Driver/gunner survey.

[Figment]

http://www.screator.net/showform.php?f=1480137354

Hopefully this survey can settle once and for all how players feel about this issue, an issue which is still pretty darn hot. I've tried to make the questions neutral and provided agreement scales with "statements" and questions. Statements are based on subjective commentary as argued by either side.

To not lead the person taking the survey, statements from both sides have been used.


If you have any comments or critique, please provide them here. However, since it's been published now, I won't alter the actual options or questions on this particular survey anymore.

EDIT: Annoyingly, upon inspecting the initial results, all the scaled results are only available in the excel file where I have to count them individually because the automated charts all show "100%" on everything right now as the basic chart/graph generator treats the question as a single option (so yeah... 100% answered the questions, but I can't tell if they agreed or not immediately without doing my own count in the excel sheets... Great.). :(

Contacting their support center for some help on this matter.

[HellsPanda]

Well like most survey's this seemed to weight towards one side of the case. And are you the only one who gets access to the full survey?

[ringring]

I haven't had a look at your servey yet but I've been thinking about starting a post ....

My post would have been along the lines of... a) we've all had our say about the topic but now you have had a change to play, how do you feel b) how do you feel about how tha tank battles are conducted c) what would improve tank battles..... and so on.


I'll go do your survey now. :)

I've done it .....
I found this question hard to answer "The driver is responsible for threat detection and target selection." for me, the driver is responsible for threat detection and the gunner for target selection, or primarily so as often the roels are shared.

Answering my own question:
I find driving the prowler better than I thought it would be. The upgrades are great and the audio is atmospheric.
I still think the drawback for the driver-gunner are too large and I don't see 'good' tank teams the way you used to see them in PS1.

A lot of tank engagements appear to happen at extreme range (possibly due to vunerability and leathality of infantry AV weapons). And I don't see any tactical manoevres such as flanking, although to be fair the south of the continent doesn't lend itself to that very much.

Most tank engagements are: advance a little, shoot, retreat and little for the reload, advance a little, shoot .... and so on.

I think the ideal would be to give the driver a gun but give the gunner the main gun. As someone who would spawn a tank and spend the resources, I'd be happy with that.

[Sledgecrushr]

I absolutely love driving and gunning. But also I love being the secondary gunner mowing down infantry and killing airplanes. They definitely have tanks right in ps2.

[Figment]

Well like most survey's this seemed to weight towards one side of the case.

Please explain, I've tried to make it as neutral as possible, I'm interested in what you find biased about the setup.

And are you the only one who gets access to the full survey?

Unfortunately by default, yes I am. I will however provide the excel output file (either as .xls or .csv) to whoever is interested.

For the basic questions the site creates very nice graphs. The output of the longer lists of questions as stated above seems bugged as it just says 100% to everything. :(

In my next post I'll provide a first result after 27 survey takers.

[Figment]

After 27 votes:

Question 1:
http://imageshack.us/a/img193/1212/q127e.jpg

Question 2:
http://imageshack.us/a/img253/3927/q227.jpg

Question 3:
http://imageshack.us/a/img339/6562/q327.jpg

Question 4:
http://imageshack.us/a/img11/5773/q427.jpg

Question 5:
http://imageshack.us/a/img59/6469/q527.jpg

Question 6:
http://imageshack.us/a/img88/1131/q627.jpg

Question 7:
http://imageshack.us/a/img20/1464/q727.jpg

Question 8:
http://imageshack.us/a/img856/6073/q827.jpg

Question 9:
http://imageshack.us/a/img525/4581/q927.jpg

Alright, managed to find a way to convert the .csv to proper excel files. :) First results in for 27 votes (need to process manualy).

Edit: Aaaand of course now photobucket has issues, thus had to relocate to imageshack... >.<

[Figment]

Initial results updated. Note that I had to fix an error in question 9 which I only noticed after four people already filled in Neutral/Disagree (which should have been separate options). Since I can't determine if they were neutral or disagreed, I left those in.

[EVILPIG]

Dude, if I complete that do I get some kind of coupon or something?

[bullet]

Did you post this on the PS2 forums as well or only here? If its only posted here, you're probably going to get a biased response. :P

[EVILPIG]

Did you post this on the PS2 forums as well or only here? If its only posted here, you're probably going to get a biased response. :P

Definitely.

[PoisonTaco]

I'd rather keep the MBT's as they are but later on in PS2's life introduce a new tank for each faction that does have that driver/gunner setup.

[Figment]

Did you post this on the PS2 forums as well or only here? If its only posted here, you're probably going to get a biased response. :P

Aye, it probably be a bit skewed will since the PS1 playerbase ratio is a bit higher here (you can tell from the initial poll results as well).

Haven't posted it in a separate thread on PS2, since polling the playerbase for game changes and all is against SOE forum policy. So although I'd like to, I don't think I can post it on the official forums. Hence I sent the link to Higby a few hours ago in hopes he'll tweet it or something. :/

*crosses fingers*

[ringring]

Aye, it probably be a bit skewed will since the PS1 playerbase ratio is a bit higher here (you can tell from the initial poll results as well).

Haven't posted it in a separate thread on PS2, since polling the playerbase for game changes and all is against SOE forum policy. So although I'd like to, I don't think I can post it on the official forums. Hence I sent the link to Higby a few hours ago in hopes he'll tweet it or something. :/

*crosses fingers*

post on reddit?

[Figment]

post on reddit?

Don't have a reddit account. If anyone wants to post it in other areas, I'm not stopping you. :)

[ringring]

Don't have a reddit account. If anyone wants to post it in other areas, I'm not stopping you. :)
done
http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/103d6o/figments_drivergunner_survey/


**edit reddit don't seem to be an old vet's haunt, you'll get more of a representative response, assuming people do respond that is.

[DsDF]

The ability to do both would be good.

[avpmaster]

I understand that oldfags prefer the separate gunner / driver design of planetside due to teamwork and classicism, but please consider that since this is an upcoming f2p mmofps game, it will attract a large fps audience, one that will be larger than the original planetside community. The f2p audience will already be accustomed to the modern tank model from BF3. Changing the current model back to the older one may discourage the f2p audience from using MBT's. Hell, instead of adapting, they will most likely bitch & moan about it.

I'm sorry, but returning to the old model just seems like a bad idea for me. SOE is just trying to balance priorities between the original planetside community and a new, massive, potential f2p audience, and I think that keeping the combined driver + gunner model is a fair tradeoff.

also soe pls make max's cost resources pls

[Damiann]

I understand that oldfags prefer the separate gunner / driver design of planetside due to teamwork and classicism, but please consider that since this is an upcoming f2p mmofps game, it will attract a large fps audience, one that will be larger than the original planetside community. The f2p audience will already be accustomed to the modern tank model from BF3. Changing the current model back to the older one may discourage the f2p audience from using MBT's. Hell, instead of adapting, they will most likely bitch & moan about it.

I'm sorry, but returning to the old model just seems like a bad idea for me. SOE is just trying to balance priorities between the original planetside community and a new, massive, potential f2p audience, and I think that keeping the combined driver + gunner model is a fair tradeoff.

also soe pls make max's cost resources pls

I see what you are saying about having the BF3 tank model would be comfortable for newer players, however the way I see it is you got more in the game then just MBTs, plus I would imagine the lighting would still act the same. I also feel that you may underestimate some players, if someone wants to play with MBTs I believe they would learn the system just might take a little bit of wining and time. It's still beta, we can try the divided system see how it works, if it doesn't then we can go back. Last note, we are not really talking about giving maxes resource count, I would say take that argument to another thread.

[Baneblade]

Different game is different, I don't give a shit what fps players are comfortable with. Comfortable is the perfect description of the current fps market anyway.

Fuck comfortable.

Oh, I voted.

[avpmaster]

Different game is different, I don't give a shit what fps players are comfortable with. Comfortable is the perfect description of the current fps market anyway.

Fuck comfortable.

Oh, I voted.

If that were SOE's approach, I doubt this game might turn out into a success.

And fuck, why can't they just create a vehicle that requires multi-user function for each faction? Like, a mobile howitzer emplacement, or a juggernaut sort of vehicle?

[ringring]

I understand that oldfags prefer the separate gunner / driver design of planetside due to teamwork and classicism, but please consider that since this is an upcoming f2p mmofps game, it will attract a large fps audience, one that will be larger than the original planetside community. The f2p audience will already be accustomed to the modern tank model from BF3. Changing the current model back to the older one may discourage the f2p audience from using MBT's. Hell, instead of adapting, they will most likely bitch & moan about it.

I'm sorry, but returning to the old model just seems like a bad idea for me. SOE is just trying to balance priorities between the original planetside community and a new, massive, potential f2p audience, and I think that keeping the combined driver + gunner model is a fair tradeoff.

also soe pls make max's cost resources pls
When you say modern, of course you mean old. How old is battlefield now, 2002?

Battlefield isn't an mmo, theyou shoudl expect to find differences.

Is it better should be the operative question.

I'd prefer to look at the gameplay in the game now (ps2) and think on how the driver/gunner affects things, and it's not necessarily or wholly for the better.

[Figment]

I've noticed some descrepancies have occured in the voting. According to the site, 65 votes have been entered.

However, when I tally, I get 62 for questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8. In question 6, some are 62, some are a few answers short. Questions 7 and 9 both miss one answer to each. :/ Weird. I checked with the array and the total sum of the output file is the same as the total count. Meaning that website doesn't hand out all the answers accuratly for some reason. (Using the excel file to count now btw).

Anyway after 61-62 votes, the PS1 vets are now outnumbered:

Question 1:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q1_61_zps7224ab68.jpg

Question 2:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q2_61_zps35d2cd2f.jpg

Question 3:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q3_61_zps9e940531.jpg

Question 4:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q4_61_zpse5f2aae7.jpg

Question 5:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q5_61_zps44149e6e.jpg

Question 6:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q6_61_zpse00c4cb0.jpg

Question 7:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q7_61_zps67137ef5.jpg

Question 8:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q8_61_zps6b65b21b.jpg

Question 9:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q9_61_zpsa73c7d5d.jpg

[Conq]

There is too much reading involved in that survey, add some pictures.

[TheDAWinz]

The only place more than one man tank crews should be is in ARMA

[SixShooter]

I think what they need to do is add a new MBT for each empire that is the PS1 style driver/gunner setup. Then everyone can get their way and this debate can end.

[Stardouser]

I'm not against driver gunners but I think it's important to note that PS2 currently has so much recoil and bullet drop that you NEED a dedicated gunner to be able to focus on it. But I think that, independent of the dedicated driver issue, those things need to be greatly reduced.

I say this because of the survey questions about how easily a driver can hit targets on the move. In PS2, not very easily, no. But that's in a large part due to recoil that has no business being so severe. That's especially true of the Lightning across multiple shot mags, but it's true of MBTs too, because you have to stop to aim carefully which earns you rockets in the tailpipe.

[Baneblade]

If that were SOE's approach, I doubt this game might turn out into a success.

And fuck, why can't they just create a vehicle that requires multi-user function for each faction? Like, a mobile howitzer emplacement, or a juggernaut sort of vehicle?

Yeah, why can't they do that? The MBT is the perfect candidate.

[camycamera]

did the survey :D i wonder if SOE pick up on this.

[dsi]

I'd rather keep the MBT's as they are but later on in PS2's life introduce a new tank for each faction that does have that driver/gunner setup.

So I guess the Lightning will just be obsolete then? (Except as Skygaurd but you've gotta pay for that lol)

[Sunrock]

I absolutely love driving and gunning. But also I love being the secondary gunner mowing down infantry and killing airplanes. They definitely have tanks right in ps2.

I second this. I have no wishes that they should change how tanks are handled.

However I wish more players would like to driver as gunners. Having a gunner in the tank is always better no matter how much he sucks at aiming then not having a gunner at all. In worst case scenario he might scare some one off at least.

[Sunrock]

If that were SOE's approach, I doubt this game might turn out into a success.

And fuck, why can't they just create a vehicle that requires multi-user function for each faction? Like, a mobile howitzer emplacement, or a juggernaut sort of vehicle?

I would just love to see something like a 40k titan in the game that requires multi-user function.

http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2009/3/27/24764_md-Apocalypse,%20Titan,%20Warhammer%2040,000,%20Warlo rd.jpg

That one I can imagination to have a driver and 4 gunners.

[SixShooter]

I second this. I have no wishes that they should change how tanks are handled.

However I wish more players would like to driver as gunners. Having a gunner in the tank is always better no matter how much he sucks at aiming then not having a gunner at all. In worst case scenario he might scare some one off at least.

I'm always trying to jump in someones tank to gun and on the flipside I'm always trying to get someone to gun for me. Having a gunner is always going to be optimal and I love having randoms hop in and rack up some XP for me.

[Galron]

If you required driver/gunner for main gun on each MBT, you wouldn't see tanks anymore, as the majority of people play without an outfit and couldn't ensure they get a non-mouthbreather as their main gunner or driver.

I find the current solution quite nice, I can hop in and rack up some AA/AI kills with some random person if my MBT cooldown isnt up, and if its up I can run and gun as well as provide limited AA by switching seats. Either way the tank is still 80% effective and is fairly popular/present on the battlefield.

[thegreekboy]

poll is obviously biased. No point in taking biased results, credible polls are objective

[Ghost Runner]

I'd rather keep the MBT's as they are but later on in PS2's life introduce a new tank for each faction that does have that driver/gunner setup.

Totally this!! :D

[Saintlycow]

I think what they need to do is add a new MBT for each empire that is the PS1 style driver/gunner setup. Then everyone can get their way and this debate can end.

This. Maybe even make it a 3 seater.


Also, The possibility that durability would be decreased if the tank is not fully manned. IE, 25% armor reduction. You can solo in a MBT, but against someone who has a gunner, you really need to out play them

[Figment]

poll is obviously biased. No point in taking biased results, credible polls are objective

Would someone that claims this finally say what they think is so biased about it? Ffs, it has statements from both sides to agree or disagree with. I'm not even sure from this post which side you think it is biased to or why!

Tell me what questions you miss in the survey, tell me which you couldn't answer appropriately. But don't go and say it is biased just so you can try to ignore whatever comes out of it.

[Mox]

not every vec must be suitable for soloplayers. If you want to go solo take the lightning! Please more love for dedicated teamplayers! I want to see all mtb with 3 seats (one dedicated driver and two gunners). And please forget the seat switching. If someone isn't able to fully man his tank he has to take another vec or live with it. This game is a teambased. We dont even need soloplayers! I

[Figment]

Update. 106 votes.

Question 1:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q1_106_zps8ed6abb3.jpg

Question 2:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q2_106_zps762f1441.jpg

Question 3:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q3_106_zpsb3e67c8f.jpg

Question 4:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q4_106_zps6e63d92e.jpg

Question 5:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q5_106_zpse8459e39.jpg

Question 6:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q6_106_zps247ab793.jpg

Question 7:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q7_106_zps230271a2.jpg

Question 8:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q8_106_zps290fde4d.jpg

Question 9:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q9_106_zps863c22ee.jpg

[Rummy]

Maybe I'm missing something, but this game is geared toward team play. Personally I would rather focus on one thing (driving or shooting). This way I am way more effective at my job. If you want to drive and shoot you can get the Lightning. If you want to work with a crew get the MBT.

[Sunrock]

TBH to few have taken the survey to have little meaning. From what I learned in school is that you needs at least a minimum of 1000 votes to be able to statistically prove anything.

Also those that voted are contradicting them self in there answers... witch means that the questions was very poorly formulated.

[Baneblade]

Every argument in favor of driver gunning is null as soon as you realize there is something called a Lightning. I personally believe people suffer from BFR Syndrome. They like being all powerful.

[Sunrock]

Maybe I'm missing something, but this game is geared toward team play. Personally I would rather focus on one thing (driving or shooting). This way I am way more effective at my job. If you want to drive and shoot you can get the Lightning. If you want to work with a crew get the MBT.

So you're saying those that drive lightings cant shoot? Because driving and shooting is too hard?

Driving is not hard enough for it to be able to diminish your effectives as a driver if you need to use a gun at the same time too if you ask me.

And how is it not team play to not have gunner in your tower if you can drive and gun too?

This is just some bogus QQ about PS2 is not exactly as game X.

[Sunrock]

Every argument in favor of driver gunning is null as soon as you realize there is something called a Lightning. I personally believe people suffer from BFR Syndrome. They like being all powerful.

Can some one translate this into English for me? Sorry but I really don't understand what BFR syndrome is.

And what the hell do you mean by being all powerful? Are you saying that lightings are completely useless? And if so against what?

I think the argument that there is something called lighting is telling me that you can drive and gun without feeling its too hard to do both.

[Baneblade]

The Empire Fighters are solo vehicles in the air, but you can't effectively solo in a Liberator. What's up with that? Why should the land vehicles have a different and backwards philosophy?

[Sunrock]

The Empire Fighters are solo vehicles in the air, but you can't effectively solo in a Liberator. What's up with that? Why should the land vehicles have a different and backwards philosophy?

What are you talking about? You can solo in a liberator, sure its not taking the most advantage over the vehicle. But neither do you do that when you solo in a tank either. Sure now in tank Vs tank you can solo because every one else does too in there tanks. However if you have a gunner that use a gun on the same target as you you will kill your target allot easier (if you have turret weapon that can do damage to tanks that is... Also as a solo tank driver you are so mush more vulnerable to HA not to mention every one that try to C4 your tank. Sure you can take care of a lone wolf infatry or lighting dirver with the tank but so you can do with a lone wolf attack plane drive too in the libirator.

But comparing a tank to a liberator is not really fair as the liberator have 3 guns and the tank only 2. It would be more fair to compare a solo tank to a liberator with only 2 crews.

[Gatekeeper]

I agree completely with Baneblade.

The devs have said previously that the tanks must give the main gun to the driver because otherwise it's unfair on the player who spends resources (and possibly certs) on getting that vehicle.

However none of other multi-crew vehicles follow this logic - deli, gal and lib all give their most powerful (or even only) guns to dedicated gunners - leaving the driver/pilot with lesser guns or no guns.

Why are the MBTs the only exception to the general logic of the game?

The Lightning already fills the role for one-man tank, there is no problem with forcing the MBTs to have a gunner - it just ensures they fill a different role. Having trouble finding a gunner? Field a Lightning instead. Simple.

[Sunrock]

I agree completely with Baneblade.

The devs have said previously that the tanks must give the main gun to the driver because otherwise it's unfair on the player who spends resources (and possibly certs) on getting that vehicle.

However none of other multi-crew vehicles follow this logic - deli, gal and lib all give their most powerful (or even only) guns to dedicated gunners - leaving the driver/pilot with lesser guns or no guns.

Why are the MBTs the only exception to the general logic of the game?

The Lightning already fills the role for one-man tank, there is no problem with forcing the MBTs to have a gunner - it just ensures they fill a different role. Having trouble finding a gunner? Field a Lightning instead. Simple.

Well I would find it very frustrating to not be able to make the tank move exactly as I want to gunning as me might decide to move 1 inch when I'm about to fire and miss the shot and I would find it very boring to spend time as a tank driver if all I have to do is sit still for 10 - 20 min while the tank gunner for the cannon do all the job. At least as a deployed prowler tank driver.

And I really don't understand way lighting fills the roll of one man tanks. That is like saying that it's useless to have a gunner in your tank witch is so untrue. Also the lighting is more efficient as solo tank then a so called MBT (though I have no clue what's medium about them) anyway so if you want to solo driver it's already better to spawn a lighting. Sure the advantage is quite small as the only advantage you have in the lighting is that its little bit faster but can put out as mush damage as any moving tank.

[Mechzz]

The Magrider in PS2 is flat out perfect as it is. I can play it solo to good effect and I can play it as a team vehicle and have as much or more fun in it. The upgraded guns for both driver and gunner are awesome.

Seems the TR and NC got the short end of the stick for a change!

Also, the poll is missing questions about "fun" - the Devs are trying to ensure as many of the playerbase are having fun as possible at any given time. The crowd advocating driver <> gunner strike me as a lot of scrooges sitting at the top of Peris Field Tower shouting "bah, humbug!" every time they see a VS tank column roll towards Regent Rock. Or maybe they are part of the column, secretly enjoying it?

[Sunrock]

Seems the TR and NC got the short end of the stick for a change!


As a TR player I don't agree we got the short end of the stick. I been playing around with both Vanguard, Prawlers and Magriders. They all got there strength and weaknesses but they are all 3 equally easy/hard to solo with.

[Mox]

@figment: since you have gathered a lot of quasi metric data it would be nice to see some more advanced statistical testing. I would love to see if there are significant differences between the gamer groups (fps, rpg, etc.) and other variables regarding the opinion on mbt. Maybe you should also build some indices out of the variables that almost measure the same thing.

[JesNC]

I actually like the current tank driver/gunner + secondary gunner/commander combo by now.

It's different than before in PS1, but it works! And it requires in no way less teamplay.

[Crator]

I wouldn't take any options away. IMO, you are more effective when allowing your gunner to use the main weapon on a MBT and the driver being dedicated to driving. So, give the tank drivers a cert to be able to give control of the main gun over to the gunner. Also, if you obtain said cert they could offer more certs that allow you to have better situational awareness while driving. For instance better camera control or viewpoints. Could also allow the driver to use the 2ndary gun at this point.

In a MBT I don't much mind quick switching (with a minor delay) between main gun and 2ndary gun for solo drivers. It just makes sense that they would be able to switch fairly quickly due to the physical build of a tank and the weapon controls being setup inside the cockpit to allow such a thing. Sunderers on the other hand are long buses and should have a longer delay in switching gun spots. I would even go as far to say that they should require that any occupant step out of the vehicle and walk to the appropriate location on the outside of the vehicle to enter a different gunner position.

Galaxies should also require longer delays in switching guns and perhaps also require stepping outside to get to another gun spot. Perhaps an option for the GAL driver to quick switch to any gun while still seated in the driver spot. It makes sense that the driver could have the equipment up front in the driver seat which includes a monitor for each of the guns with controls for shooting them. If another player jumps in the gun spot while a driver is using it the driver will get a UI indicator on his screen that tells him there's a gunner in the seat and could switch back to just being a driver or to another empty gun spot.

The Liberator should require stepping outside to get to another gun position. *Not so much for game-play reason but for immersion.

[Snipefrag]

I think they have to add a high level cert or a new set of tanks: the advanced MBT (or AMBT, that are so complicated they require dedicated gunners). That way people can play how they want.

Good point whoever mentioned about the Gal/Lib, their current stance on MBT's doesn't fit with some of the other vehicles.. Why the discrepancy?

[Flaropri]

I've posted quite a bit on this topic in the past, so I'll just put in a few thoughts that came up as a result of the survey.

1. Is this linked into the official forums? In any event, I as a general rule dislike these types of surveys. While more in-depth than polls posted on say, CNN's website, it still has the problems of being specific to the people on the website, who are interested enough to take it, etc. It's also something that people could theoretically do multiple times if they wanted to weight it.

Essentially, there's no way to say if the results are actually representative of the full demographic.

That said, it is put together well enough, and for a general feel it would be interesting to see the results after a good few hundred votes (at a minimum) and I did it myself to contribute. The poll is slightly slanted, but not appreciably so, it's mostly well put together, except perhaps the first question which has such a short list.


2. That out of the way, I was someone who voted for 2-man MBTs... but part of this is that I would also like Heavy tanks for 3-man or larger crews. I used to play a lot of Warhammer 40k (IG to be specific) and I really like a lot of the tank designs in that game. Among others were, for example, Baneblades, which were basically super-heavy tanks, while the Leman Russ filled in as the actual main battle tank for the Imperium.

For video game purposes, I think that having small crews for MBTs is better. Even if the Leman Russ would have had at least 4 crew, part of that had to do with sponson weaponry, which is lacking in PS2 MBT design. I think it would be great though, to have that kind of tank, with side-guns as well as the main cannon(s). But that's something down the line. For how PS2 MBTs are designed, 2 crew seems good.

3. I like driving, whether it's for myself or for others. Also, I do think that it's harder to hit distant targets while driving, but that's less because your attention is split (still a factor, just not a great one IMO) and more because of the general lack of stability. In other words, I think if you're moving it is harder to hit distant targets whether you're driving or not (arguably slightly easier when driving since you know where the tank's going to go barring getting rammed).


4. Some things were unclear. For example, I agree there should be a delay when switching positions, but from the ghost of threads past I recall disagreeing very much with the AMOUNT of delay (with me on the shorter side of things), and I think that plays a large factor in whether people want it or not.



Anyway, interesting poll, as I said, I'd be very interested in seeing the results with an appreciable amount of entries.

[Crator]

I've posted quite a bit on this topic in the past, so I'll just put in a few thoughts that came up as a result of the survey.

1. Is this linked into the official forums? In any event, I as a general rule dislike these types of surveys. While more in-depth than polls posted on say, CNN's website, it still has the problems of being specific to the people on the website, who are interested enough to take it, etc. It's also something that people could theoretically do multiple times if they wanted to weight it.

Essentially, there's no way to say if the results are actually representative of the full demographic.

It would benefit you to glance over other posts in threads, or do a search in threads for specific things. This was already mentioned before. You cannot hold survey threads on the beta forums. It's against the rules.

[Flaropri]

It would benefit you to glance over other posts in threads, or do a search in threads for specific things. This was already mentioned before. You cannot hold survey threads on the beta forums. It's against the rules.

*shrug*

Fair enough (PSU sort of did the same by removing create poll from most forumites). I only ask simply because it would get more exposure that way, and have a better chance of reaching a descent number of entries.

[ringring]

So you're saying those that drive lightings cant shoot? Because driving and shooting is too hard?

Driving is not hard enough for it to be able to diminish your effectives as a driver if you need to use a gun at the same time too if you ask me.
And how is it not team play to not have gunner in your tower if you can drive and gun too?

This is just some bogus QQ about PS2 is not exactly as game X.

The fact is that it does and it's clear in the way that ps2 tanks are being fought. It's rather static.

The lightning comment refers to .... if you want to drive and gun the option is there in the lightning. It's a good little tank and the gun upgrades are good too.

[sylphaen]

The fact is that it does and it's clear in the way that ps2 tanks are being fought. It's rather static.

The lightning comment refers to .... if you want to drive and gun the option is there in the lightning. It's a good little tank and the gun upgrades are good too.

I believe "Staticness" of combat is also favored by the paper armor.

Terrain itself should deter tanks from getting into a place, not its armor or gun mechanisms.

Nothing that couldn't be seen coming a long long time ago though...

As far as I'm concerned, I said I would try before getting to conclusions and I can now say that I am disappointed with the current state of ground vehicles and their combat in PS2. For many reasons (many which were expected), I do not find it exciting nor appealing. It has no potential to build one of those intense and awesome moments you shared with your gunner in PS1.

While I spent 80%+ of my time driving vehicles in PS1, if I play PS2, it is/will be for infantry combat and objectives.

[Figment]

@figment: since you have gathered a lot of quasi metric data it would be nice to see some more advanced statistical testing. I would love to see if there are significant differences between the gamer groups (fps, rpg, etc.) and other variables regarding the opinion on mbt. Maybe you should also build some indices out of the variables that almost measure the same thing.

I don't personally have a lot of time for that, if you want I can send you the excel file and any new .csv files I got (note that you'd have to convert it from a dutch to english excel, turned out my brother installed the dutch version prior to me taking it over... ;P Mostly a matter of replacing Som by Sum though :p).


I did do a quick check between PS players and non-players with regards their voting on question 8. PS players and non PS players alike prefer at roughly 2 to 1 the split controls (a slightly higher portion of non-PS1 players likes driver-gunner, but not by much tbh). Most interesting is the popularity among both groups of 3 crew tanks.

PS1 players only
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q8_106_PSOnly_zpsd673ef79.jpg

All
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q8_106_zps290fde4d.jpg

I haven't checked the latest stats though. As the sample group is still small, it could go in various directions. But I do see a lot of trends that are true for both sides as those answers are very one sided.


As for measuring "fun"... I'd say that's measured by what people prefer as a combined package, not? >.>

[Figment]

I've posted quite a bit on this topic in the past, so I'll just put in a few thoughts that came up as a result of the survey.

1. Is this linked into the official forums? In any event, I as a general rule dislike these types of surveys. While more in-depth than polls posted on say, CNN's website, it still has the problems of being specific to the people on the website, who are interested enough to take it, etc.

It's been posted on reddit, by now the responses hold more non-PS1 than PS1 players, so the sample pool is pretty diverse. It's linked in those forums somewhere, but not explicitly in a separate thread... it'd prolly get canned then.

It's also something that people could theoretically do multiple times if they wanted to weight it.

IP locked it. It's possible to bypass of course, but really, it's just a poll. :)

Essentially, there's no way to say if the results are actually representative of the full demographic.

That's never the case though, it's unfortunate but you can't control these populations. ^_^ *cough*zerg*cough*

That said, it is put together well enough, and for a general feel it would be interesting to see the results after a good few hundred votes (at a minimum) and I did it myself to contribute. The poll is slightly slanted, but not appreciably so, it's mostly well put together, except perhaps the first question which has such a short list.

Ta. I tried to cover as much of the arguments as possible. To be fair, the pro-solo side simply has less arguments, though they do make the most claims about what populations want (typically I've found they claim it's what they want themselves though...). I've seen no evidence in the polls sofar that suggest people today are as anti-social, individual gamers in a MMO as some make them out to be.

I put the survey together in about 2,5 hours. :) Should have tested, expanded it and refined a bit more if it would have been truly scientific. Alas, I have a real life graduation study as well, so I just went with the most obvious. xD

Interestingly though, there's hardly any that claim to come from CoD. I'd expected that fraction to be larger. Chances are people play CoD anyway, but consider that a very casual game compared to whatever they dubbed their "main" game. Do note the high degree of RTS and RPG players.

Anyway, interesting poll, as I said, I'd be very interested in seeing the results with an appreciable amount of entries.

Currently have around 140 respondents. Going to wait for around 200 till I check the results again. Then we can see how big the differences are with a small and big pool too.

[Flaropri]

It's been posted on reddit

IP locked it. It's possible to bypass of course, but really, it's just a poll. :)

Sounds good.

That's never the case though, it's unfortunate but you can't control these populations. ^_^ *cough*zerg*cough*

Well, someone could... it'd just be very difficult, and probably require the expenditure of more resources than most people would be comfortable with (including real world resources).

Ta. I tried to cover as much of the arguments as possible. To be fair, the pro-solo side simply has less arguments, though they do make the most claims about what populations want (typically I've found they claim it's what they want themselves though...). I've seen no evidence in the polls sofar that suggest people today are as anti-social, individual gamers in a MMO as some make them out to be.

It's been my experience that the "anti-social" nature of gamers is largely a stereotype. Although, to be fair, anti-social people are most likely not going to participate in polls as much as others.

I put the survey together in about 2,5 hours. :) Should have tested, expanded it and refined a bit more if it would have been truly scientific. Alas, I have a real life graduation study as well, so I just went with the most obvious. xD

You could always change your study to statistics :D

More seriously though, I doubt we have enough data to really do a proper survey anyway, including sending/posting it to a representative sample instead of relying on pure brute force (aka, number of entries) to get anything close to reasonable.

Interestingly though, there's hardly any that claim to come from CoD. I'd expected that fraction to be larger. Chances are people play CoD anyway, but consider that a very casual game compared to whatever they dubbed their "main" game. Do note the high degree of RTS and RPG players.

Agreed. It's also how the question was worded. For example, I was originally going to chide you for not having TF2 up there, since that's what I'd been playing recently, but when I thought more about it WoW was still the "primary" online game I've played (by number of hours). Even so, I've played a lot of other games, League of Legends, Poxnora, Dawn of War 1&2, Shadow Era, etc.

I think a lot of people have played COD (I actually haven't but I know people who have, and the sales records speak to it's use), but for whatever reason they might consider BF3 or WoW or something compeletely different to be the "main" game they've played.

Currently have around 140 respondents. Going to wait for around 200 till I check the results again. Then we can see how big the differences are with a small and big pool too.

Neat. Although considering how many people are already in the Beta (let alone who may play after release) it's still a relatively small number. Still, it's progress, and slowly becoming significant if with a wide margin for error.

[Crator]

Forums polls rarely hold much weight in regards to what everyone in the world thinks. However, they are usually good for determining how your local peers feel about things and sparks discussion about subjects in the polls.

[MrBloodworth]

Forums polls rarely hold much weight in regards to what everyone in the world thinks. However, they are usually good for determining how your local peers feel about things and sparks discussion about subjects in the polls.

Its not a forum poll. Its a poll system on a 3ed party provider that has been linked to at-least 3 different communities.

You do not need to be a user here, or logged in here, to take the poll. That goes for all the other locations.

[Crator]

Its not a forum poll. Its a poll system on a 3ed party provider that has been linked to at-least 3 different communities.

You do not need to be a user here, or logged in here, to take the poll. That goes for all the other locations.

I never claimed that this was a single forum poll. Even it being linked to multiple forums it's still limited scientifically. Having more sites involved does give a good view of opinions since there's more that participate. No doubt.

You want a true poll about this? Only way I can think of to cover entire player-base is to prompt players to answer the poll after logging out of the game.

[Figment]

I never claimed that this was a single forum poll. Even it being linked to multiple forums it's still limited scientifically. Having more sites involved does give a good view of opinions since there's more that participate. No doubt.

You want a true poll about this? Only way I can think of to cover entire player-base is to prompt players to answer the poll after logging out of the game.

Pop quizes every time you cert something! :D

"Why are you certing this!? WHY!?! D: "

(Why did I cert PS2 on the Sunderer list for instance, WHY!?)

[Flaropri]

Pop quizes every time you cert something! :D

"Why are you certing this!? WHY!?! D: "

(Why did I cert PS2 on the Sunderer list for instance, WHY!?)

SOE, get on it! :lol:

[Galron]

Also the lighting is more efficient as solo tank then a so called MBT (though I have no clue what's medium about them) .

Main, not medium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_battle_tank
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_battle_tank)

[PredatorFour]

I think everyone apart from smed , higby and the crew want to see it return to the old planetside method of vehicles. Playing together will always beat playing solo.

[Sunrock]

Playing together will always beat playing solo.

:bang: That is how it works not too :bang:

[Figment]

:bang: That is how it works not too :bang:

Not really. A single crew or AV tank getting the first shot in on another tank can usualy win before the other has time to react due to the TTK being so low. I've hit enough tanks from behind to realise that. They are relatively easy to take out, since the driver in both cases often stands still to fire along.

I can drive and gun a tank solo, but I'm not dumb enough to tell someone to gun for me if they can grab their own tank and give us an endurance advantage. I don't like having to do that to optimize our power as a duo.

It isn't even a consideration to crew the tank with more people, where in PS1 you made choices between what was best to get with three crew: tank + something else, three crew APC or one Prowler. Now? Three tanks, always and preferably MBTs since cost is irrelevant. That is dumbing down the game and reducing the validity of other choices. Teamwork vehicles are irrelevant and obsolete when you can get your own transport and firepower at all times.

So yes, it doesn't mean we're not using teamwork, it just means we're a bunch of solo farmers moving together and relatively quickly lose track of each other since we don't see when someone behind us stops to fire or sees a shiny object and fails to inform us.

The teamwork is less obvious, less consistent and less coordinated. It is of significant lower quality and longevity. It is now like ES aircav in PS1: you can group, but chances are you run off on your own and lose group cohecency.

[Flaropri]

I think everyone apart from smed , higby and the crew want to see it return to the old planetside method of vehicles.

Last numbers Figment published show'd there's an appreciable number (within the less than significant value of input, looked about 40/60) that don't. Even a lot of people that want dedicated drivers don't want to go all the way back to PS1 methods.

Playing together will always beat playing solo.

You can still play together. I think Figment's post above does a good job of covering options, however I personally think the issue lies with costs being unimportant and balance issues, rather than with the positions. However this is based purely on what I've seen/read, as I am still not yet in Beta personally, so I can't look into things.

(The following is an Aside:) On the other hand, I do also recall seeing posts about people being unhappy with being cut off from resources, since there's no way to get them without controlling relevant territory. It seems like it may be that resource gains are overly binary. Where if you control any territories, it's not a real problem for the given resource, but if you don't have them you can easily run out if you don't manage to capture them. Or maybe that's just the natural hyperbole of the forums and complaints. *shrug*

(Back to the topic at hand:) I also think that lack of organization isn't something that's going to be fixed by having more people in the same vehicle. Location-wise you become more concentrated, and that sort of helps for random people, but if there's a lack of coordination that's its own problem. You'll still have other tanks going off on their own, and that's because of poor/no communication or because they want to.

To put it another way, my ideal would be that resources/availability of multi-crew vehicles would encourage far and away actually multi-crewing them. However, either way, whether you're working with multiple tanks or with fewer multi-crewed tanks you'll still have the same opportunities and challenges with playing with others. I also think that you'll have the same number of balancing challenges (albeit some slightly different ones) whether your force at least 2-crew in MBTs or not.

In any event, those are just my thoughts, I'm sure Bloodworth and Figment (and several others) remember them well enough, so I won't continue on it much more.

Mostly I'm just eager to find out the results of the poll. For example, I fully expect several answers to be very one-sided that might otherwise have been seen as split between both sides of the issue. For example, threat detection and target acquisition I'm sure will remain primarily viewed as a job for both gunner and driver. Likewise I expect that most will continue to state that Lightnings should be the ideal choice for solo tankers.

While some lines of thought are not worded as well as they could: "Should the Driver have access..." for example. It isn't clear (at least in the order of when it's asked) if that is "access at all" or "access while driving" or "access if giving up drivers seat" though obviously it's tied into the later questions regarding position changes. I'm curious how those lines of questioning will mix, and what sort of interpretations can be gleaned from the survey overall.

Like I said, it's not perfect, but it is interesting, and it's one of the better forum polls out there.

[ringring]

I think everyone apart from smed , higby and the crew want to see it return to the old planetside method of vehicles. Playing together will always beat playing solo.

Speaking as a ps1 TR, I much prefer the ps1 magrider. It was the most fun, not to mention very effective.

Given the choice I'd like similar in PS2, gunner has main gun, driver has something to keep him happy.

[shamE]

Tanks requiring both a gunner and a driver.

http://youtu.be/31g0YE61PLQ

[Figment]

Alright got ~170 responses in now.

Question 1:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q1_170_zps0db25aaf.jpg

Question 2:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q2_170_zpse070b3cd.jpg

Question 3:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q3_170_zps97888135.jpg

Question 4:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q4_170_zps58a7043f.jpg

Question 5:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q5_170_zps78d8a4f8.jpg

Question 6:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q6_170_zpscfe385c1.jpg

Question 7:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q7_170_zps13c061fd.jpg

Question 8:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q8_170_zps64207f53.jpg

Question 9:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q9_170_zps9463d25d.jpg

[Ipimpnoobs]

nice follow up. sarcasm on: It looks like we didn't count the electoral college votes.. I DEMAND A RECOUNT!!! :lol:

No but seriously, people who like tanks like to shoot the main battle gun. The reason why people are asking for a crew split is because they want to play something similar to Arma... This game, was not meant to be a simulator.

What I think should happen is, the overall vehicle performance should increase with the more people you have in your tank. It's better to give incentives rather then take away. For instance, if you have a dedicated secondary gunner, the accuracy and loading time should increase. Here is another one, the secondary gun should change to whatever the gunner wants. This means mounted guns are swappable upon entry if the driver desires. Ideas like this would make sense! I think we need to be a little more creative, then going back to whats in every other massive war game.

Also, keep in mind this is supposed to be a futuristic game as well. Our modern military fly drones into war already, and from what I understand in 2015 there will be an unmanned armor division as well. It is highly unlikely in any kind of future conflict people will actually man mbt's.

http://www.military-today.com/apc/black_knight.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiesel_AWC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardium

just my 2 cents

[Figment]

No but seriously, people who like tanks like to shoot the main battle gun. The reason why people are asking for a crew split is because they want to play something similar to Arma... This game, was not meant to be a simulator.

I see no evidence of that neither in the polling, on forums or in game. There are hardly any ArmA players playing and the majority come from PS1, BF and random other games.

Though if they do want something akin to ArmA, then why should you provide them with something entirely different? However, split controls has nothing to do with simulation. It's simply establishing how game play will play out. World of Tanks simulates tank crews, because you can kill individuals within the tank as if they were modules, thereby affecting your performance. This is not true in PS1 nor 2. Both are very arcady, even with split controls. The main reason is enhancing player task efficiency and power/player division, not to simulate.

Simulation goes waaaaay beyond what PS1 and PS2 do. Simulation would after all mean trying to approach reality. Arcade doesn't mean being completely irrealistic either! Gaming tries to find an optimal way for game balance and fun, nowhere does it say that this can only be achieved by combining driver and gunner role.


People who like tanks like tanks because they do boom boom and look cool. They don't care if they fire the main gun or someone else, as long as their unit takes out the opposition. See the survey.

In fact, the majority of folks responding to the survey do not have a personal need or special interest for the main gun, certainly not as driver, but apparantly not even as gunner (see response to "second string" question)!



Btw, your suggestions will make the units feel arbitrary and unreliable in use, because if I understand it correctly, the exact same gun would respond differently from one moment you use them to the other (correct me if I misinterpreted). I know one thing: if there's one thing gamers and especially competitive gamers hate, it's unreliable tools.