Vehicle Combat Feedback

[Figment]

@Hamma's vid, starting 4:30.

Did I see correctly that the *stationary* Lightning took out your *stationary* full health Prowler in 2.5 salvos of 4 or 5 shots to the side and the Lightning itself started to smoke heavily after just one double shot salvo? Meaning making someone miss or catching off guard makes you equal to a MBT and if it had been two or three solo tanks you'd have died in one salvo? Meaning that even if you had had an AV gunner (while you're probably going to bring an AA gunner), after one salvo you might have killed one of two or three, but by then they'd have already killed you with the LIGHTEST, CHEAPEST tanks?

And how was that on par with what we've seen in more recently taped footage? The same... And with so many guns to change after they've painstackingly tried to balance them through alpha... Yeah right.

:crapper:

Goodbye TankGunnerSide teamvehicles, hello TankSoloSide AV MBTs + AA Lightning teams (as predicted...). No need for gunners if you're just going to get torn apart. :tear:

Goodbye DynamicCombat, hello StaticCombat. Without gunners, combat is going to be stationary every time tanks encounter enemies so they can line up a nice shot without hitting rocks or getting stuck and become pretty easy targets (as predicted...). :tear:


Oh well, I'm sure there's going to be people who think that's absolutely more awesome than DynamicCombat with more challenging opponents and being rewarded for playing together.

Oh wait, threads and threads of people who never consider what we've seen in footage "real" and it'll all work out as we will see for ourselves in beta, because we can't count shots or make observations from hours and hours of footage showing just how squishy multi-crew vehicles are in relation to solo vehicles, because they are balanced AS solo vehicles... :rolleyes::ugh:

Hate being right all the time.


Anyway. Bio Dome looks interesting, am curious though, how are you going to spawn near that to fight over it? I saw one barracks inside the dome, how many more can we expect there to be per dome or direct vicinity of domes?

Hamma, you said small units could go after the various little outposts and hold those. Aside from a spawnpoint (and being capturable by the first hot dropper that lands behind you on the roof), what's the benefit of holding a single outpost?

I also presume only the dark green spawnpoints can be used as you said they were going to clean that up? If someone starts a mission in the vicinity of one of the other spawnpoints, will those points become available if you accept that mission?

Something else I noticed in this footage and a lot of other footage: friendlies are continuously targeted as they are very hard to identify leading to lots of TKing (no proper IFF-markers).

Personally feel there's a few too many other (capture point) markers that distract continuously. At least they draw my attention when you swirl around instead of any movement from troops (which are often pretty hard to see and identify anyway). Hope you can turn off those capture point markers and only show their directions on the map rather than on screen. For the record, people in PS1 already complain about the blue squad experience waypoint or if someone placed or left a waypoint very close to a base. So they won't really want to see many markers, just the ones they're interested in (so some sort of quick interactive toggle to activate markers on the left side of the screen where all the capture points are highlighted would be nice).

Also couldn't half hear what the guy in the teaser had to say due to the background noise overwhelming his speech. Otherwise, bit incoherent due to having been cut presumably, but mostly hard to make out the empires, but decent enough.

[Aurmanite]

The lightning was hitting him in the weak rear armor.

He was taking AV fire from a VS heavy assault as well.

[Raymac]

Well guys, Figment has all the gameplay completely figured out already. Looks like none of us have to play. Shut it down.

[Aurmanite]

So far we've seen mediocre (no offense Hamma!) drivers.

Wait until I get on the mafucka.

[Figment]

The lightning was hitting him in the weak rear armor.

Only the last salvo hit him in the rear. He had already turned largely sideways to face the Magrider when he first took damage, while the first and second salvo did pretty much equal damage.

He was taking AV fire from a VS heavy assault as well.

No he wasn't, he hit a rock and damaged himself (unless that VS heavy is also a TR called Hamma). If a VS heavy had hit him it'd have showed up in the post mortem as having damaged him more severely.

As you can see, he drove over it and it never fired a shot at him.

@Raymac: go troll somewhere else.

[Aurmanite]

Only the last salvo hit him in the rear. He had already turned largely sideways to face the Magrider when he first took damage, while the first and second salvo did pretty much equal damage.



No he wasn't, he hit a rock and damaged himself (unless that VS heavy is also a TR called Hamma). If a VS heavy had hit him it'd have showed up in the post mortem as having damaged him more severely.

As you can see, he drove over it and it never fired a shot at him.

@Raymac: go troll somewhere else.

There's 2 sources of VS damage on the death screen.
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

[Figment]

So far we've seen mediocre (no offense Hamma!) drivers.

Wait until I get on the mafucka.

Mediocre drivers set the standard for general combat, because most people simply are mediocre. Around 80% of players is incapable of proper dynamic combat in a solo vehicle, which is clearly visible in World of Tanks from players with over a year of playtime still being utterly incompetent at it (and easy prey for above average and skilled players).

So all in all, combat level will go down and will be less dynamic, yes. See ANY World of Tank footage for confirmation of what a low TTK and static combat does to tank combat. :/

You'll get some basic circling maneuvres when used in teams and they'll go statically sit behind an enemy instead of in front of 'm, but that's about it. I'm simply being realistic here, if you don't like my realism, just keep on the pink goggles, works perfectly from that perspective.

There's 2 sources of VS damage on the death screen.
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Where's that heavy you were talking about? I see two lightnings (BR3 and 5).

[Aurmanite]

Mediocre drivers set the standard for general combat, because most people simply are mediocre. Around 80% of players is incapable of proper dynamic combat in a solo vehicle, which is clearly visible in World of Tanks from players with over a year of playtime still being utterly incompetent at it (and easy prey for above average and skilled players).

So all in all, combat level will go down and will be less dynamic, yes. See ANY World of Tank footage for confirmation of what a low TTK and static combat does to tank combat. :/

You'll get some basic circling maneuvres when used in teams and they'll go statically sit behind an enemy instead of in front of 'm, but that's about it. I'm simply being realistic here, if you don't like my realism, just keep on the pink goggles, works perfectly from that perspective.

Thank god the mediocre masses have you to speak up for them.

[Figment]

Thank god the mediocre masses have you to speak up for them.

Got a WoT account?

[Aurmanite]

Got a WoT account?

What the fuck are you talking about exactly?

Stick to one subject. You're worse than a woman.

[Figment]

What the fuck are you talking about exactly?

Stick to one subject. You're worse than a woman.

I just want to see some of your awesome tank stats from World of Tanks and compare your single player tanking skills, is all.

[Aurmanite]

I just want to see some of your awesome tank stats from World of Tanks and compare your single player tanking skills, is all.

World of tanks has exactly diddly-fucking-squat to do with Planetside 2.

[MrBloodworth]

Get a room. Aurmanite, stop white knighting.

[Figment]

World of tanks has exactly diddly-fucking-squat to do with Planetside 2.

No it doesn't:

Tank vs tank balance based on single player tanks in far more variants than PS2, differences in hitpoints, rotation speed, speed, layout, profile, variety of guns and most importantly: directional damage mitigation.

So it's an absolutely quick and easy comparison to compare two players regarding their combat efficiency in single player tanks.

As I'm well above average in WoT, I'd like to see how average you are while making personal attacks.

[noxious]

Mediocre drivers set the standard for general combat, because most people simply are mediocre. Around 80% of players is incapable of proper dynamic combat in a solo vehicle, which is clearly visible in World of Tanks from players with over a year of playtime still being utterly incompetent at it (and easy prey for above average and skilled players).

So all in all, combat level will go down and will be less dynamic, yes. See ANY World of Tank footage for confirmation of what a low TTK and static combat does to tank combat. :/

You'll get some basic circling maneuvres when used in teams and they'll go statically sit behind an enemy instead of in front of 'm, but that's about it. I'm simply being realistic here, if you don't like my realism, just keep on the pink goggles, works perfectly from that perspective.



Where's that heavy you were talking about? I see two lightnings (BR3 and 5).
WoT is not a fair analogy because the mechanics are designed to make the game slow. EG, you have the huge cone of fire when moving and you have to stop to actually hit anything. Have you ever actually played WoT? I finally tried it a few weeks ago and didn't like it expressly because of the odd mechanics.

Battlefield 3 is a much more legitimate comparison and the tank combat there is quite good. It's also much more similar to what we've seen of PlanetSide 2.

[SgtExo]

Stop using WoT as a benchmark.

And ppl dont move to shoot in WoT because your aim goes to shit while on the move, so stick to talking about how cool the new footage is and not about your anti driver/gunner feelings please.

[SgtExo]

WoT is not a fair analogy because the mechanics are designed to make the game slow. EG, you have the huge cone of fire when moving and you have to stop to actually hit anything. Have you ever actually played WoT? I finally tried it a few weeks ago and didn't like it expressly because of the odd mechanics.

Battlefield 3 is a much more legitimate comparison and the tank combat there is quite good. It's also much more similar to what we've seen of PlanetSide 2.

The cone of fire in that game represents the level of aiming technology that those tanks have, because they could not really be precise while moving, but this is a game that is set in the future and the computers let you be super precise while stile on the move.

[Aurmanite]

Get a room. Aurmanite, stop white knighting.

You should know the definition of the internet terms you use before you use them.

There's been dozens of games with single player tanks before World of Tanks. Planetside was one of them.

WoT plays absolutely nothing like what we've seen in Planetside 2.

[MrBloodworth]

No, you are a white knight. Its ok though, its just annoying when people are trying to have a discussion.

Please stop trolling, you add nothing to any conversation but personal attacks.


Also, WoT is a rather great tank game, and is a decent benchmark, just not the only one.

World of Tanks Gameplay - YouTube

[Aurmanite]

No, you are a white knight. Its ok though, its just annoying when people are trying to have a discussion.

Please stop trolling, you add nothing to any conversation but personal attacks.


Also, WoT is a rather great tank game, and is a decent benchmark, just not the only one.


What did this post add to the discussion aside from you calling me a troll (personal attack) and posting a WoT video?

Two lightnings blew up a Prowler that was stuck in a corner with a gunner that wasn't aware of his surroundings. Clearly this is all the evidence we need that Solotankside will be...terrible?

[Solidblock]

This was a very nice topic until people started flaming. Could we have a mod sort this out?

[Figment]

WoT is not a fair analogy because the mechanics are designed to make the game slow. EG, you have the huge cone of fire when moving and you have to stop to actually hit anything.

The mechanics are all in all promoting static gameplay, as long as you don't know how to work together with your allies to use your momentum. And that's particularly true if you use heavies, TDs and artillery because they provide less tools to be dynamic in the first place. Particularly if you go for Russian units.

It's absolutely NOT true if you're talking about scout and medium combat (particularly above tier 5 French and German tanks), which is positively the same as basic PS Lightning combat. With the exception that aiming is actually easier.

CoF is bad, true, but the hitrate only goes down by about 10% (for me at higher tiers at least, it's around 60-69% for my high tier meds, down to 55-65% with low tier meds). And I do tend to be very mobile while driving, because at those tiers you can't stand still while facing a Maus or other Tier 10. If you'd get hit, you lose 40-80% of your hitpoints in one shot.

Have you ever actually played WoT? I finally tried it a few weeks ago and didn't like it expressly because of the odd mechanics.

Well, then it looks like I got over 10.000 more battles in it than you so sorry if I don't take your word for it as you can't have experienced more than the lower tiers. Sorry, but if you haven't gotten past tier 5 and experienced the higher tier mediums (tier 8-9 mediums) you've really got nothing to add here about accuracy on the move because indeed at the lower tiers accuracy is abysmal for all units except TDs and a few artillery units.

Battlefield 3 is a much more legitimate comparison and the tank combat there is quite good. It's also much more similar to what we've seen of PlanetSide 2.

BF3 can be a decent comparison, but I won't compare to it since I don't play that very often and besides, its tanks don't have competition from other vehicles and thus little to do with balancing different types of tank combat with one another.

Stop using WoT as a benchmark.

And ppl dont move to shoot in WoT because your aim goes to shit while on the move.

It generally does in comparison to static, yes. Your point? You were saying PS2 drivers sofar been accurate?

[SgtExo]

It generally does in comparison to static, yes. Your point? You were saying PS2 drivers sofar been accurate?

I'm saying we have not really seen large scale tank combat between skilled opponents yet.

[Raymac]

It generally does in comparison to static, yes. Your point? You were saying PS2 drivers sofar been accurate?

It sounds like the devs' goal is to make it less static than PS1, quickening the pace of the game.

I can respect that you are an expert and a big fan of WoT, but of all the gameplay reviews we've heard so far, I can't say that I've heard anyone compare it to WoT. To me, that kind of diminishes the importance of that comparison.

Essentially, you are making some pretty broad conclusions that are at odds with the stated goals of the devs. So either, you are far more intelligent than the entire dev staff combined because you are able to make conclusions over fractional views of the gameplay instead of the constant work the devs do, OR you are being a bit of a Sheldon Cooper and are so convinced you can never be incorrect that your perceptions just reinforce your prejudged conclusions.

But I'm just a fanboi lemming, so what do I know? I'll just enjoy the game in ignorant bliss.

[ThGlump]

It sounds like the devs' goal is to make it less static than PS1, quickening the pace of the game.

Less static in a way that you kill faster and will be killed faster, shortening long tank battles over that area. But that same vulnerability, will discourage tanks to drive inside through enemy lines driving wildly like in PS1. They wont survive if it take 10s to kill them (even if you want to retreat you expose vulnerable back), and without driver its much harder to pull off. So tanks will probably stay more in a back, shooting from distance - thats static tank play.
We didnt see any larger scale battle, and something outside facility where this would happen, but i expect this to happen.

[Hamma]

For those of you who seem to not be able to comprehend.. I was being shot in the back almost the entire time. :lol:

Getting a solid understanding of the vehicles and how they handle takes time.

Figment's commentary along with the replies have been separated out into their own thread.

[MrMorton]

Only the last salvo hit him in the rear. He had already turned largely sideways to face the Magrider when he first took damage, while the first and second salvo did pretty much equal damage.



No he wasn't, he hit a rock and damaged himself (unless that VS heavy is also a TR called Hamma). If a VS heavy had hit him it'd have showed up in the post mortem as having damaged him more severely.

As you can see, he drove over it and it never fired a shot at him.

@Raymac: go troll somewhere else.

I might note that collision damage for vehicles is RIDICULOUS (unless they fixed that between e3 and now)

so the majority of the damage most likely came from the rock.

[Raymac]

Less static in a way that you kill faster and will be killed faster, shortening long tank battles over that area. But that same vulnerability, will discourage tanks to drive inside through enemy lines driving wildly like in PS1. They wont survive if it take 10s to kill them (even if you want to retreat you expose vulnerable back), and without driver its much harder to pull off. So tanks will probably stay more in a back, shooting from distance - thats static tank play.
We didnt see any larger scale battle, and something outside facility where this would happen, but i expect this to happen.

You could really say the same about PS1 though. I've made the mistake quite a few times of bull rushing into a hot area with a tank only to get taken out faster than you can say Jackie Robinson.

I personally think the directional damage and increased speed of the tanks will have more effect in keeping the combat dynamic. Hit and run, flanks, ducking in and out of cover, that's what I expect to see. Besides, tweeking the armor of the infantry and vehicles is simple.

I agree with you though, I can't wait to see a massive tank battle on a large open desert plain on Indar.

[Hamma]

I can second that collision damage is silly as of the filming.

[Captain1nsaneo]

Way to take a thread with awesome new content and bring it down to an argument over another game.

As for tank mechanics we've talked before about how the single drive gunner will impact it. In fact we have a ton of threads about it, go post in one of those if you want to talk about it. Heck, reference this video in those threads to make your point. It's a legitimate discussion that needs to be had but this isn't the place to have it. And while you're talking about that also talk about how currently there is no reason for people to take territories in the rear. (resource denial isn't and shouldn't be a big enough thorn to go out of the way to deny)

Glad to see more of the Tech plant innards as well as the biodome. I'm probably a minority but I'd love a video of just a guy wandering through the whole plant going through every door and exploring every cranny. That actually matters far more to me than the combat. But once again I'm probably in the minority on this.

Trailer looks sweet, looking forward to seeing the whole thing.

One thing that I noticed is that our view point is a box. What I mean by that is that the draw distance treats the player as if they are in the middle of a giant cube and we are looking perpendicular at one of the sides. What does this mean? It means the corners of our vision have a longer draw distance than looking straight ahead. This actually can come into play when you're sniping as you can see a target at distance with your corner vision and then have to trust that the rifle can shoot far enough and that you hit as you are firing blind.
Strangely enough this has some basis in reality as the edges of the eyes receive some types of light better than the core and you actually can see a bit farther with them than looking straight on. However, the only time I've had this come up was when I was on the roof of a 5 story church and a radio tower off in the hills had flashing airplane warning lights that I could only see by not looking directly at it.

[Figment]

It sounds like the devs' goal is to make it less static than PS1, quickening the pace of the game.

I can respect that you are an expert and a big fan of WoT, but of all the gameplay reviews we've heard so far, I can't say that I've heard anyone compare it to WoT. To me, that kind of diminishes the importance of that comparison.

I'm not really a big fan of WoT (at least not of most their tiering match making system, large power distance inter-player balance, overal grind, monetization method (buying high tier tanks), lack of community design and relatively small scale, to name a few points of critique).

Mainly play it to keep up my driving skills. I miss the dynamic and social PS1 combat and I've often suggested to decrease static accuracy and nerf detection of lighter units. Multiple players in one tank is not and can't ever be an option in WoT, sadly, but it's extremely well possible in PS2.

The majority of the WoT playerbase is Russian and European, so that wouldn't strike me as odd either. Though the ones that do play tend to see the overlap and can easily and directly port and utilise PS1 skills in WoT, despite the two being "two completely different games". The other way around is also possible. More so now that PS2 also adds some camouflage and stealth to PS game play.

Essentially, you are making some pretty broad conclusions that are at odds with the stated goals of the devs. So either, you are far more intelligent than the entire dev staff combined because you are able to make conclusions over fractional views of the gameplay instead of the constant work the devs do, OR you are being a bit of a Sheldon Cooper and are so convinced you can never be incorrect that your perceptions just reinforce your prejudged conclusions.

Consider that a dev team is just human, not everyone in the entire dev team is involved in design decisions and just executes them and it basically comes down to choices made.

Not every choice will be good.

Did you and others not say that PS1 had a lot of flaws? How can you say that? You've never been involved in the alpha! You've never been involved in the decision making process! Surely they knew way better than you what they were making back then?

How is that different now? They say they gained a lot of experience over the course of 9 years of PlanetSide. I ask how this is possible, since the majority of them have not been involved with PlanetSide for 7-8 years of them and the ones that have been (Brewko) are responsible for Lasher 2.0 rebalance, Reaver rebalance, Black Ops, Phantasm with 12mm gun, Galaxy Gunship v1 and v2, BR40 with extra certifications (that nobody wanted and they promised not to add) and for the fast majority of the time - since 2005, we've had only a few people directly involved with developing the game for more than a few days per year: Beady, who was good and got us the CE expansion, but then quickly left for another job, EnricoPallazzo, who left quicker than he got back, Raijinn, who could never get assistance from SOE for development support and eventually got fired yet was the only one who kinda understood and had the longest term experience in playing PS1 and working with the community, and Brewko, who... we... all... love... and... adore... >___>

Meanwhile, I've been playing that game throughout that time as outfit leader of a multi-crew vehicle outfit, inter-outfit coordinator and empire leader until a short period after the Werner merger (where the community went down real quick). I'm quite sure I'm a bit more aware of how it's played and what is fun than they are given the design rationales they give that don't agree with a lot of things we say. And yes, in some cases I can more easily see the impact in certain design decisions than people who've predominantly worked on PvE MMO design. In other cases, I reserve judgment and think it works fine. There's around 15-20 points I strongly disagree with decisions made. Is that unreasonable?

Now if I was the only one. Sure, but I'm far from the only one. I'm not saying I've got the best opinion at all times, however, so far, everything I've heard from people who actually played the beta at E3, SOE Live and from what I've seen, ALL confirm what I say and others took for random assumptions. So honestly, I don't much care for people who never dare make assumptions, because they're the last people who can make a difference for the better: their feedback will always be far too late.

And besides, even if knowledge is available in the team, who's to say it actually is used?

[Hamma]

Moved your post Captain, moved it into it's own thread ;)

[Raymac]

I can second that collision damage is silly as of the filming.

Oh, so the collision damage was still really high? OK. So that means Figment's calculations competely don't hold water. Thanks for clearing that up, Hamma.

EDIT:

Meanwhile, I've been playing that game throughout that time as outfit leader of a multi-crew vehicle outfit, inter-outfit coordinator and empire leader until a short period after the Werner merger (where the community went down real quick). I'm quite sure I'm a bit more aware of how it's played and what is fun than they are given the design rationales they give that don't agree with a lot of things we say. And yes, in some cases I can more easily see the impact in certain design decisions than people who've predominantly worked on PvE MMO design. In other cases, I reserve judgment and think it works fine. There's around 15-20 points I strongly disagree with decisions made. Is that unreasonable?

And besides, even if knowledge is available in the team, who's to say it actually is used?

Well, with a resume like that, I'm shocked they havn't hired you. You are right. What do game designers know about designing a game. It's only their career. It's like how a football team should really hire the people that call into talk radio because they know sooo much more about the team than the coaches. I mean, Higby, T-Ray, and Smed never played PS1 very much, so what would they know.

They really should ignore their playtests and demos and listen to you because you are 100% positive that the gameplay will be as stagnant and boring as a Louisiana swamp.

[GuyFawkes]

great stuff

I was wondering Hamma, when you were piloting the mossie, is there a way to tone down the brightness of the cockpit graphics. Felt a bit like a rabbit staring at headlights during the night.

[Hamma]

I'm not sure I did not look.

[Figment]

PS: @Hamma, sorry for the derail. :)

[Figment]

Oh, so the collision damage was still really high? OK. So that means Figment's calculations competely don't hold water. Thanks for clearing that up, Hamma.

He did not say he took damage from a rock, just that collission damage was high.

[MrBloodworth]

great stuff

I was wondering Hamma, when you were piloting the mossie, is there a way to tone down the brightness of the cockpit graphics. Felt a bit like a rabbit staring at headlights during the night.

It was rather bright. Especially at night.

WTB HUD Light sensor and dimmer switch!

[EisenKreutzer]

@Hamma's vid, starting 4:30.

Did I see correctly that the *stationary* Lightning took out your *stationary* full health Prowler in 2.5 salvos of 4 or 5 shots to the side and the Lightning itself started to smoke heavily after just one double shot salvo? Meaning making someone miss or catching off guard makes you equal to a MBT and if it had been two or three solo tanks you'd have died in one salvo? Meaning that even if you had had an AV gunner (while you're probably going to bring an AA gunner), after one salvo you might have killed one of two or three, but by then they'd have already killed you with the LIGHTEST, CHEAPEST tanks?

And how was that on par with what we've seen in more recently taped footage? The same... And with so many guns to change after they've painstackingly tried to balance them through alpha... Yeah right.

:crapper:

Goodbye TankGunnerSide teamvehicles, hello TankSoloSide AV MBTs + AA Lightning teams (as predicted...). No need for gunners if you're just going to get torn apart. :tear:

Goodbye DynamicCombat, hello StaticCombat. Without gunners, combat is going to be stationary every time tanks encounter enemies so they can line up a nice shot without hitting rocks or getting stuck and become pretty easy targets (as predicted...). :tear:




Doom! DOOM!

Honestly, while I did scratch my head at it a little, this sort of thing will be hammered out in the beta.

Complaining about balance issues based on a video showing a pre-beta build isn't really productive. None of what we saw in that video is final. This stuff will be tweaked and polished until it all works smoothly and the way the devs intended, based in no small part on our feedback and criticism during the beta which has not started yet!

Breathe slowly and find your happy place. All will be well. ^^

[Raymac]

He did not say he took damage from a rock, just that collission damage was high.

Well, what was that kill screen that said he took damage from 2 VS and from himself then?

Also, I edited my previous post in response to one of yours you wrote as I was typing.

[MrBloodworth]

I noticed Hammas tank was well on to being dead before he knew about that lightning.

[Figment]

Well, what was that kill screen that said he took damage from 2 VS and from himself then?

Also, I edited my previous post in response to one of yours you wrote as I was typing.

That's all well and nice, but I believe I was the first to denote he took some damage from a rock, so that's actually taken into account. =p

And from the looks of it, it wasn't much. Look at how much damage each single hit does. You can't pretend the calculations "don't hold water" if you can't indicate that it made a significant difference to the calculations.


If you a closer look instead of being very full of yourself, you'd have seen that in the death statistics, it clearly states that one Lightning did 9% damage, the other Lightning did 88% damage leaving a whopping 3% damage (which isn't even mentioned) due to collission damage by Hamma's driving.


So yeah, ONE Lightning basically took him out.

Your turn? Yes, I do believe it was.

I noticed Hammas tank was well on to being dead before he knew about that lightning.

Yeah, first salvo did around 35% damage I'd say.

[MrBloodworth]

Personally, I would hold off until we can do 1 v 1 testing in a controlled environment.

[twistnlick]

I noticed Hammas tank was well on to being dead before he knew about that lightning.

There is no attempt at evasion, moving behind cover, withdraw, or any indication that any of this is even possible because of how quick the encounter begins/ends. It just seems like a slug-fest of who-saw-who first and who's tank was pointed the right way. (As of RIGHT NOW, maybe later on a better tank driver/gunner can do different)

[Raymac]

That's all well and nice, but I believe I was the first to denote he took some damage from a rock, so that's actually taken into account. =p

And from the looks of it, it wasn't much. Look at how much damage each single hit does. You can't pretend the calculations "don't hold water" if you can't indicate that it made a significant difference to the calculations.


If you a closer look instead of being very full of yourself, you'd have seen that in the death statistics, it clearly states that one Lightning did 9% damage, the other Lightning did 88% damage leaving a whopping 3% damage (which isn't even mentioned) due to collission damage by Hamma's driving.


So yeah, ONE Lightning basically took him out.

Your turn? Yes, I do believe it was.



Good catch. I didn't notice the percentages first time around.

I guess the moral to this story is to bring a secondary gunner to help you spot and kill the Lightning much like the Magrider did to Higby's Lightning during his playtest stream. So it's not a good idea to let a Lightning fire round and round right up your ass.

It's good to know directional damage is important so that you will try to manuever to get to somebody's rear instead of being stagnant and not move at all.

[NumbaOneStunna]

That's all well and nice, but I believe I was the first to denote he took some damage from a rock, so that's actually taken into account. =p

And from the looks of it, it wasn't much. Look at how much damage each single hit does. You can't pretend the calculations "don't hold water" if you can't indicate that it made a significant difference to the calculations.


If you a closer look instead of being very full of yourself, you'd have seen that in the death statistics, it clearly states that one Lightning did 9% damage, the other Lightning did 88% damage leaving a whopping 3% damage (which isn't even mentioned) due to collission damage by Hamma's driving.


So yeah, ONE Lightning basically took him out.

Your turn? Yes, I do believe it was.



Yeah, first salvo did around 35% damage I'd say.


Dude, I don't know if you know this or not because your brain is so fried from WoT, but a single shot from an anti tank round to a modern tanks rear armor would be a catastrophic hit.

The Magrider having the lowest armor of all the MBT's in PS2 taking 3 direct hits to the rear from the lightning is very generous from the devs.

[Trip]

This is how I feel reading figments posts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93CsOgvNUoE

[Haro]

So is our comment system on vehicle combat now based on how many hours you put into an unrelated game, and so if you don't like or don't play WoT then you're opinions, no matter how rational or valid, are easily dismissed? Must have missed that memo.

Now that Higby's has confirmed that he was, in fact, getting shot from behind, possibly by two lightnings, I'm honestly not that worried. MBTs were horribly balanced as far as manpower and resources went. You needed more people to put more cert points into lightnings than you needed for one MBT, and yet you would still have a bitch of a time killing a tank you outnumbered. And that was in the rare instance that you could outnumber a MBT with lightnings, because no one wanted to use them, and MBTs were more popular than God.

Also, remember Higby's video? The one whee he managed to take two full, frontal salvos and still polish off a lightning with little problem. If we are honestly saying that a pack of lightnings shouldn't be able to quickly take out an MBT that they've all attacked from the rear, then I fear for the sanity of this forum.

If anything, this video has made me more comfortable about the idea of bringing back stronger, 2 man tanks, because I think the current developers could fit that in without breaking the whole system.

[Figment]

Good catch. I didn't notice the percentages first time around.

They're hard to miss due to the colour choice (using a contrasting colour like lime green or yellow would have help IMO, I think the newer footage has better colours, but not sure, haven't checked).

I guess the moral to this story is to bring a secondary gunner to help you spot and kill the Lightning much like the Magrider did to Higby's Lightning during his playtest stream. So it's not a good idea to let a Lightning fire round and round right up your ass.

It's good to know directional damage is important so that you will try to manuever to get to somebody's rear instead of being stagnant and not move at all.

It'd definitely help, but if one gets flanked, both get flanked and if the driver doesn't return fire because he's busy driving, you got way too much loss in firepower to win the engagement. :(

And if he is gunning, it's quite likely the driver becomes preoccupied with gunning (more likely to stand still and forget about his hull). Most people can only do one thing at a time, tracking enemies, aiming for enemies and driving at the same time is too much for the majority of people, so they will opt to do just two of those (either tracking and gunning or tracking and driving).

Which is one of the main reasons I bring up WoT, because getting the enemy to show their weak spots is often the only way to deal damage in the first place (a lot of guns can't pen from the front or even the majority of the side of tanks and have to be aimed at specific weakspots).

From what I've seen, I don't think the angle of a tank towards an opponent means something in PS2 (unlike in WoT, where you can deflect shells completely by putting your tank at a 20-45 degree angle to your enemy). Meaning that if there's even a glimpse of your side showing, you will take full damage when hit there.

Speaking of which, I doubt they can keep track of angles and utilise a similar deflection system in PS2 anyway, way too many factors to consider, calculate and transmit. Would help in making the damage mitigation more useful and up survivability for smart players, but doubt it can be implemented on this scale.

Dude, I don't know if you know this or not because your brain is so fried from WoT, but a single shot from an anti tank round to a modern tanks rear armor would be a catastrophic hit.

The Magrider having the lowest armor of all the MBT's in PS2 taking 3 direct hits to the rear from the lightning is very generous from the devs.

Ah yes, can I get to say "this is a game", for once? :)


Also, a LOT of tanks blow up in one shot in WoT (while often needing 20-infinite shots themselves to kill their opponent even if they outmaneuvred them). Those players tend not to be happy... Look up some KV-107 or KV-152 pwnage vids. Here's one for you.

302 Found

[Raymac]

They're hard to miss due to the colour choice (using a contrasting colour like lime green or yellow would have help IMO, I think the newer footage has better colours, but not sure, haven't checked).

And if he is gunning, it's quite likely the driver becomes preoccupied with gunning (more likely to stand still and forget about his hull). Most people can only do one thing at a time, tracking enemies, aiming for enemies and driving at the same time is too much for the majority of people, so they will opt to do just two of those (either tracking and gunning or tracking and driving).

Yeah, I just missed the percentages because I was watching on a small screen at low resolution because I'm supposed to be working. I do love the kill screen though.

Also, moving and shooting is not as hard as you make it sound. I've been doing it since I strung a phone cord between 2 dorm rooms to make my first LAN for the game Descent back in the stone age. Granted that's not exactly the same as we are talking about here. The chances of running into something or off of a cliff go up when you don't look what direction you are driving, but that brings us back to our fundamental and unshakable difference of opinion. I see that as a small price to pay for tank drivers getting to shoot, and you see it as game breaking. We've alread hashed that out in a couple threads.

Basically, I still think that your now OP on this thread is the epitome of chicken little talk. There is no way in hell you can make those conclusions, and yet you are convinced that you can. More and more you really do remind me exactly of Sheldon Cooper.

[Figment]

Yeah, I just missed the percentages because I was watching on a small screen at low resolution because I'm supposed to be working. I do love the kill screen though.

Meant to say in that quote easy to miss, but I take it from the remainder of the post you got that out of it. Don't blame you for that, but I do get very, very tired of being accused of not having information that's readily available for those who look for it. :/

Ask yourself how often you look for hidden information in footage? Things like suitable Galaxy landing and deployment zones if someone does a fly over of a base? :/

Also, moving and shooting is not as hard as you make it sound. I've been doing it since I strung a phone cord between 2 dorm rooms to make my first LAN for the game Descent back in the stone age. Granted that's not exactly the same as we are talking about here. The chances of running into something or off of a cliff go up when you don't look what direction you are driving,

Cluttered environment. WoT is less cluttered. People still don't fire on the move even if they can't miss due to close range. Even if they don't have to aim for weakspots. Standing still is just easier.

but that brings us back to our fundamental and unshakable difference of opinion. I see that as a small price to pay for tank drivers getting to shoot, and you see it as game breaking. We've alread hashed that out in a couple threads.

Actually we agree it's a small price to pay for the solo driver. I've only said it's worse quality play and I've also noted hat I'd say someone loses about 20-40% efficiency, depending on how good they are as a driver. The majority of people suck though (no other way to put it sadly). Typically I find people switch between the two options I gave (tracking + driving or tracking + gunning) when they have to aim sideways or backwards and only if they drive and aim forward will they drive and shoot (granted, I never did make the latter clear). That goes for most people and I happily make use of that fact while predicting an enemy's probable movement.

It's however quite limiting to your own movement. It's harder to become an erratic target and dodging becomes harder, because you have to know your path in advance and have little freedom to stray from it if there's little space (doesn't go on an empty field or on water, obviously).

What we disagree on though is what in that context is the effect on the merit of a driver + gunner. IMO it's advantage is negligible if not worse, while you draw the conclusion it's perfectly fine but I simply can't see on what grounds you make such an argument.




In fact, in your opinion there's apparently next to no positive effect of not gunning while driving, since you already claimed the negative effect on you is negligible. Correct? (You say you don't suffer from it at all after all and so does Aurmanite).

So how can you then claim:

A) That someone who requires a third crew member, under the cert compromise, gains an advantage worthy of that cert?

(Meaning do you really think that it outweighs getting an own tank? Would you personally rather fill a gunner seat if your buddy has enough resources? Note that someone recently suggested after having played at SOE live that it's easy to regain the resources in the life of that tank).

B) How could you suggest that a two crew tank where the gunner guns both guns is balanced to a unit that doesn't give up a gun if the positive maneuvring effect is negligible?

By your own argumentation that gunning while driving doesn't make a huge difference, neither A or B can be a good compromise. Correct? So how could you proclaim it'd be a very useful addition? How could you possibly, if you're being fair, support the idea of the compromise without becoming a hypocrite? :/

If it's not a real disadvantage to not have a dedicated driver, then you can't claim it's a sufficient benefit to not having to change tank specs when a dedicated driver is in. Meaning dedicated drivers MUST have their own unit balance.

Basically, I still think that your now OP on this thread is the epitome of chicken little talk. There is no way in hell you can make those conclusions, and yet you are convinced that you can. More and more you really do remind me exactly of Sheldon Cooper.

That's unwarranted. I've got a different opinion, but it's fully argumented. You simply disagree with the argumentation, sometimes it seems because you make hasty observations. I mean a few pages ago people questioned and ridiculed me for suggesting that one Lightning pretty much pwned Hamma.

You're the only one who admitted he overlooked some facts though. I do give you credit for that. But an apology out of some of those others? Hah. Riiiight, they're too busy trying to discredit me to be fair.


PS: btw, I'd say merge this thread with the other driver/gunner debate.

[DeltaChan]

BF3 can be a decent comparison, but I won't compare to it since I don't play that very often and besides, its tanks don't have competition from other vehicles and thus little to do with balancing different types of tank combat with one another.

BF3 is probably the best possible comparison available for tank combat because of the sheer power that the tanks have in that game. Tanks in BF3 can one hit all infantry, jeeps, buggies, helicopters and jets, 2 hit light armoured vehicle and 2-3 hit enemy tanks. Tanks are a scary force and as soon as you get in one, every single engineer, c4 carrying support, tank, heli and jet comes straight out to hunt you down. The second you become static, you become dead. I'm saying this because I am not a very impressive infantry player, but I have racked up 32-0 games in BF3 just sitting in a tank and playing well and staying on the move with good combat awareness. I have racked up 2 service stars on tanks and have racked 616 tank kills in under 20 hours of tank play. I got bored of BF3 cos of repetitive maps and simply repeating the same battle over and over.

Bear in mind that BF3 tanks were also made of glass; Jet's can one hit tanks, heli's can kill a tank in one strafe run. 2 mines placed together will 1 hit a tank, 2 C4's will one hit a tank. 4-5 handheld AT rockets/rpg will kill a tank.

The gameplay in PS2 as seen so far is not nearly as volatile as BF3. Tanks cannot 3 hit each other, even the lightning does not die in 2 hits from an enemy MBT unless hit in the rear twice.

Now how does that compare to BF3? Well, the light armoured vehicles in BF3, if customised with the armour piercing rounds, can fight a tank in certain circumstances just as the lightning can fight an MBT in PS2. The LAV must use the environment to dodge/block tank shells while successfully land multiple salvos as well as land several AGM guided missles to destroy an MBT. The map that this occurs most often is the Noshahr Canals map. The LAV driver must be extremely good to outmatch a MBT since 2 rounds from the tank will end the LAV's miserable life.

So why do you need to have the secondary gunner? Well, yes once you unlock the coaxial machinegun on the tank, the gunner becomes less important on a MBT in context with ground level combat, but the second gunner is essential to fending off aerial attacks as well as an indispensable asset in urban warfare. Due to the vertical nature of urban warfare and aerial assaults, the driver cannot have complete combat awareness and the gunner is a necessity to picking off enemy AT infantry on high ground or flanks as well as deterring and destroying enemy aircraft while the driver is focussed on the ground assault. A good driver/gunner combo will almost never get surprised by enemy attacks. One more thing that a driver/gunner combo can do is repair as you push. If the tank runs into heavy fire, the gunner can get out immediately and start repairing the tank while the drive continues to try and outgun the enemy. When the battle dies down, 2 people can repair the tank much quicker to get it back in action. if 1 dies, the other can squad spawn straight back into the action and get back into the tank. This applies to both BF3 and PS2, but the fact that you can customise the weapon on the gunner seat in PS2 means that the gunner could cause even more chaos and the tactical options become even more diverse.

While PS2 gameplay is designed to be less volatile than BF3, you have 3-5x more players in the same area regularly. So while in BF3 there may be 2 engineers trying to kill you with RPGs and need 4-5 shots, in PS2 there are 8-10 HA that need 6-7 rockets instead. So while you take less damage from each individual shot, there are alot more rounds being fired in your general direction and it will take a skilled team to play the MBT role well.

So in a nutshell, the Lightning tank will in general need a significant skill advantage or tactical advantage to beat a MBT, it won't happen often, but it will happen and it won't usually happen with the lightning standing still even though in this case it was. It would only win due to either a huge skill gap between a complete nub MBT driver and a really good Lightning pilot and/or the element of surprise. The gunner is mandatory for urban assault and for defending against infantry flanks and aerial attacks. The gunner also provides on demand healing by jumping out of the tank and repairing as well as providing squad spawn opportunities should either one of the two die.

On a side note, in my opinion, the VS hover tanks have a huge strategic and tactical advantage over the threaded tanks of the 2 other factions. Being able to move quickly from cover to cover with guns blazing without exposing side/rear armour is a huge boon. The threaded tanks must turn the hull to change directions while the hover tank does not, which means it can navigate obstacles much more rapidly than the other 2 tanks as well as having much more unpredictable movements in battle. That, and the magriders can also drive over each other without any problems at all which could come into play in some areas with lots of height changes. So with that in mind, I will be joining the VS :lol:. Can't wait to demolish my static minded foes hahahahaha :lol: :p

Sorry for the huge essay, but I hope it is insightful.

[VaderShake]

My response will simply be this...

We can only play in the environment we are given with the toys we are given to play with so learn, adapt, and overcome/maximize your effectiveness with the system we are given and provide positive and negative customer feedback to those who can change it or leave it. No whining allowed...we all have the same stuff.

[Infernalis]

On a side note, in my opinion, the VS hover tanks have a huge strategic and tactical advantage over the threaded tanks of the 2 other factions. Being able to move quickly from cover to cover with guns blazing without exposing side/rear armour is a huge boon. The threaded tanks must turn the hull to change directions while the hover tank does not, which means it can navigate obstacles much more rapidly than the other 2 tanks as well as having much more unpredictable movements in battle. That, and the magriders can also drive over each other without any problems at all which could come into play in some areas with lots of height changes. So with that in mind, I will be joining the VS . Can't wait to demolish my static minded foes hahahahaha

BF2142 had both and it was fairly balanced between the hover tank and the normal one despite both having the same armor and damage.

[Landtank]

My response to this thread: No one knows.

It's as simple as this: you argument, calculations, conclusions, everything, is based upon absolutely 100% UNCERTAIN information.

Not trying to stifle discussion, just don't want people throwing around their opinions like it's the one and only truth.

[maradine]

Seconding the validity of the BF3 comparison. I'm on my 4th armored warfare medal with more relative seat time than 99% of the BF3 playerbase. In WoT, my post-beta KD is modestly above 2 with about ~650 battles fought. I've done a lot of tanking.

The BF3 MBT is indeed a scary beast. In good circumstances, it will destroy anything, and quickly at that. However, if a LAV-25 (or BMP, if you prefer) rolls up behind it with APFSDS loaded, the tank won't even get its main gun around before it's all over. This tends to only happen to MBTs that get outmaneuvered on urban streets vs. in open fields, but the lesson still applies - if you are caught with your pants down, you're probably gonna die.

Based on what I've seen, I think the Lightning/Prowler, LAV/Abrams comparison is pretty solid. Two lighter tanks in your rear sector should and will disassemble you. The teamwork is in keeping light tanks out of your nethers.

[Emperor]

We can only play in the environment we are given with the toys we are given to play with so learn, adapt, and overcome/maximize your effectiveness with the system we are given
This is the only post in this thread that matters.