, 12:22 AM

Perhaps I have missed something that has been said by Matt Higby recently, but the last thing I remember on this topic is that the possibility existed of a cert that would allow tanks to have a dedicated gunner. Your post has a very tangible tone of finality to it, does this mean that such a cert is no longer being considered?

No, it was mentioned in the video posted just a page or so ago. They are strongly considering (if it isn't in already) a cert to allow delegation of roles.

Stardouser

2012-07-11, 12:26 AM

No, it was mentioned in the video posted just a page or so ago. They are strongly considering (if it isn't in already) a cert to allow delegation of roles.

You mean the interview with Hamma? That's over a month old, they could have changed their mind since then.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-11, 12:28 AM

Soothsayer

2012-07-11, 12:32 AM

Absolutely, people in outfits don't have problems finding gunners. I was talking about the more casual player that will jump in and jump out of the game, and only play for short periods of time. I don't think the game should deny them the ability to effectively play with a fundamental aspect of the game as PS1 did. Basically, I think it makes it considerably more fun for them and they should be allowed to have that fun. We can't forget about them because those players are not here on the forums disecting over a dozen pages of discussion about minor parts of the game. But as players, they will be the very lifeblood of the game. I have been on PS1 when I was one of less than 20 NC online on the entire server. I don't want that to happen to PS2. Let them have fun with the big tanks for goodness sake. It's not like these things are BFRs.

But... But.. But... if there is the ability to have it either way (driver is primary gunner or gunner is primary gunner what is the problem there? This is what has been said.

Bobby Shaftoe

2012-07-11, 12:37 AM

1:There are a TON more structures populating the map now than there were in PS1.
Yeah and most of them have small footprints with multiple exits that can just be vehicle spammed
2: Wrong. The walls have ceilings and the bases have buildings scattered all around. They just got rid of the stupid repetative corridors and stairwells. Yes there are fire 'slits' for infantry to shoot out, but you see low ceilings which are perfect for tanks to shoot UP and deal AoE damage anyway. You also have no way to take out air above you
2: I'm glad to see the able-to-carry-everything-1-man-armies disappear. It made the loadout options a false choice. Every grunt carried HA/AV/Med/Eng. I'm glad they are giving us real options now.
Yet you have no problem with someone in a vehicle being able to do everything someone else on foot can, without even having to re-equip?
3: Actually the tanks have 2 seats, so while they CAN be used solo, they will be far more effective with 2. You guys can't keep ignoring the 2nd seat. Yes, the 2nd seat for the SECONDARY WEAPONS, not the fucking PRIMARY WEAPON
4: I'd actually agree with you here that I'd prefer if HA was limited to ATVs.
5: I thought having a ton of certs and near endless progression was a great addition since they first mentioned it a year ago. The devs know making things too OP will severely damage the game, which is why they state repeatedly that they will limit the power of these sidegrades. Trying to twist that into a negative just sounds silly.
It's exactly the same thing as BR40

Have you seen the terrain? That can majorly limit vehicles effectiveness, and do so in a natural, non-contrived way. And really? Oh noes, massive vehicle battles? Sorry, that "complaint" doesn't work for me. Sigh, that's the whole fucking point, there is barely any distinction between outdoor and indoor fights now, you can roll up your tank RIGHT TO A CONSOLE ROOM, hop out and hack it 5 seconds later

Yes there is a downside. See terrain. Also, Planetside 1 taught us that they did need to make things easier for vehicle users, that's why they added things like the Loadstar
The only vehicles that had it hard were the light ones and then MBTs after BFRs, airchavs had airtowers 30 seconds away.

1234

Stardouser

2012-07-11, 12:40 AM

Yeah, but I've not seen anything to indicate it's different now. If we want to start arguing about things that might or might not be just because we haven't heard anything about them since the LAST time we heard about them, we'll REALLY get side tracked :D

-edit

That's Higby, the PS2 project lead, or whatever he's called. Hamma runs the PSU forums.

Yes, I know who they are. This isn't a random neurotic inquiry from nowhere where I think it might have changed, Radarx's comment suggests something has changed and they forget to tell us. His words were rather final sounding.

shadar

2012-07-11, 01:24 AM

[QUOTE=Aberdash;777590]Making things harder just to make things harder is not good design.QUOTE]

lol what do you call dark souls then

Enzo

2012-07-11, 02:28 AM

I always found it annoying in Planetside 1 when I had to find some random stranger to tag along with if I wanted to drive a main tank. As a person who likes to lone-wolf every now and then, I'm happy about this change.

For those that try to compare real life tanks to video games, please don't. WASD isn't nearly as complicated as driving an actual tank and I can drive+gun perfectly fine in games like Battlefield. In fact, I find that having a separate driver and gunner makes it more complicated especially if the players are not communicating over voip. "Gunner, there's a guy with a rocket right in front of us! Gunner! Ahhhhh *BOOM*"

Arkanor

2012-07-11, 02:34 AM

Driving and gunning is easy, I would submit that I'm far more effective driving and gunning than I would be with a secondary gunner, or as a secondary gunner. I know where the tank needs to be, and I know the largest threat and how to shoot/dodge it better than a 2 man team is going to communicate.

Let's also forget the 2nd man doesn't just get a joke gun, given the map size that extra MG can be very effective, or substituted for something like an AA mount, something that tanks would greatly benefit from. 2 man crews will still be effective and preferable to 1, but the snap-reaction speed of not having to go outside one person's brain greatly benefits how the main gun works with the tank hull.

Battlefield series does it (very well I might add), World of Tanks does it. Video game tanks aren't rocket science, they're easy to drive on their own. Unless you're dealing with limited visibility, gearshifts, realistic terrain, or other limitations that do not exist in PS2 there's not much to do as a driver.

Though I would like the idea of a cooldown timer (5-20 sec) preventing you from switching a position, exiting/re-entering a vehicle after you've done that action. This cuts down on the TANK_SHOOT+MANPAT+TANK_SHOOT "free" shot.

fod

2012-07-11, 02:37 AM

Driving and gunning is easy, I would submit that I'm far more effective driving and gunning than I would be with a secondary gunner, or as a secondary gunner. I know where the tank needs to be, and I know the largest threat and how to shoot/dodge it better than a 2 man team is going to communicate.

Battlefield series does it (very well I might add), World of Tanks does it. Video game tanks aren't rocket science, they're easy to drive on their own. Unless you're dealing with limited visibility, gearshifts, realistic terrain, or other limitations that do not exist in PS2 there's not much to do as a driver.

Though I would like the idea of a cooldown timer (5-20 sec) preventing you from switching a position, exiting/re-entering a vehicle after you've done that action. This cuts down on the TANK_SHOOT+MANPAT+TANK_SHOOT "free" shot.

i dont think anyone has said it is hard - we just want the OPTION to have someone gun for us if we want because some of us prefer it this way

Enzo

2012-07-11, 02:42 AM

I'm all for having the option. Then I'll get 2 kills instead of 1 when I blow them up.

KaB

2012-07-11, 03:02 AM

For those who invited us to play ArmA and stop whining because you want to have some fun in a funny game, well I'll invite you to go to play one of the innumerable funny games we already have and leave PS2 the way it should be, that's to mean Unique.

Arkanor

2012-07-11, 03:21 AM

i dont think anyone has said it is hard - we just want the OPTION to have someone gun for us if we want because some of us prefer it this way

Not everyone, some want to force it. I'm fine with having the option to surrender main gun control to a dedicated gunner, I just don't want it forced on me.

Raymac

2012-07-11, 03:54 AM

1234

This is a classic example of seeing things so differently that 2 people will just have to agree to disagree.
-Where you see buildings that are easily spamable, I see terrain where infantry can pop out of nowhere and pepper vehicles with AV, and then disappear just as quickly.
-Where I see cleverly designed walls that provide cover, you see an AOE death trap.
-Where you see a tank that doesn't need to re-equip, I see a tank with limited ammo and an auto repair that only matters when you are out of combat for a very very long time.
-You focus on the word "secondary", and I focus on the word "weapon".
-Where you see a problem with a less clear deliniation between essentially different games of Planetside Outdoors (pre-taking CY) and Planetside Indoors (post-taking CY), I see much more organic and better flowing gameplay.

We've both seen the same footage, and we've both played Planetside, and yet we reach different impressions. I say "impressions" instead of "conclusions" because neither of us have actually played PS2....yet. Maybe I'm using rose colored glasses for PS2, or maybe you're using ones for PS1, or maybe a combination of both.

But... But.. But... if there is the ability to have it either way (driver is primary gunner or gunner is primary gunner what is the problem there? This is what has been said.

Yeah. I've thought that was a great middle ground solution. I've even asked/lobbied Higby about it directly over twitter and his response was essentially "maybe". I think the only problem with it is how to deal with the Magrider without completely redesigning it. I think making the Mag main gun the turret, and giving control of it to the driver along with its ability to strafe, etc. will make it pretty overpowered, but that's just an opinion since I have no data to back that up.

Bobby Shaftoe

2012-07-11, 04:06 AM

I see terrain where infantry can pop out of nowhere and pepper vehicles with AV, and then disappear just as quickly.

Here's the problem, the driver can just hop out and be on an even footing with those Infantry. The best case for Infantry is an even fight, the worst case for any vehicle driver is an even fight.

It's exactly the same scenario from PS1 'super soliders' except it's now, drive a MBT solo, be effective against everything in the field, get to a base, hop out and kill infantry inside, WITHOUT SWAPPING LOADOUTS.

Littleman

2012-07-11, 04:16 AM

Here's the problem, the driver can just hop out and be on an even footing with those Infantry. The best case for Infantry is an even fight, the worst case for any vehicle driver is an even fight.

It's exactly the same scenario from PS1 'super soliders' except it's now, drive a MBT solo, be effective against everything in the field, get to a base, hop out and kill infantry inside, WITHOUT SWAPPING LOADOUTS.

Not quite. I can hop out, but as an HA, I can't heal myself unless the enemy leaves me alone for a while. Hop out as a medic, or any other class really, I'm lacking the direct killing power needed indoors. If one guy can stomp all over the defense, there are bigger problems with the defense than the tank driver jumping out and being solo viable.

Don't act like agile pilots with HA weren't a reality in the first game.

This is going to be a new expectation in PS2: the pilot is the final obstacle to defeating the tank/aircraft. Fortunately, you can A: pull the same stunt and B: one needs to commit a few moments to exiting the craft, as they can't just hit G and immediately they're outside the tank. If they begin evacuating too late, they get barbecued. There are certs to reduce that time requirement however.

Raymac

2012-07-11, 04:17 AM

Here's the problem, the driver can just hop out and be on an even footing with those Infantry. The best case for Infantry is an even fight, the worst case for any vehicle driver is an even fight.

It's exactly the same scenario from PS1 'super soliders' except it's now, drive a MBT solo, be effective against everything in the field, get to a base, hop out and kill infantry inside, WITHOUT SWAPPING LOADOUTS.

You're looking at it in a vacuum though. Your enemy will have vehicles too. Also, the infantry AV weapons are obviously different than they were in PS1. You've got to keep that in mind before you start spouting off about how vehicles can just waddle up to any capture point no problem.

Also, Agile armor is pretty damn effective in PS1, even after the surgile nerf. And unless you can heal and repair your armor yourself (like the PS1 "super soldiers" you refer to) then you are probably going to have a hard time being rambo and clear out bases by yourself.

Basically, you are complaining about a balance issue that hasn't even arisen yet. Now, when you get in beta here soon, you can try out your theory, but until there actually IS a balance problem, you just sound like another Chicken Little to me.

Memeotis

2012-07-11, 04:34 AM

I didn't bother reading through all of the comments, so I don't know if this has already been mentioned. What you're suggesting is indeed possible for both the Vanguard and the Prowler, but one of the trade-offs of a Magrider is that the turret is fixed in place, which means the driver would always control the horizontal aiming.

Regardless I'm not in favor of this idea. Like someone mentioned, this is an assault vehicle, not a transport vehicle. Working together with your gunner will still make you a lot more powerful than if you were to go solo. Teamwork will still be relevant.

Bobby Shaftoe

2012-07-11, 04:36 AM

You just sound like another Chicken Little to me.

It's gonna be fun farming idiots like you in PS2.

It's comedic when I try and point out glaring balance issues and get shouted down for it, great thing is, I'm gonna be the one exploiting them fully, farming grunts/vehicles in a Scythe, bailing on some hapless AA MAX as HA, killing him and moving inside and mowing down the Infantry there.

I might even deign to drive a solo Magrider every once in a while, killing infantry and vehicles, hopping out every so often to kill someone hiding behind a rock formation, hopping back in and carrying on the kill whoring.

Pity really, I'd hoped to be able to footzerg with AV but it's pretty obvious that's not going to be fun or effective.

Oh and btw, you can cert/implant into health regen.

Littleman

2012-07-11, 04:53 AM

It's gonna be fun farming idiots like you in PS2.

It's comedic when I try and point out glaring balance issues and get shouted down for it, great thing is, I'm gonna be the one exploiting them fully, farming grunts/vehicles in a Scythe, bailing on some hapless AA MAX as HA, killing him and moving inside and mowing down the Infantry there.

I might even deign to drive a solo Magrider every once in a while, killing infantry and vehicles, hopping out every so often to kill someone hiding behind a rock formation, hopping back in and carrying on the kill whoring.

Pity really, I'd hoped to be able to footzerg with AV but it's pretty obvious that's not going to be fun or effective.

Oh and btw, you can cert/implant into health regen.

Bark more, please. :rolleyes:

We don't know what implants will be available. As for certs, unless Nanite Mesh Generator is the heal cert, I haven't seen anything that says where HA can speed up their self-heal process. You can bring medkits however, for whatever they're worth.

Ant001

2012-07-11, 05:19 AM

It's a modern fps not 10 yrs old ps1.
Modern fps's allow the driver to shoot and drive carrying one passenger as a secondery gunner. This is not old ps its ps2 and they want to attract many more players than they had in ps1.
They have said many times they want to attract players from bf and cod. These players expect to be able to gun and drive.
I don't like it, but I sure understand it.

Bobby Shaftoe

2012-07-11, 05:21 AM

Bark more, please. :rolleyes:

We don't know what implants will be available. As for certs, unless Nanite Mesh Generator is the heal cert, I haven't seen anything that says where HA can speed up their self-heal process. You can bring medkits however, for whatever they're worth.

Oh a little person, hello.

I'm a BR40, I'm seeing parallels with what's being proposed for PS2 and gameplay/mechanics from PS1 which were major problems, I'm guessing you're not BR40 and so probably don't know what you're talking about.

Have fun getting farmed in PS2, I'd prefer a more balanced approach for PS2 than PS1, since I actually did all that farming/whoring and know that I ruined many a game session for scores of other players simply by being in a mozzie for example. I just want a better game for EVERYONE... not just the kill whores who will exploit every imbalance no matter how small or large.

I mean really... you guys are balking at having the most powerful ground vehicles requiring TWO PEOPLE... in an MMOFPS... to be effective. Not only that, you can choose your favourite indoor class and drive all the way from your spawn point to the target and not rely ON ANYONE ELSE.

You people man, you people. :huh:

Shadowrath

2012-07-11, 05:31 AM

I wish this didn't discourage teamwork :(

MrKWalmsley

2012-07-11, 05:34 AM

@MrKWalmsey

I don't see why you'd necessarily have to do anything like that. Not everything requires a specific and deliberate "balance" in place. Some things can just be what they are, I would imagine. In the case of the Mag... As you yourself described, the thing that makes the Mag attractive is it's greatly increased maneuverability. It's less affected by rough terrain, it can move side to side with equal ease. It circle strafe, basically.

I don't think the vehicles should all "be the same", necessarily. Differences and variation are just fine. The Mag is good example. Why should it have the same/similar restrictions to it that another tank does? It's very, very different from the others. It is not really a "turreted" tank so much, and there's nothing wrong with that. Hell, there's precedent for it in real life, even. Remember the old WWII turretless tank destroyers? Some of them were even designed for speed and maneuverability over armor.
Different vehicles can have different crew requirements/design philosophies, nothing wrong with that.

Did you even read my comment? I was using it as an argument AGAINST putting a turret on top of the mag. And yes there does need to be a deliberate balance, otherwise Vanu will completely dominate battlefield if they have turrets on the mag, that was my argument.

Azren

2012-07-11, 05:34 AM

We had this topic so many times before. I am surprised it didnt get shot down right away.

All you driver/gunner supporters, why are you so insistent on having the MBTs on that setup? If you want a solo vehicle, there are options avaiable already, even in tanks.

What is the point in having two driver/gunner tanks in game? Only one should have this setup while the other should run with dedicated driver.

I think you supporters only want the benefit of greater armor for your solo vehicles... As for the devs, they just want to make the CoD kiddies happy.
I do not buy that bs line that the devs made it this way so you can enjoy the benefits of spending your certs on the vehicle, how does that logic apply to the liberator/sunderer/galaxy?

RodenyC

2012-07-11, 05:35 AM

Promotes lone wolfing.Planetside is not a lone wolf game.Therefore it does not belong.

Bobby Shaftoe

2012-07-11, 05:44 AM

They have said many times they want to attract players from bf and cod.
Thats pretty fucking flimsy when compared to the fact they removed self healing from Infantry, y'know where the BF/CoD players expect health regen.

So they're happy to make them use teamwork as Infantry but they decided having two people for a vehicle is going to be beyond their abilities?

Azren

2012-07-11, 05:51 AM

Thats pretty fucking flimsy when compared to the fact they removed self healing from Infantry, y'know where the BF/CoD players expect health regen.

So they're happy to make them use teamwork as Infantry but they decided having two people for a vehicle is going to be beyond their abilities?

Only for the MBTs, everywhere else it's fine PS1 style. No logic to be found here I am afraid.

XLynxX

2012-07-11, 05:56 AM

Because a irresponsible driver in charge of three people would waste more resources then being in charge of two people. Simple as that.

Did you ever play Planetside? Because if you did, you'd know that rarely ever happened. A driver didn't just drive off cliffs, it was a real dependancy on each other. The driver needed the gunner to get XP, and the gunner needed the driver so he could move. Mixing them will just mean hundreds of tanks and little teamwork.

Superbus

2012-07-11, 05:56 AM

I'm a BR40

You're being shot down, because your arguments hold little value with statements like this.

Its like me saying well I am the second coming of Jesus Christ on a christian forum you all best repent, for my word is the word of god.

Bobby Shaftoe

2012-07-11, 06:11 AM

Its like me saying well I am the second coming of Jesus Christ on a christian forum you all best repent, for my word is the word of god.

Nice non sequitur, since I actually AM BR40. I have gameplay/mechanic experience of 'doing everything at once' in PS1. Do you, of being the second coming of Jesus Christ?

Didn't think so.

It's fine by me if you don't want listen to those with previous experience and have concerns of what the PS2 devs want to implement, you'll just get to learn those lessons the hard way.

Superbus

2012-07-11, 06:26 AM

Nice non sequitur, since I actually AM BR40. I have gameplay/mechanic experience of 'doing everything at once' in PS1. Do you, of being the second coming of Jesus Christ?

Didn't think so.

It's fine by me if you don't want listen to those with previous experience and have concerns of what the PS2 devs want to implement, you'll just get to learn those lessons the hard way.

I have plenty of previous experience to know which game design mechanics I liked and did not like in PS1.

My point was you being BR40 in a 10 year old game holds no merit for this one, as you are making assumptions but have little facts to back up your statements. You just add in things like my experience in a previous game gives me special insight, listen to me!!!! It's fine to be critical, but being br40 in PS1 holds no merit in PS2.

In short, get over yourself.

Bobby Shaftoe

2012-07-11, 06:51 AM

making assumptions but have little facts to back up your statements.

That's odd, I could have sworn they were letting all armour types except MAXs drive/pilot vehicles, not only that, they've designed MBTs (the most powerful ground vehicles) to be effectively used by ONE person.

Just because you don't like me and would rather attack my character than address the thread topic, doesn't change the fact the above 'mechanics' are quite frankly, appalling things to implement in an MMOFPS which is supposed to be about teamwork and allegedly 'tradeoffs' for each role you fill. Viz, 'you want to be Heavy Infantry, ok you'll need medic/engy support to be effective.' Compared to, 'you want to be a vehicle driver... ok you can be that AND Heavy Infantry.'

There is no reason NOT TO BE in a MBT or any vehicle at any point in the game between bases. Infact, you're probably going to be hurting your empire if you're not in a MBT and instead chose to take up a seat (aka teamwork) in a transport because you're not contributing to the fight until you get out of that transport.

PredatorFour

2012-07-11, 07:03 AM

There is no reason NOT TO BE in a MBT or any vehicle at any point in the game between bases.

So true, like i said in another thread its going to be very similiar gameplay to Dust 415 where you get people sitiing in tanks killing lots of things. You have to buy the equipment with rescources/or cash in that game too.

The issue is, they wanted to give the driver the gun because he specced the tank so he `gets to shoot`. So if they give the option of a dedicated gunner its going to unbalance some of the tank fights. This will lead to the single kill whores getting rather upset about being blasted to oblivion by tank crews, getting pissed off with the game and maybe stop playing as much. They have said many times they want this mainstream FPS audience and if its true they have no patience and low attention spans, as has been quoted many times, this could lead to less revenue for SoE.

Don`t get me wrong, i think a 1 man MBT is a terrible idea and fully support me being the driver and having a dedicated gunner.

Shallon

2012-07-11, 07:13 AM

Not agains those tread are getting silly

Having gunner driver make perfect sens in a video game like this thanks

Everyone seems to be forgetting the MMO at the front of this FPS, Driver gunner makes perfect sense in a game like BF where time and teamwork are at a shortage but this game is all about teamwork and social interaction.

I'm scared it's going to take away a lot of the Planetside feel. Yer it will look good 2000 tanks rolling over the hill (which could be done anyway, Lightning!) but I think it will take away some of the emersion when forming up a massive raid.

I think the cert option to allow a second person to gun is a good middle ground, but not perfect. I get worried by MMO's being dumbed down for the COD Kiddies of this world.

Just worried though, wont prejudge just yet :D

sunzen

2012-07-11, 08:04 AM

So, in this matter they gave in to the "I want to be able to do everything by myself at any time" thing thats been going on in many different types of games nowadays. I had rather gone for an option like, light vehicles can be driven and used by yourself with the possibility that a second person could use the gun, whereas the heavy vehicles need at least a second player to be effective. This adds a lot of excitement to the gaming experience.

fvdham

2012-07-11, 10:41 AM

Why would any1 drive a Lightning if they can get a solo MBT ?

Could it be the purchase cost at the vehicle term?
Say if an MBT cost 2.5 times the price of a Lightning?

SgtExo

2012-07-11, 11:43 AM

A Lightning is a fast response vehicle made to be fast and light. The MBTs are heavy tanks made to take punishment and and dish it out. When you say to ppl that want to play a tank alone to go in a lightning, that is not what they want to play, they want to play the big tank with the big gun, not the small one with the auto-canon.

I'm not saying that the Lightning wont be worth playing, I'm saying that they do not fill in the same role and ppl should not be penalized just because nobody they know is online to gun for them, or if they are new and don't even know anyone.

Also when you compare the teamwork in Libs and Gals with the MBTs, that just does not match up. The Liberator is a gunship, it would be really hard to fly and be able to shoot a gun that is not in a fixed position, so it is normal that it needs multiple ppl to make it work and for that, it has a vastly greater damage potential than the tank. Saying that ppl will not use Gals and Sundys just because they could all drive a tank does not take into account that different terrains will limit the effectiveness of massive tank formations. Also allot of ppl will not even want to be in a tank and just prefer infantry combat, and that is where the transports are going to come in, a cost effective way to transport ppl for base captures. I am sure that tanks will not be cost effective for ppl if they just want to get to a fight. First, they are slow and there are fast ways of getting there like the Flash. Second they are big targets and easy to spot for roaming air vehicles. Last but not least, I would not be surprised if they are the priciest ground vehicle.

For the ppl that want a turret on the Mag, I have played the hover tank in BF 2142, and it is turret-less also and it is not a downside, its just a different way of playing. If i could get the hover tank and still be NC, I would take that option in a heartbeat, because hover tanks are just that good.

wasdie

2012-07-11, 11:47 AM

Promotes lone wolfing.Planetside is not a lone wolf game.Therefore it does not belong.

A lone tank won't last long in PS2, and you cannot cap with a tank.

Anybody who thinks this is promoting solo play is blind to the mechanics. Tankers will still need to use a lot of teamwork if they want to be useful. Forcing somebody to find a gunner and then keep up a very constant line of communication is not promoting teamwork, it promotes frustration.

Promoting teamwork is more along the lines of preventing lone wolfers from having any major impact on the battlefield. Considering tanks are easier to kill now and they still cannot camp, an unorganized mess of lone wolf tank drivers won't be any more effective than an unorganized mess of traditional planetside tanks.

It's about the larger picture and the context of tanking. Everybody seems to forget that.

You can also not keep spamming tanks like in PS1, you're stuck to a resource limits and tanks will cost enough to make you want to keep yours alive.

The area in between bases and captureable facilities is going to be largely dominated by vehicles and air anyways. This is going to make transportation even more important than before. Armor and transportation is going to have to work much closer along side infantry if they want to create safe zones for spawning and safe routes to bring up more armor.

The speed of the game has changed too. Everything happens a bit faster than in PS1.

They aren changing this mechanic because they know it's what is expected of shooters today. The entire gameplay is being built around the fact that you can solo all of the vehicles. This isn't like changing Planetside overnight and letting tanks be soloed. Those tanks were balanced for having a seperate driver and gunner and the gameplay was built around that mechanics. It's not the same anymore. They are building different gameplay mechanics for a slightly different audience all while trying to keep the teamwork and scale from Planetside here.

Raymac

2012-07-11, 12:03 PM

It's gonna be fun farming idiots like you in PS2.

It's comedic when I try and point out glaring balance issues and get shouted down for it, great thing is, I'm gonna be the one exploiting them fully, farming grunts/vehicles in a Scythe, bailing on some hapless AA MAX as HA, killing him and moving inside and mowing down the Infantry there.

I might even deign to drive a solo Magrider every once in a while, killing infantry and vehicles, hopping out every so often to kill someone hiding behind a rock formation, hopping back in and carrying on the kill whoring.

Pity really, I'd hoped to be able to footzerg with AV but it's pretty obvious that's not going to be fun or effective.

Oh and btw, you can cert/implant into health regen.

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

PredatorFour

2012-07-11, 12:05 PM

Forcing somebody to find a gunner and then keep up a very constant line of communication is not promoting teamwork, it promotes frustration.

We will be in outfits, our outfit mates will gun for us. We will use TS too. I wouldnt even say its frustrating driving a tank with someone you dont know and typing to each other, its not ideal, but it aint bad.

wasdie

2012-07-11, 12:22 PM

We will be in outfits, our outfit mates will gun for us. We will use TS too. I wouldnt even say its frustrating driving a tank with someone you dont know and typing to each other, its not ideal, but it aint bad.

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

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

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

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

SgtExo

2012-07-11, 12:26 PM

We will be in outfits, our outfit mates will gun for us. We will use TS too. I wouldnt even say its frustrating driving a tank with someone you dont know and typing to each other, its not ideal, but it aint bad.

But the thing is, only a minority of players will be dedicated enough to get into an outfit and get enough practice with the same ppl to be that effective. So that would greatly restrict the options of solo players that want to work with ppl, but not need to do it just for simple things. Anytime you can keep the coms clear of vehicle chatter in combat, the more effectively you can listen to the squad or platoon or outfit leader trying to direct the flow of the battle, instead of having to listen to the gunner or the driver just so they can kill an individual hostile unit. What I'm saying is that teamwork in PS2 should be about fighting a more efficient battles (requesting air support or other mutli-vehicle maneuvers) and not the individual tanks need to coordinate on basic skills.

And if you want, you have a top turret that can concentrate on AI, AA and AV weaponry, so having a second gunner will be better than not having one. But that should not take away the option from soloers. Yes soloers will be able to drive tanks alone, but like Higby said in an interview, if a solo tank comes across a tank with a secondary gunner with an AV spec, the solo tank will be toast.

The part about tank gunners is around the 15 minute mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl3UduQprZ4&list=PL0D3136E74B3F31B7&index=2&feature=plcp (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl3UduQprZ4&list=PL0D3136E74B3F31B7&index=2&feature=plcp)

wasdie

2012-07-11, 12:30 PM

But the thing is, only a minority of players will be dedicated enough to get into an outfit and get enough practice with the same ppl to be that effective.

This is going to be even more apparent with the F2P model. If it was a retail and subscription base, then maybe you would be able to assume outfits, but not with F2P.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-11, 01:40 PM

Did you even read my comment? I was using it as an argument AGAINST putting a turret on top of the mag. And yes there does need to be a deliberate balance, otherwise Vanu will completely dominate battlefield if they have turrets on the mag, that was my argument.

I read your comment, yes, and was commenting on the same thing. You misunderstood.

Furber

2012-07-11, 01:57 PM

I still think they need to make a compromise. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Allow for both styles of tank use, and the most people will be happy. Once again, it shouldn't be "He used the certs, so he gets the main gun", it should be "He used the certs, so he gets the choice".

Zedek

2012-07-11, 02:48 PM

As for my stereotype... Stereotypes come about for a reason. Because 95% of the time they're true. It is the exceptions who prove the rule. And yes, assuming that most the population act like 12 year olds is a valid and understandable line of reasoning, because it's true.

It's true and valid because it's true and valid. Piss poor reasoning. Actually, you are confusing a small but VOCAL minority for the majority. Also, 98% of statistics are made up on the spot...

It's all preference, regarding the game. And if my way of doing things turns people off, well too bad. I personally would rather have something of good quality, than dumbed down so people coming from even more dumbed down shit can jump right in and feel at home.

Alright, then if other's ways of doing things turn you off, well too bad. There, your opinion has been dismissed and it's too bad for you.

Dumbed down... someone already addressed this in a previous post and pretty much knocked your statement out of the water. So you're either ignoring it or you missed it... but either way, you're going to have to substantiate how the game is being dumbed down. Having the driver able to shoot the cannon is dumbing it down? Yeah, I don't see it. I also don't see how it kills teamwork. You really NEED a gunner to keep aircraft off you, and that doesn't eliminate the need for teamwork between multiple tanks in a fight... it just frees up a person for another tank.

Generally, if something is "mainstream" it's fucked up in some way or other. Games are no different.

I wasn't going to respond to the last paragraph until I got to this... gem, of insight. It's just flat out a wrong, baseless assumption. A "stereotype" that you've made for yourself that encourages making decisions about a "mainstream" thing before you even check it out for yourself.

I actually very much doubt you believe that, because quite frankly, it's a dumb, unreasonable, demonstrably false position to have.

Then again... I guess the masses are unreasonable. So much for your elitist talk.