MBTs need a health buff and dedicated crews. [Archive]

Goldoche

2013-04-09, 03:53 PM

MBTs are underwhelming and very easy to kill, especially by ESFs and Infantry weapons. They're too easily spammed and feel like disposable tin cans. They do not require cooperation to be efficient, a lone wolf can be fine on his own.

Here's what I propose on the Vanguard and Prowler:

-Dedicated driver and gunners: The driver controls the tank and tank abilities. He can't shoot any weapons. The gunner fires the main turret.
-Total HP: 200% of their current Health
-Cooldown: 200% of the current time.
-Resources: 200% of the current cost.
-Boost the torque, adherence and make the treads behave like treads, not like wheels. They need to do more traction.

Magriders can't have dedicated gunners because of the non rotatable turret, so I wouldn't buff their health. I'd make their faction specific secondary turrets more powerful and only slightly augment their Cooldown and Resource cost. They'd be more powerful tanks and less spammable than they are now but still more disposable than the other tanks. I'd balance it so 3 fully crewed magriders (2/2) can take on 2 fully crewed vanguards or prowlers (3/3). A fully crewed magrider (2/2) could take on a (2/3) prowler or vanguard.

Magriders:
-Damage buffed on faction specific secondary turrets
-Damage slightly nerfed on main turrets
-Cooldown:150% of the current time
-Resources:150% of the current cost

Obviously Magriders would be more difficult to balance so these stats are only arbitrary.

I'd give slightly more health to base turrets so they can still take on MBTs.

NewSith

2013-04-09, 04:07 PM

This is how it's gonna go:

NewSith: I agree
TankWhore: No, don't make them crew based, it's unrealistic, completely underpowered and it'll make my K/D of 10000/1 in a tank even worse.
ReasonablePerson: You're wrong, the current state is unrealistic, overpowered and your K/D has more to say about it, than you.
TankWhore: LOLUMAD< IMRAITURONG!!!!!111111oneone!!!1!!11oneoneone1!!
Troll: This is just another person complaining, who doesn't know how to drive a tank.
ReasonablePerson2: But... blah blah blah... (a good argument acknowledged only by those who stopped playing already, thus pretty much irrelevant for SOE)
Troll: LOLWUT?
Hamma: j_smed twitted: "Solo Tanks. Period. I like and I don't care". This thread is closed.

Methonius

2013-04-09, 04:12 PM

LOL newsith summed it up how this thread is going to go.

EVILPIG

2013-04-09, 04:18 PM

I like the opening statement that claims they are too fragile, yet a lone wolf can do fine on their own. lol

T

wasdie

2013-04-09, 04:19 PM

I hated that mechanic back in Planetside 1. Absolutely hated it.

SixShooter

2013-04-09, 04:26 PM

Goldoche

2013-04-09, 04:33 PM

I like the opening statement that claims they are too fragile, yet a lone wolf can do fine on their own. lol

T

Their effectiveness is too easily reached but too low.

But it's more fun this way!

That's why there's the lightning tank. MBTs need to behave like real tanks.

Goldoche

2013-04-09, 04:35 PM

Sledgecrushr

2013-04-09, 04:40 PM

I want three man tanks too. But they arent going to happen with the MBTs we have today.

Baneblade

2013-04-09, 06:36 PM

I am a tank whore, and 85% of my tanking time is solo.

I support tank crews.

PredatorFour

2013-04-09, 06:52 PM

OR they add in a new tank which has them desired qualities.... now for the incoming flames..

Artimus

2013-04-09, 06:58 PM

Don't quite understand op. They are easily killed but a lone wolf can do fine? The k/d ratio effecting gameplay is getting really old personally if k/d was even taken out it's not going to encourage people to play as a team people will still choose soloing tanks given the option. I do fully support the idea of dedicated gunners tho. I believe it should be an option to cert into tho. Like it was discussed prior to beta.

bpostal

2013-04-09, 06:58 PM

ChipMHazard

2013-04-09, 06:59 PM

OR they add in a new tank which has them desired qualities.... now for the incoming flames..

The only problem I see with them adding in a new tank, which is the most likely scenario, is that it will probably make the MBT and/or Lightning somewhat more obsolete.
Especially considering that it would be useable by everyone.
Personally I see them having painted themselves into something of a corner.

Neutral Calypso

2013-04-09, 07:05 PM

I am in favor of either adding a new tank or adding a module that will permit the old tank to operate this way, while allowing for the old system to work too.

Sometimes driving and gunning at the same time is a pain.

But also sometimes there ain't enough manpower running around to gun in your tank.

Anyone ever park a liberator in a warp gate and demand a gunner hop in? ~_~

wasdie

2013-04-09, 07:12 PM

The only problem I see with them adding in a new tank, which is the most likely scenario, is that it will probably make the MBT and/or Lightning somewhat more obsolete.
Especially considering that it would be useable by everyone.
Personally I see them having painted themselves into something of a corner.

That's why it needs some more defining qualities than just the "2 man tank".

That's what so many people want the main difference between the lighting and MBT to be. That's just not right.

Goldoche

2013-04-09, 07:21 PM

Whiteagle

2013-04-09, 07:30 PM

Magriders can't have dedicated gunners because of the non rotatable turret...
Just switch the fucking guns already!
It's not like Mags don't already complain about how low their Main Cannon is, just put it on the top and put the secondary on the front of the hull!

That's why it needs some more defining qualities than just the "2 man tank".
Two words, LAND BATTLESHIP!

Something the size of a Locomotive with two or three Cannon Turrets on it.

That's what so many people want the main difference between the lighting and MBT to be. That's just not right.
Because that would be the ONLY thing the Lightning would have on MBTs...

My Squad Leaders don't go, "Everyone grab their Lightning!"
No, they say "Everyone get their Prowler," because everyone can SOLO operate an MBT, which is FAR stronger then a Lightning

Artimus

2013-04-09, 07:33 PM

Anyone ever park a liberator in a warp gate and demand a gunner hop in? ~_~ story of my life.

Goldoche

2013-04-09, 07:39 PM

Just switch the fucking guns already!
It's not like Mags don't already complain about how low their Main Cannon is, just put it on the top and put the secondary on the front of the hull!

That's what I'm suggesting to do. Lower the main canon damage slightly and buff their secondary turret. I'm not sure how to balance it properly though. Maybe a third turret?

Whiteagle

2013-04-09, 08:14 PM

That's what I'm suggesting to do. Lower the main canon damage slightly and buff their secondary turret. I'm not sure how to balance it properly though. Maybe a third turret?
No, just put the Main Cannon on the top, and mount a Secondary on the Front like the ball guns on Libs and Galaxies!
Bam, you have a Crew Mag!

SturmovikDrakon

2013-04-09, 08:33 PM

I don't think adding a third multi-crew tank would be beneficial, as others have proposed. I actually think it would be a balancing nightmare.

Multi-Crew Heavy Tank > Main Battle Tank > Lightning

Where would the Lightning stand in this pyramid? Everyone would still choose solo MBTs over them, making them completely useless.

That said, I have been supporting the idea of multi-crew MBTs since the very beginning, having not even played the original game. IMO, making MBTs solo from the very beginning has completely thrown off the balance between armour and infantry in PS2, especially when every Joe can pull his own war machine.

Currently infantry has a variety of ways of disposing armour, the result being that MBTs have become glass cannons. You can't buff MBT health while they're still solo to counter because they'll just start farming infantry again.

SOE needs to reconsider. It's maybe four months after release, but I don't think it's too late.

Smedley, for as much as I respect the man, needs to stuff his "It's more fun this wayhurhur" attitude.

Make MBTs multi-crewed. Make Lightnings good solo tanks.

The lightning needs to be to the MBT what the ESFs are to Liberators. If you want superior firepower, please try to work with others.

Goldoche

2013-04-10, 12:37 AM

Gatekeeper

2013-04-10, 05:58 AM

I'd definitely like to see drivers be drivers and gunners be gunners. Making MBTs require teamwork and giving Lightnings a genuine role as solo-tanks.

No, just put the Main Cannon on the top, and mount a Secondary on the Front like the ball guns on Libs and Galaxies!
Bam, you have a Crew Mag!

That sounds pretty fun actually, I'd definitely be willing to give it a go.

Twido

2013-04-10, 06:00 AM

Instead of changing the factions MBT, I would introduce a heavy battle tank that requires a dedicated driver (with a forward facing small gun), a main gunner and an auxiliary gunner. A possible fourth utility slot could also be an option.

This way we can all have our cake and eat it!

NewSith

2013-04-10, 06:02 AM

Heavy Tank would be problematic, because the whole point of making it crew-based is to increase the infantry-to-MBT ratio. Adding a new heavy tank will be even worse in that regard.

Gatekeeper

2013-04-10, 06:06 AM

No, just put the Main Cannon on the top, and mount a Secondary on the Front like the ball guns on Libs and Galaxies!
Bam, you have a Crew Mag!

Actually, one concern about this plan: what about AA secondaries? Are those really going to be viable in a fixed, front-low mounting?

Ghoest9

2013-04-10, 06:31 AM

I agree that ESF have an easy time killing tank but against infantry all that required is squad using standard tank tactics from WW2.

Figment

2013-04-10, 08:27 AM

Some people already addressed some issues.

One of the other big problems this game created with crewed ground vehicles is seat switching. If you make a tank balanced around a crew, where you can make a solo unit out of it by switching seats internally (worse, instantly!), you effectively make it a slightly handicapped solo variant of the same vehicle.

Seat switching rules for drivers should IMO be:

Vehicle stationary, 1.5-3s delay, depending on the power of the gun you switch to.

But consider that everyone can pull anything and say a three or four crew dedicated unit would be added, why would there ever be a gunner in every gunner position? Normally you don't need all guns, so you can be just as effective having your gunner switch points. You see this behaviour with Liberators a lot. Full compliment crews are rare.

So what happens if you can be just as effective with less people? You ask people to pull more units. Not just because you can solo, but also crewed combat units in PS2 with more than two crew would lead to an increase in vehicles.

Worse, in a camping situation, these would become ever harder to take out by smaller groups as endurance increases and therefore the time and troops needed to take it out, but also the chance for incomplete crews to have at least one unit survive and to cover each other for repairs. That is the same situation we have now, just with stronger units.

Worse, probably many crew vehicles that are ground based and therefore cannot crash and burn, would be operated solo because it provides most endurance and you can quickly switch to and from turrets.

Switching without getting out (which in itself removed an important opportunity to kill the occupants) leads to more individual and lazier gameplay. Bassically, introducing such heavy crewed units under these circumstances creates more high endurance solo artillery, probably with own installed defense weaponry.

Hence I'm not a fan of seat switching, not tag-I'm-in type of vehicle entering. I would still hope for fixed entrypoints per seat. Makes for more tactical decisions to make and exploit.

Obstruction

2013-04-10, 09:15 AM

the only time i get a random lib gunner is if i'm LA and planning to jump because getting a random in your lib is basically just asking to get blown up with zero effect on the battle.

same goes for tank side gunner.

know your crew. be able to communicate at minimum in local.

whatever OP said, i don't care.

ok wait. i read it. OP basically said change about ten things that aren't all necessarily related to each other but definitely are related to many subsystems. clearly has no concept of how changing even 1 of the listed items would affect overall gameplay. thinks that sprinkling changes around here and there like fairy dust = balance.

Goldoche

2013-04-10, 09:25 AM

Whiteagle

2013-04-10, 09:38 AM

Actually, one concern about this plan: what about AA secondaries? Are those really going to be viable in a fixed, front-low mounting?
Well I'm not particularly sure in that scenario...
Ideally they'd have enough upward elevation to work, but I can see your point, needing to swivel the whole tank to face an air threat might be tiresome.

...Plus you'd have to deal with the third-person camera.

Dougnifico

2013-04-10, 10:08 AM

Good god. SOE, just give us a crew based heavy tank and end this discussion.

Whiteagle

2013-04-10, 10:09 AM

Good god. SOE, just give us a crew based heavy tank and end this discussion.
Yes, and make the Lightning even more redundant...

Figment

2013-04-10, 10:26 AM

Good god. SOE, just give us a crew based heavy tank and end this discussion.

And start a new one that goed like "oh ffs SOE, why did you add more, stronger, soloable tanks?!".

Because you just know they would be one crew valid.

wasdie

2013-04-10, 10:27 AM

Lighting = solo tank.

MBT = crewed tank.

That is seriously the worst sort of balance I can imagine. There is zero imagination with that. You're literally saying one tank's only different feature is that you need 2 people and it's a straight up improvement over the solo tank. I hate that balance. It's dumb and makes no sense outside of pleasing people who cannot see how shallow that really is.

What the lighting and the MBTs in this game need is more defining features in how they are used on the battlefield. Adding a 2nd or 3rd guy to an MBT isn't going to change them from paperweight to heavy hitter. With the amount of players on the field and the TTK what it is, upping the armor and gun of the MBT is a terrible idea all around. It would be just blatantly over powered in any situation even if there were a few less of them on the field. If it takes 5-6 hits to destroy a tank from the sides or the rear, tanks will be able to soak up damage while dishing out larger AoE single hit kills that can much more easily camp infantry. People aren't dumb. When the lib was OP in beta people used it in force despite the 2 man requirement. Making any vehicle OP and then "balancing" it by requiring more than 1 player isn't going to work. Eventually you'll have to nerf it and then people will question if it's worth the hassle and just grab lightnings instead.

This is a "quick fix" solution that people here are not thinking out. This is the exact reason why I see SoE not implementing this because it's not going to work via balance, it's going to take away weapons that people bought with station cash and certs, and it's just lazy to pander to the people who keep whining about it on the forums.

They need something better. MBTs need more distinction on the battlefield in how they are used, same with lightnings. If the only difference is that one requires 2 players and the other requires 1, they will have failed with real game design and any chance to make this game unique and fun.

Right now MBTs can soak up a bit more damage from the front of a lighting and put down more pain. Using a lightning like an MBT is viable, but not as effective. Flanking is much more important. The lighting should have an even greater emphasis on this to set it apart. I feel that most people end up using the lightning like an MBT so they don't see how it can be different from an MBT.

Lightnings need more specialization in my opinion. The 5 turrets aren't enough, especially considering 3 of them are just smaller versions of the MBT. How about an AI lightning with a Phoenix AI turret ontop? What about a mortar lightning that you can park and fire light HE mortars with? How about a transport lightning that can transport 4 soldiers? What about a double bulldog lightning? A flamethrower lightning? A a guided missile lightning? So many options. Make the lighting so it is used completely differently than the MBT, don't just make it so that it's the only piece of armor you can use with 1 player. We CAN have the best of both worlds here if you just give it some thought.

With the MBTs you can do the same. Don't make the base MBT require 2 men, but give it a super heavy gun that requires a 3rd to fire. Let people who want to use the MBT as a 3 man tank use it as a 3 man tank. Make that gun an AP turret only, so their only focus is taking out armor, not infantry. The secondary weapon on the MBT needs to be your AI protection.

I can't see any real viable way of making the MBT require at least 2 men without throwing the balance off by quite a bit. Adding a 3rd heavy gun as an option keeps the balance a bit more. The tank won't suddenly have more HP but it will be able to destroy heavy tanks with 2 shots to the front or 3 shots if the enemy tank has frontal armor. That seems like a fair trade off.

A 3rd tank wouldn't make any sense in my opinion. Just a heavy gun upgrade would do it just fine. A focused AP tank. If the heavy AP turret is installed require a driver, gunner, and secondary weapon gunner. Limit the secondary weapon to AI and AA weapons only so you cannot have a super heavy AP gun AND an AV turret. That would just be OP against enemy armor. The AP turret would 2 hit tanks without frontal armor. With lightnings it wouldn't kill them in one hit unless they hit the back. Hitting in the front or sides would cause the tank to burn though. Same with 2 hits to the rear of an MBT. Wouldn't kill instantly, but would burn the tank.

I hate sitting around waiting for somebody to gun for me and I really hate never being able to gun because nobody wants to drive. I also hate watching my gun be manned by somebody who cannot shoot worth a crap. I don't want that control taken away from me because people on the forums believe they can turn this game back into Planetside 1 through these kind of mechanics (protip, without a 3x increase in TTK for vehicles that won't happen). I do not wish that mechanic on anybody because it's just not fun for everybody. I think there is a better compromise here, but most people refuse to see it because they are stuck in their own ways that were set by Planetside 1.

wasdie

2013-04-10, 10:28 AM

Yes, and make the Lightning even more redundant...

Happy to see at least one person here seeing the obvious problem with this.

Figment

2013-04-10, 10:29 AM

Unfortunately wasdie, you don't.

wasdie

2013-04-10, 10:36 AM

Unfortunately wasdie, you don't.

I don't what?

Whiteagle

2013-04-10, 10:41 AM

Happy to see at least one person here seeing the obvious problem with this.
...No wasdie, I want to see Lightning be the one man tank, the MBT needing a crew of two...

Adding another "Heavy" tank just to satisfy the people who want this change will only make the current MBTs fill the Solo-tank role...

Now I'm all for more Lightning love, but it's a big issue that when I'm in a Squad and the leader tells everyone to "Pull Prowlers" expecting each to bring their OWN MBT to the battle.

wasdie

2013-04-10, 10:44 AM

...No wasdie, I want to see Lightning be the one man tank, the MBT needing a crew of two...

Adding another "Heavy" tank just to satisfy the people who want this change will only make the current MBTs fill the Solo-tank role...

Now I'm all for more Lightning love, but it's a big issue that when I'm in a Squad and the leader tells everyone to "Pull Prowlers" expecting each to bring their OWN MBT to the battle.

Who cares? A solo prowler isn't as powerful as a 2 manned prowler AND what's wrong with large battles?

I never understood this. Why do you want smaller fights with forced 2 man tanks? Where's the logic?

Where's the balance? They are going to have to give the MBTs a significant boost in power which will only upset the balance between tanks and infantry. Even if you somehow could cut down the number of MBTs by 50% (would probably be more like a 20-30% drop) a single MBT would still be way too powerful against infantry.

This way 2 people working together are more effective against infantry, but infantry aren't helplessly farmed. A tank shouldn't be an easy route to 20+ kills. Simple as that.

The worst part is you'll be taking away certs and station cash from people who bought the parts expecting to be able to use them. If you buff the MBT you'll have made the lightning even more pointless to the point where it won't be used. Can't just buff the lighting in response as that would make it pretty much as powerful as our MBTs now.

People keep saying that nobody picks the lightning right now because the solo MBT is an option but I don't see that in game at all. I personally use the lighting far more often and I know several people who do as well. My outfit doesn't use tanks unless we can get 2 people in them because the lightning is a better option than a solo MBT. It's faster, hits nearly as hard, is much more maneuverable, and as a lower profile. It's not just my outfit doing that either. I just don't see the evidence to show that everybody picks the MBT over the lighting all of the time.

NewSith

2013-04-10, 10:54 AM

Wow, I'm one hell of a fortune teller (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=910581&postcount=2)...

Where's the balance? They are going to have to give the MBTs a significant boost in power which will only upset the balance between tanks and infantry. Even if you somehow could cut down the number of MBTs by 50% (would probably be more like a 20-30% drop) a single MBT would still be way too powerful against infantry.

Theory:
Okay, in simpler terms - A "forced" 2-man tank is way less attractive to killwhores. And while it will recieve a good increase in power (according to the common interptretation), it will also get a significant decline in numbers.

The change is not gonna reduce the amount of tanks by half. It's going to reduce the overall numbers by 2/3, simply, because there's not that many players capable of driving a tank skillfuly. so it's N:2-X (where X is solo MBT whores)

Practice:
Whatever. Figgy gave a clear reasoning for why both camps are senseless. With seat-swapping, there's almost no difference between crewed and solo MBTs.

wasdie

2013-04-10, 10:59 AM

Wow, I'm one hell of a fortune teller (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=910581&postcount=2)...

Theory:
Okay, in simpler terms - A "forced" 2-man tank is way less attractive to killwhores. And while it will recieve a good increase in power (according to the common interptretation), it will also get a significant decline in numbers.

The change is not gonna reduce the amount of tanks by half. It's going to reduce the overall numbers by 2/3, simply, because there's not that many players capable of driving a tank skillfuly.

Practice:
Whatever. Figgy gave a clear reasoning for why both camps are senseless. With seat-swapping, there's almost no difference between crewed and solo MBTs.

The problem with forcing a 2 man MBT is that the MBTs are not damage resistant enough in their current state to justify the 2 man. They would need a buff regardless which would only throw off the balance.

Even if you could reduce them by 2/3rds (doubtful) you would still have to buff them and they would be OP. How many kills do you believe you're entitled too when you pull a tank? At the end of the day, that's the real discussion here.

I don't see the logic in reducing the amount of MBTs on the field by 2/3rds. They already do not dominate in any large quantity. I haven't see a real tank spam issue since beta. The only time I see a tank spam is when you're facing an enemy zerg and you're outnumbered 5 to 1. In that case it will always seem like a spam to you.

MBTs do not dominate but they CAN be a very influential force if used right. Most solo tankers get themselves blown up way too quickly to make them even viable. From what I've seen a 2/2 tank is worth 3 solo tanks. They put down far more hurt on the enemy and stay alive much longer. Because it's just 1 tank they don't block the route for other teammates to get by and they fit much better into an assault. They can also pull a tank more quickly when they are destroyed as only 1 out of the 2 had to waste their timer. Adding up all of these factors they clearly outpower a solo tank.

I don't see why reducing them would make this game better. I believe it's just some dream you've gotten in your head because that's how Planetside 1 was. The game has played out nothing like the predictions of everybody in beta who said MBTs were going to ruin the game. 70% of all kills sill come from infantry fighting and probably even more now since the reduction in HE AoE.

If you believe I'm a tank whore you should check my stats. I rarely use an MBT because I can rarely find a secondary gunner, and that's the only way im going to pull a tank. A lightning outpaces a solo MBT, at least for me it does. Truth be told I rarely use vehicles compared to as much as I play infantry. I've never thought of tanks as OP despite being mostly an infantry player. I see a great mix. I don't know why you would want to change that.

I know this argument is going to go in circles because everybody is set in there ways, so I don't even know why I bothered. You're going to say I'm wrong because of your Anecdotal evidence, I'll say you're wrong because of my Anecdotal evidence, and the wheels will just keep spinning.

SoE knows both sides of the argument really well. I think beating it to death isn't going to suddenly change their minds. They have a bit bigger fish to fry with this whole map change anyways.

In the end we're probably both wrong because of what you said in the 2nd half of your post. It doesn't look like they'll change the seat swapping so it won't matter. Seat swapping removal would require animations which T-Ray has said is never coming and to just stop asking.

NewSith

2013-04-10, 11:11 AM

The problem with forcing a 2 man MBT is that the MBTs are not damage resistant enough in their current state to justify the 2 man. They would need a buff regardless which would only throw off the balance.

Even if you could reduce them by 2/3rds you would still have to buff them and they would be OP. How many kills do you believe you're entitled too when you pull a tank? At the end of the day, that's the real discussion here.

Allow me to stop you here. The point is - the less tanks there are, the easier it is to predict where they're are coming from and to retaliate.

Main problem with the tanks people have is not JUST their numbers. It's that while an infantryman converges to kill one tank, he suddenly gets shot by 3 other tanks shooting from all possible directions. Hence the OP talk.

So this basically means that the required buff will be countered by the said drop in their "population".

EDIT: Take BF for example (an example I bring every time). Nobody there screams about tanks being OP, while they are nearly equal to PS2 tanks. It's just that because there is typically no more than 8 tanks total on a 64 player map, a solo tank is treated as balanced. I'm not saying that solo MBTs are bad because they weren't like that in PS2. I'm saying that solo MBTs are balanced only when they have limited numbers. And since there is no non-artificial way to limit solo MBTs, I propose making them crewed instead.

Goldoche

2013-04-10, 11:12 AM

With seat-swapping, there's almost no difference between crewed and solo MBTs.

They could always fix it and add a delay. Plus, it would be very easy for other tanks to deal with a solo MBT and infantry to flank it.

Whiteagle

2013-04-10, 11:21 AM

They could always fix it and add a delay. Plus, it would be very easy for other tanks to deal with a solo MBT and infantry to flank it.
Indeed, a Solo'd Crewed tank would have to choose between moving OR shooting, which is an indirect nerf to its power right there.

Mags are already the Master Tank with their maneuverability, so making the Roomba need a Secondary Weapon to shoot and scoot sounds like a good idea...

...In fact, why haven't we pitched it to SOE that way?
There are a hell of a lot more Secondaries then Main Cannons on the MBTs, and if the Driver got control of the Secondary they'd buy more of them!

Goldoche

2013-04-10, 12:00 PM

Who cares? A solo prowler isn't as powerful as a 2 manned prowler AND what's wrong with large battles?

I never understood this. Why do you want smaller fights with forced 2 man tanks? Where's the logic?

A tank should behave like a tank. Right now, they die in literally 2 seconds from rocketpods. They're too vulnerable to infantry. They're not considered valuable because everyone can pull out a new one in 5 seconds and don't require much skill and cooperation. People can rarely take advantage of their armor because it's weak, so they use it to snipe or to zerg with their outfit.

Where's the balance? They are going to have to give the MBTs a significant boost in power which will only upset the balance between tanks and infantry. Even if you somehow could cut down the number of MBTs by 50% (would probably be more like a 20-30% drop) a single MBT would still be way too powerful against infantry.

This way 2 people working together are more effective against infantry, but infantry aren't helplessly farmed. A tank shouldn't be an easy route to 20+ kills. Simple as that.

I think they're too vulnerable to infantry right now. Every idiot can take on a tank by himself. Tanks should be able to use their armor effectively to make pushes when there are stalemates.

The worst part is you'll be taking away certs and station cash from people who bought the parts expecting to be able to use them. If you buff the MBT you'll have made the lightning even more pointless to the point where it won't be used. Can't just buff the lighting in response as that would make it pretty much as powerful as our MBTs now.

People keep saying that nobody picks the lightning right now because the solo MBT is an option but I don't see that in game at all. I personally use the lighting far more often and I know several people who do as well. My outfit doesn't use tanks unless we can get 2 people in them because the lightning is a better option than a solo MBT. It's faster, hits nearly as hard, is much more maneuverable, and as a lower profile. It's not just my outfit doing that either. I just don't see the evidence to show that everybody picks the MBT over the lighting all of the time.

MBTs are nearly always a better choice to the lightning. They offer very similar gameplay but the MBTs has stronger stats. If MBTs were crewed you'd see a lot more lightnings. You would have more depth to the gameplay and more different playstyles.

Chaff

2013-04-10, 12:04 PM

.
I am way way way way way FOR Crewed tanks. Driver. Primary Gunner. 2ndary Gunner. Armor is at 60% if 1/3 crew. Armor 75% with 2/3 crew. Armor 100% w/ 3/3 crew. Current MBT should be 75% armor if 1/2. 100% armor when 2/2 crew. And no, my proposed percentages are not "off". I'm taking into account that a 3-crew MBT would have some amount MORE of armor than a 2-man MBT. Prolly suffer a bit of speed & maneuverabilty due to more size & weight.

Obviosly this is thumbnail. (Actual prices may vary. Offer void where prohibited).

It sucks pulling a vehicle only to move around your WG (or base/outpost) ....... and still, no one hops in. Then, there's always the guy who hops in and uses your AA 2ndary to try to shoot infantry ..... and only serves to get a swarm of AV launchers to lock-on & fry your ass in 1.6 seconds.

Still, I don't like soloing in a MBT. I think that is more what a Lightning, ESF, or Flash should be for. Lightnings need to be better able to navigate difficult terrain. They flip over far too easy, and become stuck far too easy. Uneccesarily flawed & frustrating design. Lightning should be far more optimized for hit-and-run (a Sniper-Vehicle-of-sorts) tactics, and for light-armed Scouting.

I'm not much of a pilot, but I think high-altitude (carpet) bombing should be an in-game option. Pretty much out-of-reach of ground AA. Something ESF would be required to deal with. Too many people post for only what they want. Everyone's opinions & desires should be heard (though some are difficult to hear) at least once.
.

wasdie

2013-04-10, 12:32 PM

A tank should behave like a tank. Right now, they die in literally 2 seconds from rocketpods. They're too vulnerable to infantry. They're not considered valuable because everyone can pull out a new one in 5 seconds and don't require much skill and cooperation. People can rarely take advantage of their armor because it's weak, so they use it to snipe or to zerg with their outfit.

I'm sorry, but even in real life a tank lasts about .5 seconds from most anti-tank weapons. So when you say that a "tank should behave like a tank" you don't really know what you're talking about.

A tank that acts like a tank should absorb a lot of damage from the front and a bit from the sides. The rear and top are much lighter as you're never supposed to position yourself with your rear to the enemy and the top is lighter so the tank isn't too heavy all together.

People don't take advantage of armor enough because they foolishly push ahead with 1/2 tanks and no infantry/AA cover. That's not a design fault of the MBT.

I think they're too vulnerable to infantry right now. Every idiot can take on a tank by himself. Tanks should be able to use their armor effectively to make pushes when there are stalemates.

The only time they are easy to kill is when infantry flank you and hit you from the rear or a LA drops C4 right on top. I don't see the problem with the first but the LA being able to easily kill armor doesn't sit right with me.

The latest batch of launchers may be a bit too effective though. Both the Pheonix and the Striker can rip through frontal armor pretty good because they do not miss like dumbfires.

MBTs are nearly always a better choice to the lightning. They offer very similar gameplay but the MBTs has stronger stats. If MBTs were crewed you'd see a lot more lightnings. You would have more depth to the gameplay and more different playstyles.

I disagree heavily but we're going to have to agree to disagree because I'm not going to be able to change your mind no matter what I say. I use lightnings far more effectively that solo MBTs. They play really differently. I think the differences can be exaggerated a bit more on the lightning side of things. I think it takes too much frontal damage from enemy armor and doesn't have enough unique turrets. It's the lightning's design that makes it too much of an MBT light, not the MBT's fault.

Changing a tank to a 2 man won't change its playstyle. If you're charging ahead of your forces with no cover you'll still be destroyed easily by a single infantry. Force 2-3 man tanks won't change how they are used, just change how you pull them. You cannot just pull them at will now, you'll have to wait for somebody to gun which will slow them down a bit, but not by much.

Figment

2013-04-10, 12:48 PM

Who cares? (1) A solo prowler isn't as powerful as a 2 manned prowler (2) AND what's wrong with large battles? (3)

Wrong questions and irrelevant statement:

1. Clearly, 'we' care. A lot. So no need to ask a rhetoric question.

2. A solo Prowler may not be as powerful as a 2 manned Prowler, but that's irrelevant as two solo Prowlers are significantly more powerful than a 2 manned Prowler

In fact, one infantry unit has as much trouble and cost in taking out a solo Prowler as it does a Lightning and a 2 manned Prowler. Hence making two solo Prowlers the obvious default choice for a crew of two, obsoleting the crewed tank aside from low resource situations and obsoleting the Lightning in solo crew AP and HE roles if a Prowler is available that has the same performance.

3. Large battles are fine, but large amounts of leverage on one side is not. Endurance creates a lot of the leverage involved in units (firepower is of no concern if anything instakills), so if you have more tanks the amount of endurance increases and thus your leverage.

If you reduce the amount of units, leverage decreases to the point where even if you have stronger units, the decrease in numbers results in less total leverage. Less leverage means that it is easier to balance two groups of different size and composition.

Example:

50 crew available, unlimited resources.

Case I:
50 solo tanks with Endurance E, have a total of Endurance 50E. If firepower requires 4 hits per unit, then you need 400 hits to kill 50 tanks. Total tankfirepower output at rate of fire 1 shot per second per tank, is 50 shots per second.

Case II:
25 dual crew tanks with individually increased endurance 1.5E, have a total Endurance of 37.5E. By the same firepower, you require 6 hits per tank, but only a total of 165 hits to kill 25 tanks. Keeping tankfirepower output the same in damage and rate of fire the same at 1 shot per second, you have 25 shots per second.

Due to the changes, both forms of leverage results in a more favourable situation for the infantry when outnumbered, despite being worse off one on one.

Case III:
If you allow seat switching, then you basically invite usage of the Case II tank that's similar to Case I. In which case, you'd get 75E, requiring 330 hits, with 50 shots per second, which is significantly more advantageous for the same manpower usage than case 2. Basically, by introducing a crewed tank while allowing seat switching, you just introduce a heavier solo MBT.

Case IV:
If you compare to a tank like the Lightning, with for instance 0.5E and firepower 1 shot per second, for 50 crew you get: 25E, with 50 shots per second.

If you compare Case I and Case II with Case IV, then the Lightning is far more competitive in the latter case in any role without changing any stats. In fact, there would be a clear difference in use:

Lightnings would primarily use their numbers and speed, while crew MBTs would use their endurance and focused aim. Currently, both solo MBT and Lightning fight in the exact same manner due to the soloable crew configuration. In fact, the solo MBT has the addition advantage of extra ammo on a similar gun, or a change to a different dedicated gun for the driver.

The current situation makes the Lightning least competitive and simply adding a tank makes matters worse. Dedication and seat switching can't work together and this is entirely SOE's fault for giving in to cheap, selfish killwhores at the expense of every other player in game. All suffer a disadvantage, whether Lightning user, infantry or manned multi-crew vehicle.

Please note that the more units there are, the more likely it is you can get cover to initiate and complete repairs. The more units there are, the sooner a difference in numbers between two sides escalates (where the firepower concentration by the numerically advantage force results in an ever increasing power distance due to taken out the opposition faster and faster).

You can't balance anything as long as you don't understand how alternative ways of using manpower compete with one another, within the same empire and outside of it. Certainly won't be able to balance if you don't understand the power of numerical leverage at discrepencies in numbers between two sides.

wasdie

2013-04-10, 01:00 PM

I fully understand the arguments against solo tanking, trust me, you're not the first one to put up every one of those cases in front of me and say the exact same thing. However they are ALWAYS taken from inside the theoretical vacuum and thus their credibility is only theoretical. Once you start throwing that kind of stuff out we can go on and on and on and on in a never ending cycle.

You already kind of hampered your case saying 2 solo MBTs were far greater than one 2/2 MBT which is actually still debatable. In a flat environment with no other players on the field I would agree, but that's not how this game plays out. People were making your exact claims throughout beta and even the devs were disagreeing saying exactly what I'm saying now. The vacuum isn't good enough, on the battlefield there are even more variables to consider.

This is why I believe it's still really debateable which will win. I've seen cases of 2/2 tanks beating 3-4 solo tanks. I've seen where a single solo tank has beaten a 2/2 tank. Hell I've seen lightnings with the stock gun kill 2/2 tanks. There is just too many possibilities to take a look in these kind of situations. Sure that's all anecdotal evidence, but it's just as valid as your theories and cases.

Really in the end you're saying you believe they'll change up the gameplay, and I believe they won't based upon what I've seen in this game.

With the changes in the map flow we'll see yet another shift in the dynamic of tanking so all of what we're arguing now is kind of for nothing. We'll see larger numbers facing off. Bases won't be as easily camped, the territory in between bases will become even more vehicle heavy as players will not be able to easily farm infantry inside bases and thus will either have to abandon their tank or move onto a different front. Maybe then we'll see a problem with the current tanks, but as this game stands now the tanks are pretty balanced overall. You may feel it's cheap to get killed so easily in them, but I doubt any matter of buffing is going to change that mentality as it doesn't change the mentality of any other aspect of the game.

In the end neither of us looks at the entire picture (because we physically cannot) and were both very biased. You have what you want, I have what I want, and the devs are doing what they feel is best for the game as a whole. I'll support any changes they make as they always have a much more neutral approach. If they decide that 2 man tanking is the way to go, I'll not argue with them because they see the bigger picture. As it stands now, they believe that solo tanking is better. I know a lot of people here disagree with pretty much everything SoE does but I do not because I have a bit more faith in them. I've been very happy with this game since alpha and I continue to enjoy it greatly despite their changes.

Figment

2013-04-10, 02:30 PM

2x 1/2 > 2/2

That's not debatable. Not by a longshot. It's equally easy to kill a 1/2 as it is a 2/2 with C4 for instance, and outflanking a 2/2 with two tanks is incredibly easy. Any variables are in favour of multiple tanks, unless the drivers are incompetent.

You can't just say "but there's like, variables man!" while in reality, there's no relevant variants that would help the single tank double crew against two solo tanks, or why you'd pick one tank over two, because even if you argue "but AA cover!", I'd still rather have two stationary units with AA, than one.

I can't think of a single situation in which I'd pick one moving unit with the same endurance (same frame!) over two potentially moving with double the endurance as accuracy matters less if you have two units than if you have one.

If you give me the option between a Lightning and a multicrew, there's a whole different consideration going. But when the same frame is concerned, I don't have to think twice. Default choice is double the same frame.

"Theoretical vaccuum" my arse. You're just tossing about gibberish without making a single argument. You're not even making anecdotal sense. I've beaten 5 1/2 tanks with a 1/2 tank, simply because they couldn't be arsed to turn around.

THAT ISN'T WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. We're not talking about combat between two empires! WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOU AND YOUR BUDDY PICK.

LOOK AROUND YOU FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, EVERY SINGLE BASE YOU GET TO IS SURROUNDED BY 20 SOLO DRIVEN TANKS, EVERY ENGAGEMENT. AND THEY ARE NOT DEAD BY THE END OF THE ENGAGEMENT BECAUSE THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY OF THEM.

IF even some of them die, that's because they're inept drivers. Not because they're balanced. Regardless of ineptitude, if they have a friend, they'll STILL pick two units, even if it means that the crap driver is just as much worth as a decoy, because he'll attract fire that misses the other guy!

I don't fucking care if you can kill 50 tanks with one tank because of inept driving or them getting trapped, if I have a buddy and enter that situation and he could have had his own tank, HE WILL HAVE HIS OWN TANK! THAT is what this is about.

So no, you may have read the argument before, you don't GET the argument. And you've not gotten it since pre-alpha. You just don't care enough to even try the thought experiment for yourself, nor do you care to verify it in practice. And apparently, you're not even observing what happens in practice.

Everything from observation to theory, confirms what I've been saying on this matter.

You're basically debating this like a young earth creationist. "That's all fine and dandy, but I'm sure there's a missing link somewhere", even if there's no such thing as a missing link: you just don't want to hear it.

For the last time Wasdie, your anecdotes have nowhere near as much value as any of the other arguments presented here. They're not just unverifiable hearsay, they're also completely irrelevant because they don't influence player choice. The only thing that does that is the POTENTIAL fighting performance of the same two players. They don't decide AFTER a battle, they decide based on what gives them the best chances in any coming combat.

So no, your single argument isn't of equal weight to a busload of arguments supported by maths, combat theory and observably verified in practice in game.

Dougnifico

2013-04-10, 07:53 PM

Well, SOE has said no a thousand times to crew served MBT's. Regardless of what it does to the Lightning's relevance (its and IFV, not a tank at all), a heavy tank might be the only way you could get what you want.

Figment

2013-04-10, 08:43 PM

Only it wouldn't be.

Soothsayer

2013-04-10, 08:48 PM

moosepoop

2013-04-10, 09:21 PM

magical words to open the heart of smedly:

i would pay money for crewed tanks.

Goldoche

2013-04-10, 09:49 PM

I'd like to see it as an option, but I would want there to be a 1+1=2 in terms of effectiveness where a single crewed tank scales in power with two single person tanks.

I would also strongly urge against 3 person tanks. If you follow the 1+1 rule, three is too much.

3 person tanks were a weak point in the original TR design philosophy.

I think three would be ideal. One driver, one main turret gunner and one secondary turret gunner.

Well, SOE has said no a thousand times to crew served MBT's. Regardless of what it does to the Lightning's relevance (its and IFV, not a tank at all), a heavy tank might be the only way you could get what you want.

If we insist enough maybe they'll bend to our will. We're the ones giving them money. They also developed a lattice system for PS2 after we requested it multiple times.

Dougnifico

2013-04-11, 01:35 AM

There in lies your problem, most people like MBTs the way they are, myself included.

Tom Peters

2013-04-11, 01:39 AM

There in lies your problem, most people like MBTs the way they are, myself included.

Most people also have no idea what balance is.

Figment

2013-04-11, 02:39 AM

There in lies your problem, most people like MBTs the way they are, myself included.

Not true. Conducted a survey during beta, two thirds of the respondants were in favour of split controls.

Show me this source of information that says "most people" like it. I havn't seen this so I have to assume this is your assumption.

Baneblade

2013-04-11, 06:38 AM

There in lies your problem, most people like MBTs the way they are, myself included.

Correction: Most MBT whores like them the way they are, yourself included.

But I think most ESF pilots like ESFs the way they are too and those need an overhaul.

So what you like has nothing to do with what needs to be done. I like being able to solo kill whore with my Vanguard, but that doesn't mean I'm selfish enough to actually think I should be able to.

Goldoche

2013-04-11, 10:41 AM

There in lies your problem, most people like MBTs the way they are, myself included.

That's why the lightning exists. It's very similar to a MBT.

moosepoop

2013-04-11, 10:56 AM

the mainstream battlefield crowd is long gone. the people thats left are either hardcore planetside 2 fans, or cheap people who like to play for free.

its time to implement crewed tanks.

Dougnifico

2013-04-11, 09:13 PM

Not true. Conducted a survey during beta, two thirds of the respondants were in favour of split controls.

Show me this source of information that says "most people" like it. I havn't seen this so I have to assume this is your assumption.

Survey taken from beta which was made up of the PS1 old guard. My source on this are the strong sales numbers and continued player base from the battlefield series and others that are similar. Crewed MBT's are simply not in the mainstream, something that is key to the success of PS2.

Correction: Most MBT whores like them the way they are, yourself included.

Call someone names when they have a different opinion... classy.
Also, I play infantry. :D

Maidere

2013-04-11, 09:32 PM

My source on this are the strong sales numbers and continued player base from the battlefield series and others that are similar.
Want to know what BF3 players think about PS2? Watch Lvlcap's video.
Cattering to BF players is a bad idea if you cant provide the same or better production quality.

Lonehunter

2013-04-12, 12:22 AM

Just wait for buggies, once they are implemented MBTs will need a buff from being destroyed all day.

Dougnifico

2013-04-12, 12:27 AM

Want to know what BF3 players think about PS2? Watch Lvlcap's video.
Cattering to BF players is a bad idea if you cant provide the same or better production quality.

Who should they cater to then? If they just cater to the old boys club then the game will die, just like the old one. They have to branch out and cater to other groups in the FPS genre. That's another reason I say don't be shocked if they port Planetside 2 to the Playstation 4.

Baneblade

2013-04-12, 12:42 AM

Call someone names when they have a different opinion... classy.
Also, I play infantry. :D

I'm an MBT whore. I field a Vanguard any chance I can. I still don't think they should be designed to be solo vehicles.

Tom Peters

2013-04-12, 12:48 AM

What I don't really understand is why they "need" to be solo vehicles for the game to be "mainstream" or "casual". Why can't casual players enjoy working together with their other casual friends in a vehicle together?

Vehicles are POWERFUL things and they should require more manpower to operate... it's just common sense!

Hell, just look at BFRs. They made them one-man-vehicles of ultimate destruction and it killed Planetside 1.

If you had one guy operating the legs, and one on each arm, it would've been a completely different (and much more balanced) game.

Gatekeeper

2013-04-12, 04:00 AM

Yeah, I've never understood why attracting mainstream players required one-person MBTs.

I'm pretty sure BF players, or anyone else who's used to 1-man tanks, could cope fine with the concept that as well as 1-man tanks (Lightnings) there are extra-powerful tanks that require you to cooperate with a second player.

Is that really such a tough concept to grasp?

What's really weird though, is that requiring a gunner for effective use is for some reason just fine when it comes to Liberators, Sunderers and Galaxies. Of course, mainstream players can figure that out just fine, but tanks - no, that's completely beyond them... ;)

Figment

2013-04-12, 05:26 AM

Survey taken from beta which was made up of the PS1 old guard. My source on this are the strong sales numbers and continued player base from the battlefield series and others that are similar. Crewed MBT's are simply not in the mainstream, something that is key to the success of PS2.

Nice assumptions, just completely wrong.

40% of the respondents played ps1. 35% came from BF.

68% of BF respondents wanted 2-4 crew tanks with split controls.

66% of ps1 respondents wanted 2-3 crew tanks with split controls.

69% of overal respondents wanted 2-3 crew tanks with split controls.

Only 24-30% of any group wanted soloable MBTs. This was after they had played with the mbt tanks in beta. 95% would be okay with split controls.

Survey had over 200 respondents.

Trendlines between 40 respondents and 200 respondents showed only marginal percentages of differences (around 3%). So stop making assumptions and conduct a new survey if you want to claim anything.

JesNC

2013-04-12, 08:04 AM

First off: The chance that current MBT main guns get switched to crew-operated is slim at best.

That said, if you want to run around in a 50% effectiveness MBT - aka solo - that fine IMO. If I can't get a gunner for my Vanny I'll rather pull a Lightning tbh. The difference between running solo and having a gunner who can watch out for threats and fire without having to worry about driving is like night and day, the additional damage from the secondary gun is just the icing on the cake.
So as far as I'm concerned, MBTs are already dedicated team vehicles.

I'm all for new turrets that require a dedicated crewman, but the ones we have now are fine the way they are.

On the MBT health issue, I think it's fine as it is now - although I wouldn't oppose a 10-15% hp buff. Anything more would allow the tanks to plow through bases and open areas without having to pay too much attention to infantry threats IMO.
I rarely get my tank killed by infantry AV right now, and if it happens it's usually my own fault for abandoning terrain cover or overextending myself, or running into overwhelming odds.

PredatorFour

2013-04-12, 08:35 AM

Mbt's need the xtra armor option of Rear Armor. That will help lots.

Anyone who knows me knows where i stand on dedicated driver/ gunner, i wont repeat myself for the umpteenth time.

Figment

2013-04-12, 09:29 AM

Jes, you can't have just a new turret with extra crewman without buffing the health significantly and you can't do that on the same frame. You just can't justify two or three people in a unit one can handle ar 75-80% efficiency.

You know full well when we move with our group that we are more succesful in a group of vehicles due to numbers and no loss of firepower, than if we sit in one another's vehicle and be less targets, equal firepower, less endurance. That turret guy isn't looking out for threats your wingman can't look for, we don't get killed by c4 very often when we drive together and a larger part of our team gets taken out when we do drive together in these glass cannons and we die.

If I get the choice to solo between Lightning and mbt, my Lightning would lose. I only use it when my vanny an Sundy timer aren't ticking down or tech isn't available. Vanguard results in far more success, both solo and in groups. Once I get an aa turret on top, it is "activate Vanguard shield, switch guns, kill ESF rawketpawds". I can instantly hit air for a kill with a Vanguard, aside from the skyguard turret, no such luck with the Lightning, yet equaly hard shots. More even due to the Viper turret's recoil.

JesNC

2013-04-12, 11:26 AM

Jes, you can't have just a new turret with extra crewman without buffing the health significantly and you can't do that on the same frame. You just can't justify two or three people in a unit one can handle ar 75-80% efficiency.

The MBT health is already balanced around having a crew of 2. I don't see the problem with using a dedicated turret/main gun on the same chassis.

You know full well when we move with our group that we are more succesful in a group of vehicles due to numbers and no loss of firepower, than if we sit in one another's vehicle and be less targets, equal firepower, less endurance. That turret guy isn't looking out for threats your wingman can't look for, we don't get killed by c4 very often when we drive together and a larger part of our team gets taken out when we do drive together in these glass cannons and we die.

In my experience my wingmen rarely look out for my tank, they're busy keeping their own tank out of harm's way and 2 [1/2]MBTs are only superior to a single [2/2]MBT when in stationary artillery mode. Once you're on the move the stabilized secondary and the reduced footprint start to shine - you simply cannot archive the same amount of mobility OR cover with a tank force twice as large.

If I get the choice to solo between Lightning and mbt, my Lightning would lose. I only use it when my vanny an Sundy timer aren't ticking down or tech isn't available. Vanguard results in far more success, both solo and in groups. Once I get an aa turret on top, it is "activate Vanguard shield, switch guns, kill ESF rawketpawds". I can instantly hit air for a kill with a Vanguard, aside from the skyguard turret, no such luck with the Lightning, yet equaly hard shots. More even due to the Viper turret's recoil.

By switching to the AA secondary while soloing you turned yourself into a sitting duck, extremely exposed and vulnerable to any kind of ground threat, and your 8 seconds of Vanny Shield do little to alleviate that - the other MBTs have it even worse.
I'm not saying it doesn't work out, but in my experience it's only viable in low density encounters.

As for not being as effective solo in a Lightning - it's a different playstyle. You cannot take the hits like a MBT, but you can avoid them far better.

I've got a lengthy written tank guide in the works, should hit our forums sometime next week if I can sort out my connection issues - stay tuned ;)

Deadeye

2013-04-12, 11:37 AM

Whiteagle

2013-04-12, 11:43 AM

My problem with multi crew MBTs is what is there for the driver to do but be a taxi driver?
Give them the Secondary.

It's not like they shouldn't be on the look-out for threats anyways...

Figment

2013-04-12, 12:07 PM

My problem with multi crew MBTs is what is there for the driver to do but be a taxi driver? Tanks in PS2 are slow, not very maneuverable and with armor facings they have to always try to face the enemy head on. I think the only way a driver would have any fun is if armor facings were removed otherwise what will they be doing?

driving straight from base to base? Or moving forward and backwards behind a rock? Maybe on occasion picking which way to face the front armor? These are not the same tanks as PS1 and there has to be some fun for the driver unless you really think the warm and fuzzy feeling from your gunner nailing a target is enough. a

I disagree with the taxi driver sentiment, people that feel that way should just use a Lightning anyway.

Drivers should be concentrating on threat and (friendly!) collission detection, dodging, target coordination and maneuvring (with allies) and indeed, hull orientation.

Currently, they're too busy gunning to do that, hence why they're just standing stationary. With hulls the way they are, outmaneuvring enemies becomes a far greater skill based maneuvring element to the dogfight. Of course you can try to keep your front to the enemy, but if you play World of Tanks with a platoon, you'd know that only the heavy tanks and tanks with a strong hull that bounces most frontal shots and a strong penetrating gun, DON'T try to dogfight and get in other people's rear.

PS2 tanks are a lot faster than most WoT tanks in terms of acceleration and speed. I've frequently outmaneuvred enemy tanks in PS2, particularly in combination with other friendly tanks. However, those are more prone to failure when I have to fricking aim sideways during a circle movement and can't see where I'm going. I'd MUCH rather hand that turret control over to my gunner.

And no, I don't really need a gun in return. At most a small forward mounted infantry machine gun, maybe.

Goldoche

2013-04-12, 12:47 PM

First off: The chance that current MBT main guns get switched to crew-operated is slim at best.

If we keep complaining we have a chance. We're the ones playing the game and giving them money. We did get the lattice system after all.

Goldoche

2013-04-12, 12:56 PM

Sledgecrushr

2013-04-12, 01:13 PM

i wish we had dedicated drivers. Driving a vanguard is brain achingly boring.

Deadeye

2013-04-12, 02:07 PM

I disagree with the taxi driver sentiment, people that feel that way should just use a Lightning anyway.

Drivers should be concentrating on threat and (friendly!) collission detection, dodging, target coordination and maneuvring (with allies) and indeed, hull orientation.

Currently, they're too busy gunning to do that, hence why they're just standing stationary. With hulls the way they are, outmaneuvring enemies becomes a far greater skill based maneuvring element to the dogfight. Of course you can try to keep your front to the enemy, but if you play World of Tanks with a platoon, you'd know that only the heavy tanks and tanks with a strong hull that bounces most frontal shots and a strong penetrating gun, DON'T try to dogfight and get in other people's rear.

PS2 tanks are a lot faster than most WoT tanks in terms of acceleration and speed. I've frequently outmaneuvred enemy tanks in PS2, particularly in combination with other friendly tanks. However, those are more prone to failure when I have to fricking aim sideways during a circle movement and can't see where I'm going. I'd MUCH rather hand that turret control over to my gunner.

And no, I don't really need a gun in return. At most a small forward mounted infantry machine gun, maybe.

I play WOT and this game is most deffinitely not WOT. To even compare them is to be an insult to WOT. The vehicle physics in this game aren't even laughable. They bad and the Devs should feel bad for making us suffer through them. 70 ton main battle tanks do not slide. Hell, my Ford Focus doesn't slide like the vehicles in this game. Tanks in this game are arcade tanks, like the battlefield tanks. Specifically they play just like Battlefield 3 tanks.

I will admit it is more difficult to fire and drive at the same time but it's hard to do that even with a driver because all that maneuvering your driver is doing is going to do two things: throw off the gunner's aim and expose your side armor to enemy fire. The only time I found a multi-crew vehicle to be truly effective was in a PS1 skyguard because the driver could go super fast and the flak exploded on proximity rather than just direct hit. Trying to do that in a vanguard never worked for me and I always stuck to lightnings and still do in PS2 even if I occasionally hit a rock or tree while driving.

I dare SOE to put two man MBTs in this game. I guarantee it's going to have no effect on tank combat in this game. You're still going to get the Zergs of tanks (just half as many because they all need gunners or they'll be Zergs of lightnings) and they're still going to be picked off by AV rockets, turrets and planes. And the game of course will again become Aircraftside because except for those who like always being taxi drivers or dedicated outfits, many more people are going to pick aircraft and lightnings, me included.

The only people who truly want 2 man MBTs are people who simply can't handle driving and gunning at the same time or Planetside 1 vets. I asked in the US General chat of WOT once if people would want two-man tanks. The overwhelming response was NO.

As far as giving the driver a weapon, I wouldn't do it. it would be too much of a distraction and defeat the purpose. The driver's job is to drive the tank and do all those fancy maneuvers, not try to aim his dinky coaxial gun at infantry. Ask for a third slot if you want a machine gunner. So now the tank crew really needs to be 3: a dedicated driver who just drives from base to base doing what we do with the WASD keys, a main gunner, and a secondary gunner. Jeez, add more seats and you've got a sunderer. Can even give it then an AMS capability.:rolleyes:

To do all that would would require the average tank to be at least as strong as a sunderer which I think they should be, tanks are worthless right now because of all the AV missiles and rockets flying around.

Ya know what? after typing all that and thinking about it. Why not? Two man tanks aren't really more effective, not really, but it might be fun and It'll give me an extra kill and extra points when I blow them up because of all the buffs they'll need to be justified. And maybe tanks will last more than a few minutes thanks to the buffs.

I just thought of this too, you could give vehicle crews a dedicated voice chat channel so they can be more effective.

Figment

2013-04-12, 03:05 PM

I play WOT and this game is most deffinitely not WOT. To even compare them is to be an insult to WOT. [...] Tanks in this game are arcade tanks, like the battlefield tanks. Specifically they play just like Battlefield 3 tanks.

Rather overreaction to a statement refering to directional armour. Please note I made a comment regarding the fear and goal of non-penetration being one of the main reasons for WoT static gameplay.

Given you always deal damage and you're more prone to missing a target that's moving, there's much more value to continued moving in PS2 and not just back and forth.

I will admit it is more difficult to fire and drive at the same time but it's hard to do that even with a driver because all that maneuvering your driver is doing is going to do two things: throw off the gunner's aim and expose your side armor to enemy fire.

And throw off your enemy's aim. But at least a dedicated gunner will be a lot more able to cope with thrown off aim than someone who's compensating for thrown off aim AND driving at the same time. For side-shots, there's such a thing as side armour. If you're saying that should never be used than you've found a good flaw in the PS2 cert design (;)).

The only time I found a multi-crew vehicle to be truly effective was in a PS1 skyguard because the driver could go super fast and the flak exploded on proximity rather than just direct hit. Trying to do that in a vanguard never worked for me and I always stuck to lightnings and still do in PS2 even if I occasionally hit a rock or tree while driving.

Great, but we're not you. I had two Thunderer drivers and you should know that despite of the straight line, a Thunderer's cone of fire was one of the worst in game. Yet our gunners were very accurate and that was largely thanks to the driver (me) providing a stable platform and increasing and decreasing gun angles when needed.

I dare SOE to put two man MBTs in this game. I guarantee it's going to have no effect on tank combat in this game.

No effect?

You're still going to get the Zergs of tanks (just half as many because they all need gunners or they'll be Zergs of lightnings) and they're still going to be picked off by AV rockets, turrets and planes.

I count two effects already... >.>

And the game of course will again become Aircraftside because except for those who like always being taxi drivers or dedicated outfits, many more people are going to pick aircraft and lightnings, me included.

So that's a third effect. Question though, is this under the assumption the armour and hitpoints of the MBT would remain the same?

The only people who truly want 2 man MBTs are people who simply can't handle driving and gunning at the same time or Planetside 1 vets.

Also, nice insult to people who want multi-crew tanks. Are you feeling insecure today? For the record, all my WoT tanks are between 50 and 73% win ratio, completely based on random matches on a non-uniform language (therefore poorly communicating) server. What are your stats?

Are you the US server Deadeye with 48% average winratio, 50% average loss ratio and an 0.78 Kills/Match ratio and a spotting ratio of 0.68, an average tank level of 6.71 and 426 experience per battle?

Am I the Figment on the EU server with 53% average winratio, 44% average loss ratio and an 1.06 Kills/Match ratio and a spotting ratio of 1.42, an average tank level of 6.47 and 611 experience per battle?

Let's see, you survive in 1% more of the matches and have 2% better accuracy. Guess that beats 1.5x your damage, 1.5x your experience, 1.5x your kills, 2x your scouting, 6% less defeats on average and 5% more wins on average, on average achieved with slightly lower tier tanks...

Well, I wonder. If we're the ones "who suck at tanking", what does that make your side?

Don't randomly insult people by assuming they suck if it can come back to haunt you later. Come on man. That's uncalled for. And don't say "but I also said PS1 vets and you're a PS1 vet!", this applies to everyone. We're not inherently different.

[quote]I asked in the US General chat of WOT once if people would want two-man tanks. The overwhelming response was NO.

You asked in WoT FOR THE CONTEXT OF WOT, a tiny multiplayer game created around building up your personal tank arsenal, loads of instakill tanks and heavy personal account investments (gold, silver) in tanks, if they wanted to share the tanks on their accounts with other people and expected anything near a yes?

:doh:

It's interesting you suddenly compare the two contexts of WoT and PS2 now that it's convenient, but before there was no comparison allowed. Of course, this is a comparison where there's no relevant similarities on a game level between the in game systems...

As far as giving the driver a weapon, I wouldn't do it. it would be too much of a distraction and defeat the purpose. The driver's job is to drive the tank and do all those fancy maneuvers, not try to aim his dinky coaxial gun at infantry. Ask for a third slot if you want a machine gunner. So now the tank crew really needs to be 3: a dedicated driver who just drives from base to base doing what we do with the WASD keys, a main gunner, and a secondary gunner. Jeez, add more seats and you've got a sunderer. Can even give it then an AMS capability.:rolleyes:

That's what the battlefield people wanted. Some even wanted a dedicated tank commander. >.>

But, we had that in PS1: the Prowler. And we ALSO didn't have that in PS1, yet had two guns: the Vanguard.

BUT, in PS2, we have seat swapping, so really, that's a PS1 Vanguard setup right there.

To do all that would would require the average tank to be at least as strong as a sunderer which I think they should be, tanks are worthless right now because of all the AV missiles and rockets flying around.

So you'd rather have them be worthless right now, or worthwhile and fun?

Ya know what? after typing all that and thinking about it. Why not? Two man tanks aren't really more effective, not really, but it might be fun and It'll give me an extra kill and extra points when I blow them up because of all the buffs they'll need to be justified. And maybe tanks will last more than a few minutes thanks to the buffs.

That we can agree on. ;P

I just thought of this too, you could give vehicle crews a dedicated voice chat channel so they can be more effective.

That's also something that has come up in the past and would be a good addition. Though there's a bit many voice channels for people to remember right now IMO. Should probably replace proxy chat since next to nobody uses that for obvious reasons. Heck, almost only ones using it right now are trolls. :/

Deadeye

2013-04-12, 03:27 PM

You can look up my WOT stats, Figment. Deadeye31 on the NA server. I have a 55% solo pub win rate (overall, on some tanks it does get into the 60%+ level). My favorite tank is the hellcat though I own and play at least 2 dozen different tanks ranging from tier 2 light tanks to my tier 10 T110E4 (and love almost every single one of them). My favorite tactic is the scoot and shoot though I love using the US tanks' heavy turrets for hull down hilarity (Took 8500 damage in a tier 10 match in my T34 once and lived. It was epic.).

I know how to drive tanks and if you think for a minute putting 2 people into these tanks is going to keep them alive on this battlefield, you are seriously mistaken. As mistaken as thinking they're going to be any more effective than one person driving and gunning.

They are going to need a lot of buffs to justify the extra points they're going to be worth and I doubt highly they'll have much more of an impact beyond just reducing the number of tanks on a battlefield where there are already few tanks thanks to Anti-tank weapons everywhere.

But bring them on, the novelty factor will be cool for a while and I'll appreciate the points when I blow them up like I blow up the MBTs now.

Dougnifico

2013-04-12, 07:00 PM

Here is my problem. A select group want crew tanks, yet they will not settle for a heavy tank, nor will the settle for the option on an MBT. The only solution is to remove non-crewed tanks. This would actually hurt the game as it would disenfranchise many current players. Look at forumside (gags). They still pay and they still play. Many of them are more current gamers who come from other games like BF and CoD.

Basically, if you make MBT's crewed, people are going to be pissed and many will leave. It won't bring back nearly as many (sorry, but the old guard of PS1 is pretty small). If you get a heavy tank, its a content expansion and you still get what you want. You even get a power advantage for the 2 people (3rd seat on top?). In that case, everyone wins. Balance issues can be worked out.

Vanir

2013-04-12, 07:04 PM

We want an optional cert that will allow a driver of a prowler and a vanguard to have the option of opening up another gunner seat, where this new gunner seat will control the main gun. So the tank will be have a total of 3 people in it. A driver, main gunner and the secondary gunner.

Magriders, just switch the main gun with the secondary gun.

SturmovikDrakon

2013-04-12, 07:05 PM

Here is my problem. A select group want crew tanks, yet they will not settle for a heavy tank, nor will the settle for the option on an MBT. The only solution is to remove non-crewed tanks.

Lightning

Look at forumside (gags). They still pay and they still play. Many of them are more current gamers who come from other games like BF and CoD.

13 page thread on the official forums advocating for crewed MBTs. Most posts are in agreement.

Figment

2013-04-12, 10:20 PM

Excellent deadeye. Would have been annoying to find a ps player scoring under 50%, you would be the first of 23 people I know to Play WoT. Most score between 51 and 65%. On average.

You are however, the first to be against crewed tanks among them, because of the context difference in the games: in WoT it is fine. In ps everyone can have a tank, but not everyone is a tank, unlike WoT.

That is why they have to be limited in power and balanced against other groups. And unlike in WoT, those groups will not be equal, they will not have a matchmaking thing going. Leverage as you should know from WoT, in numbers is huge. Having one big guy less on your side means a likely loss. Consider the large differences in troop numbers possible in PS2.

Are you really going to tell people "well you should have brought fourth tanks from te other side of the continent, instead of your 18 infantry. Now 18 vs 40, is quite different from 18 vs 40 in 20 units. Or less, 40 in 14 (3 men crew). Especially if the amount of guns drops by 33% to 50%.

Leverage will drop in comparison and the fight just got a lot fairer, even if still in the advantage of the bigger crew.

Now a really heavy tank is possible, but not under the current PS2 seat swapping, acquisition and cert rules. It just wouldn't work.

Baneblade

2013-04-12, 10:56 PM

Mbt's need the xtra armor option of Rear Armor. That will help lots.

Call it the Tombstone and I'd pay SC for it.

Granted I think we should just stop the entire concept of variable positional damage models entirely unless they will be made universal.

Root Hade

2013-04-13, 05:08 AM

Figment

2013-04-13, 05:18 AM

Okay.. I'm confused how this discussion still comes up. Didn't Higby confirm they were going with Dedicated gunner certs that would unlock better main guns? Didn't that dude who looks through game files pull a bunch of images of stuff like a railgun for the Vanguard and quadcannon for the Prowler..? Were those just cosmetics? Was what Higby said on that Amerish stream just his own idea/wishes?

You can't have better guns than instant kill. Firepower improvements aren't what we are looking for, because we already have an extremely powerful turret. the proposed solution is a non solution that doesn't address the problem, so no, people aren't satisfied with it.

If you want to improve on the AP gun, which can already two-shot other tanks from behind, just how much stronger can you effectively make it? You can't. It's a ridiculous solution: nobody asks for more firepower. At most people ask for more endurance (hitpoints), because they're treated as a single guy in a tank, instead of having a crew in it. Which with dedicated crew is far more true.

How would making this a certification and straddling the line between MBT and new heavy tank sit with you guys?

Bad. If you keep the same frame and hitpoints, you punish the dedicated crew by halfing their damage output while leaving the endurance the same. Increasing the firepower of the gun doesn't matter, because the firepower aimed at a single unit would not have more effect, the firepower cut is mainly felt in the capacity of attacking multiple units at once. Using the same frame communicates poorly to enemy players as well if you would provide some sort of endurance buff with it. Due to internal seat switching capabilities, these would still be used solo and just increase the current problems by adding more health to an individual player.

If the amount of guns remains the same and you would need a third gunner, effectively your firepower is cut by a third compared to solo players, while your endurance is cut by two thirds if the frame receives no hitpoint buffs. Again, if the frame does receive hitpoints buff, due to internal seat switching you would basically create a two crew tank with switchable weapons balanced by hitpoints for three crew.

Basically, they just created an impossible situation.

Also its weird some people think driving would be boring and that that was in fact the reason SOE opted in for solo tanks. They must have been going for the BF3 market. Cos the dedicated roles for the Liberator kinda flies in the face of all that.

Yes, it is weird, hypocritical and they did go with what the standard is in other games. They just didn't realise those other games have fixed limits on the amount of units while PS does not.

Sirisian

2013-04-13, 05:33 AM

13 page thread on the official forums advocating for crewed MBTs. Most posts are in agreement.
Mostly because those of us enjoying the new system aren't spending our times on the forum complaining. NewSith kind of hit his point already with his first post.

MBTs are underwhelming and very easy to kill, especially by ESFs and Infantry weapons. They're too easily spammed and feel like disposable tin cans.

I find my Magrider is very hard to kill when used with a gunner that also plays as an engineer. Regarding ESFs you need to stay with a group and not just go solo with them. Also regarding infantry weapons I recommend staying at range. Using a tank to rambo into the battle is a good way to die by mines.

All vehicles are easily spammed. Target actual solutions if you're going to bring that up.

They do not require cooperation to be efficient, a lone wolf can be fine on his own.
You just said they are too easily killed by ESFs and infantry weapons and then you say they are fine by themselves. So they're both bad by themselves because ESFs and infantry kill them and also too powerful by themselves. This is true of every vehicle and weapon in the game. They simply do massive amounts of damage. You're looking at changes that relate to the relative TTK of the whole game. Again propose solutions to the actual problem.

That said I enjoy driving and having the primary gun, but hate our Magrider since it's not a real tank. What I've always wanted was a real dual track tanks for the VS (hover with the same handling as a Vanguard and Prowler). Having a non-fixed turret would be nice so the developer team could allow us to right click and release control to the second or third gunner. I'd still like the option for the driver to use the primary gun if they wanted though. Driving and gunning at the same time is skill and the complexity of the tanks in PS2 do not warrant the driver to just driving. As others mentioned it's an arcade type tank, not a military simulation.

The other issue is the way resources and certs work. If I put a lot of certs into the tank I should be able to use it even when my outfit isn't playing. Same reason the Liberator has a front gun. I can get a secondary gunner for more power, but I don't need to. The secondary and third gunners should all accent the primary weapons and make the vehicle more formidable. For the MBTs and Liberator this is true. Having the crewed versions of tanks people are suggesting don't fulfill this.

Figment

2013-04-13, 05:37 AM

Sirisian

2013-04-13, 05:55 AM

Sirisian, the whole complexity argument is completely void, we had crewed tanks in even more arcade tanks in PS1. That's not an argument out of realism, it's an argument out of game play and inter-unit balance (what is fun, what is efficient what is fair, how do other units compare as alternatives).
It's not void. It's why it failed in PS1. I can only talk anecdotally but even in PS1 the driver had a gun with the Magrider and it wasn't fun in the slightest. Gunning and shooting down planes and sniping infantry is fun in an FPS and expected. If there was more to driving a tank and the actual complexity warranted it then it might have worked in PS1 and would be viable in PS2, but that just isn't the case. The developers are against adding complexity so expecting to make driving a tank enjoyable is naive.

Here's how driving went in PS1 so we can recap. Drive close to battle and let gunner snipe enemy tank at 100 meters. Move left and right if necessary. It just didn't require two people. You can't just force a mechanic because it sounds interesting. It has to be fun.

Dougnifico

2013-04-13, 07:13 AM

^This exactly. This is also why the devs will not budge and have stated they won't. Good on them.

Punker

2013-04-13, 07:18 AM

Being a dedicated driver, and being good at it is fun. Saying there's "nothing to do" is just pure bs. You're focusing on positioning, dodging, looking out for an escape route, your tanks health, calling targets and giving your gunner a clear shot at the highest threats and timing.

Imho having 2 crew relying on each other to drive, gun and communicate is way more exciting than being on your own in a MBT.

Here's how driving goes in PS2 so we can recap. Drive close to battle and stop 100 metres out. hold m1 and snipe enemy tank. Move left and right if necessary.

edit: going to assume you played vanu because of the "snipe from 100m don't commit and move left and right" comment... yeah it was boring because you made it boring.

Maarvy

2013-04-13, 07:26 AM

Personal playing as vanu we will always gun magriders 2/2 .

Reload speed , certed zoom , ammo capacity on a sauron hrb makes it a beast

Auto repair +2 certed engineers is a must imo for speedy repairs , out repairing lol pods etc cant be done alone .

I could give a fuck if theres options to drive , gun or wave flowers from the roof .

The real issue with MBT's is all the lock on and guided shit fired by unrendered infantry , getting ass fucked by invisible rockets got old months ago .

camycamera

2013-04-13, 07:28 AM

agreed, tanks are UP. but making the driver only drive will piss off the CoDverts and the BFverts etc because "it wont be fun". if this was to happen, something must be done to keep them happy.

although, the "it wont be fun" argument is a fair point. and the change to the tanks would be a little too late, since this game has been out for a couple of months, and the change will confuse some people.

but tanks need a buff, definitely. but the rocket spam needs to be addressed as well, there was a good post (http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/the-ultimate-combined-arms-gameplay-thread.114504/)on the PS2 forums that discussed this problem, and the UP regarding tanks.

Maarvy

2013-04-13, 07:29 AM

double post , my bad

Maarvy

2013-04-13, 07:34 AM

Mietz

2013-04-13, 10:06 AM

The way most MBT gunner threads go the people who like the ps2 way are almost always open to the option of having both configerations .

While the hardcore PS1 style fans are rampantly obssesded with having it there way only , even though there way is apparently better they seem to have a problem with the prospect of facing a 1/2 tank that the driver is also gunning .

How is this relevant? "Compromise" isn't the default superior position.

"PS1 style fans" have good arguments for why solo MBTs should not exist and thats what counts.

Whiteagle

2013-04-13, 10:14 AM

The other issue is the way resources and certs work. If I put a lot of certs into the tank I should be able to use it even when my outfit isn't playing. Same reason the Liberator has a front gun. I can get a secondary gunner for more power, but I don't need to. The secondary and third gunners should all accent the primary weapons and make the vehicle more formidable. For the MBTs and Liberator this is true. Having the crewed versions of tanks people are suggesting don't fulfill this.
But the Lib's Nose Gun ISN'T its primary weapon, the Tank Buster is just a VERY good upgrade that's happens to be as good for Dogfighting as it is for taking out Armor.

That's why I figure giving the Driver the Secondary Weapon is the best option here; Yes you don't get to fire the big gun, but there is a greater variety of Secondaries anyways with most more fun to fire then some generic HEAT Cannon.

And that still won't stop you from soloing in an MBT, you just have to choose between being able to MOVE and being able to fire your MAIN Cannon!

Being a dedicated driver, and being good at it is fun. Saying there's "nothing to do" is just pure bs. You're focusing on positioning, dodging, looking out for an escape route, your tanks health, calling targets and giving your gunner a clear shot at the highest threats and timing.

Imho having 2 crew relying on each other to drive, gun and communicate is way more exciting than being on your own in a MBT.
Indeed, this is probably why I scoff when people complain about too much Anti-Vehicle, I focus more on keeping my Vehicle alive then zeroing in and killing targets.

So if I pull something, I try make sure it last long enough for me to make back my Resources on it, but avoiding threats isn't useful if you can't also split your focus and retaliate.

This might also explain why I dislike the Prowler; It's a big boxy target you need to keep on the move that also has a finicky-to-aim Duel Cannon.
I'm just not a good enough twitch shooter to both maneuver and compensate for the Double Barrel effect at the same time, so I'd much rather have a Basilisk and let someone else make shit go boom.

Ironically, the Prowler also has the only Factional Special Ability that requires any communication between Driver and Gunner, but since it also LOCKS the tank in place you really don't need both when you use it anyways...

agreed, tanks are UP. but making the driver only drive will piss off the CoDverts and the BFverts etc because "it wont be fun". if this was to happen, something must be done to keep them happy.
It's called a Lightning...

This is probably what pisses me off the most, MBTs don't play any differently then a Lightning in their current state!
At worst they are a Lightning PLUS, they all have more default armor and damage output even BEFORE the addition of a Secondary Gunner.

You can't fly a Lib like an ESF, so why should you drive an MBT like a Lightning?

PredatorFour

2013-04-13, 11:44 AM

While the hardcore PS1 style fans are rampantly obssesded with having it there way only .

Thats not true, as has been stated a million times on here already we just want an option to have BOTH styles. So maybe cert into dedicated driver or wateva.

Goldoche

2013-04-13, 11:47 AM

Figment

2013-04-13, 11:54 AM

It's not void. It's why it failed in PS1.

Since when did it "fail in PS1"?

I HAVE NEVER HEARD ANYONE COMPLAIN ABOUT DEDICATED CREWS IN PS1. EVER.

THE WHINING STARTED BY A VERY SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE (who were outnumbered 7 to 2...) AFTER HIGBY SAID PEOPLE PROBABLY DIDN'T LIKE IT IF THEY CAME OVER FROM BF3, BECAUSE IT WAS A "STANDARD IN OTHER GAMES AND SCREW WHAT IS BEST FOR OUR GAME, WE DON'T HAVE THE BALLS TO MAKE A DIFFERENT DECISION".

THE ONLY COMPLAINT WAS ABOUT THE PROWLER WHERE TR THOUGHT IT WAS UNFAIR THAT DESPITE HAVING HIGHEST DPS WITH TWO CREW, THEY HAD AN EXTRA MAN "REQUIRED" FOR AA/AI MACHINE GUN AND THAT IS BASICALLY THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM PS2 HAS AND WOULD INTRODUCE AGAIN BY ADDING AN "OPTIONAL" CERT.

Where are you getting this from?

In this case, the rest of your post is just utter bogus btw. :/ You're making things up as you go along and to compare the Magrider's PS1 gun with anything the driver has in PS2 is just impossible. That was a weak AI gun that could barely scratch tanks, hell I beat a Magrider in a straight duel (constant outmaneuvring) against that using a FURY ATV at 30m range.

You can't possibly make the argument the Magrider had a gun, because it might as well not have had one.

Goldoche

2013-04-13, 11:58 AM

You just said they are too easily killed by ESFs and infantry weapons and then you say they are fine by themselves. So they're both bad by themselves because ESFs and infantry kill them and also too powerful by themselves.

Read the thread. It's the third time I'm precising this point; their potential is easily reached but underwhelming.

Figment

2013-04-13, 12:00 PM

but making the driver only drive will piss off the CoDverts and the BFverts etc because "it wont be fun".

Stop treating them as subhumans and stop spreading the lie that is the assumption these people want something else than the rest. My survey showed the CoD and BF people wanted crewed tanks.

Baneblade

2013-04-13, 01:52 PM

I don't give a shit what CoDorks and BFags want. This is PlanetSide. The fact that SOE is even trying to cater to easymode arena FPS crowds is downright insulting to what this game was, is, and should evolve to be.

Punker

2013-04-13, 08:21 PM

^ This so much. What SOE fail to see is that the people they're catering to now are the same people that will jump ship for the next flavor of the month game (Black ops 5 or whatever it's up to now) and won't look back.

What's left will be us vets, playing a game designed to be picked up and thrown away. THIS is why we're so passionate about our points of view, to have a game that's going to be playable and enjoyable once the rest of the rabble has migrated back to CoD and BF.

Goldoche

2013-04-14, 01:14 AM

I think what will happen is that when the game will severely start to lose in popularity they're gonna start to cater to the core fanbase. Maybe then we'll have what we want.

Sirisian

2013-04-14, 02:13 AM

You're making things up as you go along and to compare the Magrider's PS1 gun with anything the driver has in PS2 is just impossible. That was a weak AI gun that could barely scratch tanks, hell I beat a Magrider in a straight duel (constant outmaneuvring) against that using a FURY ATV at 30m range.

You can't possibly make the argument the Magrider had a gun, because it might as well not have had one.
That was my point exactly. Even with a broken gun the vehicle was boring for me to use except when gunning it. I log into the game for around 1.5 hours when I play and jump to where my outfit is. Spending 20 minutes in a vehicle where I'm just driving brings me back to PS1 and it was just painfully boring. The way MBTs work now is I can pull one and get an optional gunner. The main issue is they can be spammed which is a totally separate issue.

People like to bring up this idea that 2 solo MBTs that are skilled can kill 2 people in a tank. That might be true, but it's because the resource system allows it. Pulling two tanks vs pulling one tank has no real penalty yet. Not that I'm advocating this, but imagine if it cost 750 mechanical to pull a tank. That would get closer to how things should be. (It's a little more complex than that though).

Read the thread. It's the third time I'm precising this point; their potential is easily reached but underwhelming.
I read the thread. I pointed it out again because your argument falls apart at that point.
Their maximum potential is easily reached but underwhelming.
Changing it to a crewed vehicle wouldn't fix this. Your implementation just changes the armor so the maximum potential is actually less for the Prowler and Vanguard, but it stays alive long so it can retreat more. That sounds like it would end up just being more frustrating for defenders though.

Also regarding the Prowler your implementation seems exploitable. Their lock down ability leaves the driver in boredom meaning it would probably be used as a solo tank more often as the player locks down and then switches seats to fire at the enemy.

Vanir

2013-04-14, 03:17 AM

Also regarding the Prowler your implementation seems exploitable. Their lock down ability leaves the driver in boredom meaning it would probably be used as a solo tank more often as the player locks down and then switches seats to fire at the enemy.

Actually if a prowler deployed, the driver could get out and keep the tank repaired as the gunner(s) unloaded into whatever is being fought against.

camycamera

2013-04-14, 03:37 AM

Stop treating them as subhumans and stop spreading the lie that is the assumption these people want something else than the rest. My survey showed the CoD and BF people wanted crewed tanks.

i would like to see the survey results plex. i want them too, and yes, the we have the lightning, but once again, isn't it a little too late for this change to occur? i'm just saying, the change would confuse some people. god damnit this game feels so much like an open beta, in which they should have released it as anyway.

Punker

2013-04-14, 03:49 AM

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=839434&postcount=75

Punker

2013-04-14, 03:53 AM

I would actually like seeing this survey done again with our current playerbase to see if the numbers change all that much.

BlaxicanX

2013-04-14, 03:59 AM

MBT's with a three-man crew? Heck yes!

Sirisian

2013-04-14, 04:17 AM

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=839434&postcount=75
Yeah that poll was very poorly designed. The issue is it doesn't go into detail with any possible implementations so it forces the people answering to jump to conclusions and assume the questions are asked regarding the implementation they are currently thinking of rather than asking it about a specific implementation.

There are some old threads where people were asked what implementation they wanted in PS2 and there was like 50 different implementations people came up with for not just the seat options but the different weapons and their power in relation to each other. Depending on the one people want and how the resource system is implemented with the design people have varying views on what would work.

For instance my view has always been 3 person dual tread for all 3 factions (so a real tank for the vanu, could be energy tracks or something techy) with the driver controlling the main gun. Right clicking would give the option for the secondary gunner to right click and toggle between their gun and the main gun unless a 3rd gunner is present then that player would control it. The driver would need to get out of the vehicle to get in the secondary gunner seat leaving them vulnerable with the primary gun which would have a slow turning rate. The tanks would have a high resource cost making them difficult to spam (bit simplistic to my actual thoughts on my site, but the basic idea). You can't vote for that kind of stuff on a poll since very few think that deeply about real implementations.

Punker

2013-04-14, 04:24 AM

Without actually seeing these threads, i would have to ask what relevance does weapon power and resource system directly have to the current topic of this thread? (crewed vehicles).

Figment

2013-04-14, 07:12 AM

Yeah that poll was very poorly designed. The issue is it doesn't go into detail with any possible implementations so it forces the people answering to jump to conclusions and assume the questions are asked regarding the implementation they are currently thinking of rather than asking it about a specific implementation.

It was designed to give a general insight in sentiments, since a poll with 50 configuration options doesn't work too well. Hence there were separate questions to whether people want drivers to gun or not and what type of caliber gun this would be if so.

Some generalisations need to be made, think I covered most. For the record though, alternative configurations were available under "other" and there wern't that many responses to that option, those that did mostly used the extra suggestion of a commander position.

All kidding aside, since you're so keen on having a good poll (and I would really like a bigger response group for more accuracy), would you be willing to help create a poll that is mutually agreeable? It's in all our interest after all and I really hate the constant assumption making that's been going on. If so, I'll PM me your email and we'll design it together. If anyone else wants to help design it, be my guest, I'll put you on the mailing list.

Figment

2013-04-14, 07:20 AM

Without actually seeing these threads, i would have to ask what relevance does weapon power and resource system directly have to the current topic of this thread? (crewed vehicles).

The main topics on those are:

Total (potential) firepower per manpower required
Amount of weapons per crew member
Amount of weapons firing simultaneously per unit

General firepower / rof / accuracy balance compared to other units

Who spent resources and invested certs in the unit? -> Driver. Does that person then have to have access to what that person invested on, or should that person consider that to be an investment in that person's group and empire?

Who gets to fire what?

The pro-solo camp doesn't give much weight to the first three issues and usualy acts rather dismissive towards them, particularly hitpoints. The pro-crew camp tends to give a huge amount of weight to these issues, based on the "people pick the best alternative option available" and inter-unit balance reasoning based on equal available manpower (fairness argument).

They tend to focus entirely on the last two, out of purely selfish reasoning: "since I spent certs, I get to use the big gun". Sounds negative, but it's true. The pro-crew camp suggests they invested in a bigger group advantage, not in personal power.

Figment

2013-04-14, 07:28 AM

That was my point exactly. Even with a broken gun the vehicle was boring for me to use except when gunning it. I log into the game for around 1.5 hours when I play and jump to where my outfit is. Spending 20 minutes in a vehicle where I'm just driving brings me back to PS1 and it was just painfully boring. The way MBTs work now is I can pull one and get an optional gunner. The main issue is they can be spammed which is a totally separate issue.

Tbh, it sounds to me you were using the wrong frame for your playstyle (Mag may not have been your thing), or should have asked for the much needed Lightning buff (which came way too late for the Lightning to be considered viable, especially due to the amount of air threats).

People like to bring up this idea that 2 solo MBTs that are skilled can kill 2 people in a tank. That might be true, but it's because the resource system allows it. Pulling two tanks vs pulling one tank has no real penalty yet. Not that I'm advocating this, but imagine if it cost 750 mechanical to pull a tank. That would get closer to how things should be. (It's a little more complex than that though).

If they have the exact same frame, they don't need to be skilled, they just need to be "not dumb". ;p

I understand you're saying the resources required are too low to warrant alternating between drivers, but you overlook the warpgating issue of being outnumbered and outresourced. Too costly resources would just result in one party having tanks and the other not.

In the same line of argument, there is generalist design issue by SOE (all units available to all players).

PS1 did not have this issue, because certification was much more a trade-off between classes of certs and no access to tech just meant you'd have a larger logistical distance to overcome (go back to sanc or far away base), which kept tanks off the field too, without really limiting the player's choice.

But, the PS1 system strongly encouraged direct teamwork, which the PS2 system doesn't at all. PS2 provides it as an option between soloing units, whereas PS1 enforces it. You can see that PS2 has a far weaker social cohesion because of that too (while due to the "numbers win all" design, social cohesion must be much stronger for people to have a chance of success). Yet because both the lack of social cohesion and lack of leverage to play the game to compete with others, people will leave the game sooner. :/

PS2 NEEDS social gameplay design. With infantry this is barely designable as they're individual units per definition, but not utilising this for crew vehicles is just a huge missed oppertunity.

Dougnifico

2013-04-14, 07:48 AM

There seems to be a belief that as times goes on that the game will go back to the old more and more. I would bet that it would adapt to genre trends in most respects. The reason you see certain things like the lattice brought back is because there is really no other precedent set by the industry. As new things are released in the FPS genre, expect many of these new things to make their way into PS2. Don't expect a full return to the classic game.

Sirisian

2013-04-14, 07:51 AM

Without actually seeing these threads, i would have to ask what relevance does weapon power and resource system directly have to the current topic of this thread? (crewed vehicles).
Weapon power was discussed a lot because it makes the difference between having two people working together in one tank and separate tanks. The main idea I saw expressed a lot was if the main gunner has the primary AV weapon then the secondary gunner should accent that with an AA or AI gun almost as powerful and as fun to use. The idea was if the MBT was for 2 people it should be powerful and pulling 2 of them shouldn't be magically better. In fact they should be weaker since it would just be 2 AV guns leaving them open to air and infantry. I guess my expectation at the beginning was when I saw a tank I knew it could do serious damage to armored targets and would do barely anything to infantry or aircraft with the primary gun. This was obviously when I thought they'd be using an unrealistic damage model like PS1.

The issue was the developers ignored that advice and gave tanks AV and AI front guns and added AA, AI, and AV secondary guns. They kept the power equal but removed any specialization from them for the most part allowing tanks to be used to farm infantry trivially and even hit and destroy air siding with realism.

So weapon power plays into the idea of damage tradeoffs. If the driver had a "real" tank with a slow moving turret and tracks to climb hills they'd be heavily armored and going after other armored targets. Their secondary gunner would be protecting them from the air and ground threats.

Regarding resources it's been explained. If you have 500 resources as your cap and a tank costs 500 you and your buddy can pull 2 and fight or pull 1 and fight. Pulling 1 would mean you both jump in one and play for a bit and die then have the other guy pull one and do it again. Much more effective than if you both pull 2 and die.

Threads in no particular order without linking threads I started: 1 (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=39778) 2 (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=37346) 3 (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=45199) 4 (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=37352) 5 (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=37450) I might have missed a few of the big ones. Can't remember what the titles were.

I understand you're saying the resources required are too low to warrant alternating between drivers, but you overlook the warpgating issue of being outnumbered and outresourced. Too costly resources would just result in one party having tanks and the other not.
I didn't overlook it. My thoughts on resource design are on my site and the official forums. They're just too complex to keep including them in every vehicle discussion thread as it's a global issue that is affecting the whole game with symptoms evident in things like vehicles.

Figment

2013-04-14, 08:24 AM

If you can switch seats, which is the case in PS2, you don't need a gunner to protect you, you just switch seats instead at the cost of being stationary. Since you'd still be with two people, you could double the amount of AA or AI power (or have both), by having one person or both persons switch to their gunner seat.

In small numbers you have more of a point, because then you won't have both types of weaponry available at all times. If we're talking a platoon of 30, the difference becomes obvious:

You could have 30 AA guns instead of 30 AI or AV guns as secondary, each manned by a switching seat solo-driver. Or you could have 10-10-10.

With two tanks as maximum, you'd have a point: they'd trade their firepower off against other firepower, but with platoons as trivially big as they are, people simply ignore this issue.

I don't quite understand where the argument of "a gunner to protect you" in the weapon trade-off thing would be valid, if you can have one (or more?) wingman that does the exact same thing, but better.

Sirisian

2013-04-14, 09:14 AM

If you can switch seats, which is the case in PS2, you don't need a gunner to protect you, you just switch seats instead at the cost of being stationary. Since you'd still be with two people, you could double the amount of AA or AI power (or have both), by having one person or both persons switch to their gunner seat.
Being able to switch seats is also one of the problems with having dedicated drivers and gunners. People will just switch to the primary gun when they need to take a shot. It's a big design flaw that the developers tried to solve. Currently you can't finish reloading if you switch seats as far as I can tell during a reload. I'd much prefer getting out of the vehicle to switch seats which would fix a lot of things related to this.

I don't quite understand where the argument of "a gunner to protect you" in the weapon trade-off thing would be valid, if you can have one (or more?) wingman that does the exact same thing, but better.
The advantage though is having the person in the same vehicle with the same general line of sight. Ideally a wingman wouldn't be able to do the exact same thing better. That's not true in the game for AA. A Skyguard or AA max with the planned travel mode is so much better than a tank's AA. Makes sense though as the AA on a tank is a deterrent. The tanks AI and AV gun though aren't really matched by any other wingman's.