harrasser proves dedicated driver is great

[Figment]

So basically a Fury ATV from PS1. ;)

But that's the nimble kind of TD. Ambush, hold and push kind is heavily armoured up front, not so much on the sides and slower.

[GeoGnome]

Opinion: 3 person MBTs would be great. The person who pulls the tank is the driver, the gunner and tertiary gunner would have command over each of their respective weapons. The Driver would either have the ability over some kind of utility ability that keeps the tank alive, a small coaxial gun, or something else that gives that position something to do, while the other two farm certs for the driver.

Fact: The Harasser is fun to drive. The harasser is fun to gun.

Opinion: The driving position for the MBT would not be miserable. Even if the person was charged JUST with driving, no weapon or ability granted, that would mean that, that person would have Plenty to do. Just like the driver of a harasser, being able to focus JUST on keeping your vehicle alive, is an intense experience. Being charged 100% with seeing that your vehicle stays live means you can examine the terrain, look for ways out of situations... Spacial awareness is Much greater in this case. Again, boosts teamplay and all that stuff... people have heard all this before.

Counter Argument: Saying that the driver would be bored is an assumption. If you have spent time as a dedicated pilot or driver, you know this is not true. Even driving a sunderer as a battle sundy, you get an idea for what it would be like, as a dedicated driver for an MBT: frantic. In a game with such low TTK you have to pay attention to Everything, or you could easily get wiped out.

Concession: While I would prefer a 3 person MBT, with some kind of utility granted to the driver for control that could mitigate damage or repair the vehicle through interaction... Having a 2 person tank, with the tertiary gun being controlled by the driver would be fine, as long as the primary gunner, was not also the driver.

Fact: You can shoot from a moving tank now, it's not that difficult.

Fact: People switch seats in liberators

Counter arguement: Switching seats in a liberator while it's in free fall and switching seats in a MBT would be totally different things. In the lib, you are moving, so you have the ability to still be missed if someone is a crap shot. Switching to gun, in a MBT with a dedicated driver, means you have officially graduated to Turret. And Turrets in PS2 are rather easy to kill. Totally different situations.

[Landtank]

Actually I'd be fine being just a driver if there was some sort of hull mounted machine gun, that would be good methinks. It's just because tanks are so slow compared to the harasser, and the harasser is actually fun to drive.

[sylphaen]

If I was obnoxious and had time to waste in a futile effort, I would quote text I posted a year+ ago. But I don't so I'll just add another stone to this mountain:

Mobile armored combat is fun.
Immobile armored combat is not fun.


Yes, I'm biased in the way I have fun just like everyone is. That's why I always come back to saying a diverse gameplay ecosystem is very important to keep all crowds in the game. If everyone is having fun, there is more fun to have !

Make a very efficient game, leave no ecosystem for those who loved combat engineering, no room for those who loved stealth/infiltration gameplay, no vehicle for those who loved driving/tanking in a crew, etc... You will be left with a very specific kind of a crowd.

Mind you, it don't say it makes PS2 a bad FPS, it just makes a game some people are less/not interested in... But yet again I spend energy fighting windmills ! Why did Forumside/PSU have to be so addictive !

Maybe social factors are important for MMOs ?

[Figment]

Actually I'd be fine being just a driver if there was some sort of hull mounted machine gun, that would be good methinks. It's just because tanks are so slow compared to the harasser, and the harasser is actually fun to drive.

The Magrider does 50 kph, while doing 13kph sideways (iirc and afaik it adds up as a vector), the Vanguard does 55kph, the Prowler does 60.

All that WITHOUT the racer certs OR speed boost!


Maxed racer chassis does 70 on the Prowler. I'm sorry, but that's just 20kph less than a frickin' dune buggy!

IMO, it just sounds like you're crap drivers.

http://youtu.be/LJpTqwkZriM

This doesn't warrant a dedicated driver because it'd be boring? Say what? That guy doesn't know where he's driving most the time and keeps bumping into things because he can't handle the speed!


You know why they ARE NOT FUN TO DRIVE? Because people like you... keep standing still and continuously have to start accelerating a heavy mass again, instead of using your momentum and keep rolling!

[moosepoop]

If I was obnoxious and had time to waste in a futile effort, I would quote text I posted a year+ ago. But I don't so I'll just add another stone to this mountain:

Mobile armored combat is fun.
Immobile armored combat is not fun.


Yes, I'm biased in the way I have fun just like everyone is. That's why I always come back to saying a diverse gameplay ecosystem is very important to keep all crowds in the game. If everyone is having fun, there is more fun to have !

Make a very efficient game, leave no ecosystem for those who loved combat engineering, no room for those who loved stealth/infiltration gameplay, no vehicle for those who loved driving/tanking in a crew, etc... You will be left with a very specific kind of a crowd.

Mind you, it don't say it makes PS2 a bad FPS, it just makes a game some people are less/not interested in... But yet again I spend energy fighting windmills ! Why did Forumside/PSU have to be so addictive !

Maybe social factors are important for MMOs ?

exactly. more diversity = more players.

[Landtank]

The Magrider does 50 kph, while doing 13kph sideways (iirc and afaik it adds up as a vector), the Vanguard does 55kph, the Prowler does 60.

All that WITHOUT the racer certs OR speed boost!


Maxed racer chassis does 70 on the Prowler. I'm sorry, but that's just 20kph less than a frickin' dune buggy!

IMO, it just sounds like you're crap drivers.

This doesn't warrant a dedicated driver because it'd be boring? Say what? That guy doesn't know where he's driving most the time and keeps bumping into things because he can't handle the speed!


You know why they ARE NOT FUN TO DRIVE? Because people like you... keep standing still and continuously have to start accelerating a heavy mass again, instead of using your momentum and keep rolling!


In all honesty I'm a fantastic driver, believe me or not it doesn't matter.

I more meant that I can press SPACE and do a drift and then turbo out of said drift with the Harasser, THAT'S why it's more fun to drive, not because of speed alone.

I use my tanks advantages, the Vanguard is a stand off tank most akin to a modern Abrams, no matter what you say. Against Prowlers it excels at maximum range combat, if you get in close you are playing to the Prowler's advantages. When you see a line of Vanguards creeping forwards and firing, you have already lost.

Can you drift in a tank? Nope. Can the Vanguard turbo out of a corner? Nope. That's why the Harasser is fun to drive, because it can drift like crazy! It's a blast.

[Figment]

So without a hand break, no vehicle is worth driving for others? What a lame standard. And again, nothing you say can't be done by a Lightning. Why do you want the Vannie? Because you get more personal power? That's an argument against you.


If you want to TD - ask for a TD. Don't molest the Vanguard's glory by being a lame back and forth driving long distance camper and use the turret what it was meant for: firing sideways broadsiding an enemy.



Btw, I take it you've never taken a Sundy out for combat as driver? Ever? No?

[moosepoop]

best advantage of dedicated driving is to avoid those annoying suicide engis and LAs with their instakill mines and c4.

[sylphaen]

I'm surprised no one discussed directional armor being a factor to decreased mobility for vehicles.

[Landtank]

So without a hand break, no vehicle is worth driving for others? What a lame standard. And again, nothing you say can't be done by a Lightning. Why do you want the Vannie? Because you get more personal power? That's an argument against you.


If you want to TD - ask for a TD. Don't molest the Vanguard's glory by being a lame back and forth driving long distance camper and use the turret what it was meant for: firing sideways broadsiding an enemy.



Btw, I take it you've never taken a Sundy out for combat as driver? Ever? No?

Nope Sunderers arent' my thing I guess. Never liked the idea of driving one with just Basilisks and never wanted to buy a Bulldog and a Fury for it.

Why do I want a Vanny? It hits harder, has better HP, is Empire Specific, looks better, is cooler in general, has a Halberd on top, has an ability and is capable of destroying any other tank on the field. It's not camping. Tell me: if you charge the enemy like an idiot, how long do you think you will last? And against a more maneuverable tank? Exactly.

How on earth is that an argument against me?

A turret was not meant for that, sorry bud. There's this thing called directional armor, you take more damage from the side. The Vanguard's advantage is more armor, why on earth would I want to minimize that advantage? Also, my aim is significantly better than most peoples in my experiences, so the further away the better. Whether or not I'm moving depends on multiple factors: can the enemy hit me, and is there enemy air in the vicinity.

It sounds to me like you don't drive tanks very often. It's not too hard to be able to move and shoot at the same time, I manage it every time I play. I personally see no need for a driver because I am capable of aiming while moving over bumps and hills as it is. I enjoy being able to position my tank EXACTLY how I want to, setting up my shots like a sniper.

[Figment]

Nope Sunderers arent' my thing I guess. Never liked the idea of driving one with just Basilisks and never wanted to buy a Bulldog and a Fury for it.

Then don't interfere with a debate regarding crewed vehicles. You don't know what you're talking about apparently. Just being out for your own interests just shows a selfish attitude, no interest in fair balance.

Why do I want a Vanny? It hits harder, has better HP, is Empire Specific, looks better, is cooler in general,

So basically you're saying, "screw balance, give me OP shit". Sorry, those reasons are reasons to go out of your way and change it immediately to a fairer level.

has a Halberd on top, has an ability and is capable of destroying any other tank on the field. It's not camping. Tell me: if you charge the enemy like an idiot, how long do you think you will last? And against a more maneuverable tank? Exactly.

Why do you envision idiot tactics as some sort of argument?

How on earth is that an argument against me?

You wanting more power than a Lightning user and equal to that of a team is a balancing argument against you.

A turret was not meant for that, sorry bud. There's this thing called directional armor, you take more damage from the side. The Vanguard's advantage is more armor, why on earth would I want to minimize that advantage? Also, my aim is significantly better than most peoples in my experiences, so the further away the better. Whether or not I'm moving depends on multiple factors: can the enemy hit me, and is there enemy air in the vicinity.

As I said before, you're a mediocre or even below average tank driver, as you're actually more of a Tank Destroyer driver, or sniper tank driver, but don't realise it yet. Either way, you're pretty limited. You wouldn't be a good medium driver, slow heavies, possible, though not realising how or why you'd expose another side on purpose probably means you'd lose a lot of engagements till you'd learn that there's more to tanking than exposing just your strongest side. You don't take advantage of speed and since most solo players don't because they can't broadside, I doubt you often encountered a situation where speed determined your loss (or if your recognised it). I suppose it doesn't help that there's no slow turret rotation speed in PS2 as that determines in part how sensitive you are to flanking, it also doesn't help that few field battles take place, because numbers win, while people are afraid of showing themselves, after which the fight moves directly to base camping.


Side armour is not weak, it is WEAKER. Weaker doesn't imply weak, it compares it with a stronger side. This means that you can show your side when you must. In fact, I'm not sure if you ever heard of the sidegrades, but there is this thing that makes your side armour equal to your frontal armour.

If you don't dare show your side, that means you'll hardly ever get to expose their softer side either. If you play in groups of players, both showing your side from opposite sides of an enemy (overtaking while pincering) means that the enemy has lost the engagement: at least one of its weaksides is exposed to one of you, if not to you both. You can then both turn to show your strong side again and even if the enemy turns, one of you engages its weakest side: its rear.

So they got a shot in your weaker side? Woopdedoo. Who cares?

It sounds to me like you don't drive tanks very often. It's not too hard to be able to move and shoot at the same time, I manage it every time I play.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA.

As for if I can play tanks solo?

Overall Results:
Battles Participated: 11 782
Victories: 6 311 (54%)
Defeats: 5 237 (44%)
Battles Survived: 3 163 (27%)

Battle Performance
Destroyed: 12 448
Detected: 16 808
Hit Ratio: 58%

(ie. Kills/match: 1.06, K/D: 1.44, that's above average, for the record. The amount of assists is even bigger, but hey. Not tracked).

Hit ratio is lowered due to the artillery I've played (27-35% accuracy), usualy around 65%-70% with tanks while firing a lot on the move. I play scouts, mediums, heavies, tank destroyers, snipers and artillery. I'm an all-round above average player that's best at TDs and scouts/mediums. When it comes to heavies, I've mostly played with weak hull heavies on purpose, as they force you to play and maneuvre well, while stronger hull heavies just derp their way through. As such, I'm not afraid to toot my own horn and say I'm pretty decent. Not the best, but definitely good.

Average players have a 49% winratio. Organised clan players have a team around them when playing organised matches (and more often platoon) and usualy have a bit higher winratio with the best between 55 and 67%.

Pretty much every match am in the top 3 of my team if not top rated player, including losses.


Don't tell me how to solo drive a tank. Don't make insulting assumptions just to try to make yourself feel good about yourself and think you've scored a hit. You however told me how you play: fear of showing side or rear and playing long range sniper and consider anything else the ultimate sin in tanking, so I don't have to assume anything. You're a very limited tanker in that respect (no offense, but you are) and you would be perfectly happy with the TD compromise I'd provide you with.



With my skill level (whatever you want to qualify it as), playing solo tanks usualy means beating one or two other solo tanks in combat by isolating and outmaneuvring them and using hull down to my advantage. Yet I'm self-aware enough to know my efficiency is much lower than when I drive for other people and I'm at least very aware of the power of tag teams. Unlike self-absorbed people that just say they can drive and gun, those people are so happy with themselves, they never stopped to see if they could be better as a team.

When me and one or two other PS1 players platoon in WoT, we get winratios around 70-80% in random matches (15 vs 15) on an evening. Often with 6-9 kills between us. Why? We coordinate, we pincer enemies and abuse their refire rate by firing while they reload, by turning their turret away from allies, etc. As mediums we very often take out tanks two tiers higher without problem (in some cases I sacrifice myself for the team to exploit that directional damage - people tend to turn their hull to the nearest enemy after all).

But knowing how to overcome the efficiency deficiency with solo tanks, that's one big reason why crewed tanks need a physical advantage to be on par with playing with a wingman. I AM a good solo tanker, that's why I know it's OP.

But the current PS2 game context doesn't allow for that sort of advantage without breaking one or more other parts of the game. Why this is apparently so hard to comprehend, I don't know, it's pretty common sense.








Look, it's not that people CANNOT play solo at all, it's that they play crap solo and even if they are the best of solo players, they are still comparitively inefficient. Why is that hard for you to understand? Team players per definition get an efficiency boost in everything they do. This boost is primarily felt in dynamic combat, something that does not exist in this game at this point because TTK has always been too short for fights to show skill and because players are too inept moving-gunners while driving and to inept drivers while gunners to even dare try until they are forced to.

Again though, two crap efficiency players can still trump two efficient teamplayers if the leverage their tool provides them is greater than that of the tool of the teamplayers. It needs to be equalised, which you can't do with the same specs on a tank and the current design of the MBTs in firepower and endurance is almost where a team vehicle should be. But it's currently balanced for single players and is therefore almost as weak as a Lightning. That makes gunners pretty worthless, tbh. Of course, 2/2 will beat 1/2 one on one, but 1/2 vs 2x 1/2 is a bigger power distance.

Why you want tanking to be boring is beyond me though.

I personally see no need for a driver because I am capable of aiming while moving over bumps and hills as it is. I enjoy being able to position my tank EXACTLY how I want to, setting up my shots like a sniper.

Lightning.

[BlaxicanX]

Then don't interfere with a debate regarding crewed vehicles. You don't know what you're talking about apparently. Just being out for your own interests just shows a selfish attitude, no interest in fair balance.


This is coming from the man who believes that he's qualified to speak on ESF rotary gun balance despite having basically zero practical experience using them.

[bpostal]

So, is it just me or is it that after 18 pages...I still don't see a convincing argument against dedicated driver/gunner setups?

[BlaxicanX]

It's funny because there's probably some anti-crewed MBT person who's thinking the same thing, but on the opposite end of the spectrum.

[bpostal]

Yeah, probably is Blax...it's a shame we can't just settle this with old fashioned violence :(

Oh well, I don't wanna get in y'alls way of yelling at each other (at least that's what it looks like) so it's back to porn for I.

[Baneblade]

Can you drift in a tank? Nope.

Who told you that? I do it all the time :p

[Baneblade]

I'm not selfish and I don't think solo MBT's need to go. In fact, they need to stay.

Speaking as someone who spends the majority of his time solo MBTing, I disagree.

There is nothing wrong with them.

Everything is wrong with them.

If anything, the people who think that their way is best and that there is no compromise are the selfish people.

The compromise is already there, it is called the Lightning. Creating a tracked BFR and calling it a crewed heavy tank is not a compromise, it is a bribe.

The lightning is indeed a great tank for soloing, but so are the Vanguard, Prowler and Magrider.

So why have the Lightning? I have zero reason to ever pull it.

I think the Harasser is great fun, but I still enjoy my Vanguard INFINITELY more because I can do exactly what I want without having to worry about what my gunner/driver is doing.

I think the Liberator should work like this too, it would be massively more fun and definitely make soloing a lot less annoying in PS2. I mean, who wouldn't want to be able to aim their own Dalton whilst flying?

I guess that's selfish? Playing how I want? Again: I think there is room for compromise, the majority of people in this thread don't. Doesn't make me right, but it definitely doesn't make me selfish. That only applies to you.

I'm not selfish, 80% of my own playstyle will be destroyed with this one simple change. But I can see it for what it is... the first step to a better game.

[Dougnifico]

Fine. I get that people want others to play the way they think (nay; know) is right. How about this as a point in the heavy tank argument: SOE will make more money off of it and is therefor the better option from a business perspective. New content equals new money and would be more than enough to recoup losses from people who quit because they don't get their way. Games are a business. Not everyone is going to be happy, but everyone can get something they want.

Options:
1. Piss off players who spent money, contract play style options, and generate very limited new revenue.

2. Introduce new content and generate a new revenue stream, expand play style options, and the vocal opposition still gets a slice of what they have been asking for.

Also Figment, its not anymore rude to keep reintroducing this point than it is for you to keep introducing yours. I'm just speaking up and providing a counter balance. For every player here saying crewed, one is saying heavy option. The only rude part is that I am canceling out your vote because we are both players with a value of 1. I also only called you a dick because you made an unprovoked personal attack at a respectfully made argument. PSU is known for being more civil than forumside. That is something worth upholding. Perhaps it was wrong for me to go eye for an eye, but the point is that you should respectfully disagree with someone, not attack those that disagree.

(Also, in case you say you are a paying member and you should have more pull, I also pay for the game. I am an Auraxian level member since launch and have dropped about $300 into PS2 and I say I should have no more say than a free player.)

[Baneblade]

Who would be pissed off by the crewed MBT replacing what we have now? I mean, a cert refund of the MBT purchases can easily go into making the Lightning a suitable replacement if you don't just put them back into the MBT.

So what possible reason is there for anyone to actually be against the Lightning being the 'solo tank'? We've already proven that crewed MBTs work, and we've demonstrated that solo MBTs are hurting PS2, so honestly, what is the argument in favor of solo MBTs? Introducing a heavy crewed tank is worse for solo MBTs than anyone else, so even with that 'compromise' solo MBTing takes a massive hit.

[AThreatToYou]

Who told you that? I do it all the time :p

Ya. Go play WoT, or drive a Lightning, lol... the fast tanks drift all the time, and I sometimes drift in my T-62A.

As for those saying that there is 0-reason to pull a Lightning, that's pretty wrong. I prefer the Lightning over the Vanguard for a few reasons, namely faster reload times, smaller profile, and superior handling & speed. The Lightning obviously isn't an MBT though.

I advocate dedicated driver set ups because we already have the Lightning for solo tanking.

[Canaris]

Who would be pissed off by the crewed MBT replacing what we have now? I mean, a cert refund of the MBT purchases can easily go into making the Lightning a suitable replacement if you don't just put them back into the MBT.

everyone who enjoys playing them and if you think a silly cert refund and being told, "Go play Lightnings, that's for you now" would mollify then you moi loco


So what possible reason is there for anyone to actually be against the Lightning being the 'solo tank'? We've already proven that crewed MBTs work, and we've demonstrated that solo MBTs are hurting PS2, so honestly, what is the argument in favor of solo MBTs? Introducing a heavy crewed tank is worse for solo MBTs than anyone else, so even with that 'compromise' solo MBTing takes a massive hit.
You haven't proven anything of the kind, just becuase you say something DOESN'T make it true.

and you guys have the nerve to claim you get heated by people not listening or understanding. phooey

This whole thread can be summed up with

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2176552704/h57827831/

[Maidere]

Arma3 is coming this year. Just sayin'.

[Figment]

You haven't proven anything of the kind, just becuase you say something DOESN'T make it true.

We have demonstrated it. Verified it. Showed how it works in theory, in practice, in many contexts and why contexts aren't portable.

The problem is people not wanting to see the verification because it would mean defeat and the loss of their precious. Personal interest is the sole reason this thread still exists and that personal interest lies with solo MBT players who try their best to use speculative fear argumentation and authority assertion instead of valid reasoning on how their ideas or the status quo is BETTER for gameplay.

Virtually all we get is "but I like it" and of course the "but they wouldn't like it". Look, someone who likes BFRs OP said the same things.


Btw Blaxican, you don't have to fly all the time to observe. In fact, it may not distort your view as much if you don't use things for yourself and think it's hard, but now and then are also subject to it or see it happening from an ally and enemy point of view.

[Baneblade]

everyone who enjoys playing them and if you think a silly cert refund and being told, "Go play Lightnings, that's for you now" would mollify then you moi loco

I don't know why that is crazy, Lightnings were always for the solo tanker. SOE's mistaken belief that driver's should have the dominant role in MBT operation and basically make a gunner a luxury doesn't change how it should have been.

MBTs were more fun in PS1.

You haven't proven anything of the kind, just becuase you say something DOESN'T make it true.

Crewed MBTs worked in PS1. And anyone that tries to say that that is not relevant is just delusional.

and you guys have the nerve to claim you get heated by people not listening or understanding. phooey

I don't care if people understand, honestly. The proletariat doesn't always know what is best for themselves. And whether they agree or not doesn't change the facts. MBTs and PS2 in general would have been better off if they had been crew oriented from the start.

[Figment]

Btw, let's invert this debate since we're speculating about what people would want or not anyway (some of us want it verified ;P).


Can you imagine the outrage if the other way around would happen? Say this vehicle was balanced for a team and suddenly you give the power to individuals?

Imagine if that happened for Liberators at some point. >____> Imagine that the pilot would get control over any of the big guns mountable underneath without losing pilot control, while being equally strong as a Liberator that requires a crew as it does now.


Now THAT would cause an uprising. And I'm quite sure there'd be people that would find THAT fun too!

[Canaris]

Btw, let's invert this debate since we're speculating about what people would want or not anyway (some of us want it verified ;P).


Can you imagine the outrage if the other way around would happen? Say this vehicle was balanced for a team and suddenly you give the power to individuals?

Imagine if that happened for Liberators at some point. >____> Imagine that the pilot would get control over any of the big guns mountable underneath without losing pilot control, while being equally strong as a Liberator that requires a crew as it does now.


Now THAT would cause an uprising. And I'm quite sure there'd be people that would find THAT fun too!

It's not a good analogy but since we talking loco anyway, my perspective of it.
Lib pilots already have tank buster cannon on the front and I've seen those pilot use them to great effect chew through vehicles. Given the freedom of movement that you have with an air unit over a ground unit.
The pilot would have to fly at an angle the whole with the nose pointed toward the ground, as a gunship he'd have a hard time of it with limited field of view, I think if that were the case you'd see those orca's falling from the sky a lot tbh. Oh and not to mention some lib pilots already do man the their main cannons at times hot swapping from seat to seat.

This next opinion stems from my own time playing PS1 for years

The other reason why I'm also against loosing my MBT driver and gunner combo... well sometimes I can't stand how drivers do silly things and making mistakes during battles. They drive away when you should go on attack, they attack when they should drive away, they end up in the most ridiculous of places, miss targets of opportunity even with me on voice comms trying to get them to do the opposite and it lead to getting killed over and over. It kept happening again and again and it used to frustrate the hell out of me. Honestly I think one of my biggest frustrations in PS1 was that.
I used to tell myself had I been driving and gunning I wouldn't have made those mistakes.
When they announced that tanks would be driven and gunned by the driver I was so happy, if I make a mistake it's my own and not someone elses, I can live with that instead of getting angry at outfit and factions mates just because they drive like Miss Daisey.

really the more I think about the more hardened my position on this has become, just like you guys I suppose.

[Figment]

They buffed the lightning considerably compared to PS1, you don't bloody need the MBT for driving and gunning. Why can't you be content with the Lightning? WHY!? What makes you feel entitled to the HEAVIEST GROUND COMBAT UNIT, SOLO?

All you're saying is "I work with crap players". Sorry. Deal with it. Find better players. Train them.

[Canaris]

Deal with it.

I did deal with it.... I'M THE EVIL S.O.B. who encouraged them to have the MBT as driver/gunner combo and I'd do it again in an instant Muwhahahahahahahahah (not really but it makes a funny post ;))

[Figment]

CURRENT MBT (1/2) & (2/2):

2/2 > 1/2
2x 1/2 > 2/2
1/1 < 2/2
1/1 < 1/2

Thus:

2x 1/2 > 2/2 > 1/2 > 1/1

Expressed in manpower (players in vehicle(s):
2 > 1
2 > 2 (not fair!)
1 < 2
1 < 1 (not fair!)

Thus:

2 > 2 > 1 > 1 (not fair!)

B. CREWED MBT (2/2) + REMOVED DRIVER=GUNNER (1/2)

2/2 > 1/1
2x 1/1 = 2/2
1/1 > 1/2

Thus:

2x 1/1 = 2/2 > 1/1 > 1/2

Expressed in manpower (players in vehicle(s)):

2 > 1
2 = 2

Thus:

2 = 2 > 1 > 1

C. ALTERNATIVE CREWED MBT (3/3) + REMOVED DRIVER=GUNNER (1/3):

3/3 > 1/1
3x 1/1 = 3/3
2x 1/1 < 3/3
3x 1/1 > 2/3
2x 1/1 = 2/3
1/1 > 1/3

Thus:

3/3 = 3x 1/1 > 2x 1/1 = 2/3 > 1/1 > 1/3

Expressed in manpower (players in vehicle(s)):

3 > 1
3 = 3
2 < 3
3 > 2
2 = 2
1 > 1

Thus:

3 = 3 > 2 = 2 > 1 > 1

D. ALTERNATIVE CREWED MBT (2/2) + KEEP DRIVER=GUNNER (1/2):

2/2 = 1/2
2x 1/2 > 2/2
1/2 > 1/1
1/1 > 1/2 (crewed)
2x 1/1 > 2/2
2x 1/2 > 2x 1/1

Expressed in manpower (players in vehicle(s):

2 = 1 (not fair!)
2 > 2 (not fair!)
1 > 1 (not fair!)
1 > 1
2 > 2 (not fair!)
2 > 2 (not fair!)

Thus:

2x 1/2 > 2x 1/1 > 1/2 = 2/2 > 1/2 > 1/1 > 1/2 (crewed) (not fair!)

E. ALTERNATIVE CREWED MBT (3/3) + KEEP DRIVER=GUNNER (1/2):

2/2 = 3/3
1/2 < 3/3
2x 1/2 > 3/3
3x 1/2 >> 3/3
2x 1/2 >> 2/3
3x 1/2 >>> 2/3
1/2 > 1/3
1/2 > 1/1
1/1 > 1/3

Expressed in manpower (players in vehicle(s):

2 = 3 (not fair!)
1 < 3
2 > 3 (not fair!)
3 >> 3 (not fair!)
2 >> 2 (not fair!)
3 >>> 2 (not fair!)
1 > 1 (not fair!)
1 > 1 (not fair!)
1 > 1

Thus:

3x 1/2 > 2x 1/2 > 3/3 > 2/3 > 1/2 > 1/1 > 1/3 (not fair!)

[Landtank]

Then don't interfere with a debate regarding crewed vehicles. You don't know what you're talking about apparently. Just being out for your own interests just shows a selfish attitude, no interest in fair balance.



So basically you're saying, "screw balance, give me OP shit". Sorry, those reasons are reasons to go out of your way and change it immediately to a fairer level.



Why do you envision idiot tactics as some sort of argument?



You wanting more power than a Lightning user and equal to that of a team is a balancing argument against you.



As I said before, you're a mediocre or even below average tank driver, as you're actually more of a Tank Destroyer driver, or sniper tank driver, but don't realise it yet. Either way, you're pretty limited. You wouldn't be a good medium driver, slow heavies, possible, though not realising how or why you'd expose another side on purpose probably means you'd lose a lot of engagements till you'd learn that there's more to tanking than exposing just your strongest side. You don't take advantage of speed and since most solo players don't because they can't broadside, I doubt you often encountered a situation where speed determined your loss (or if your recognised it). I suppose it doesn't help that there's no slow turret rotation speed in PS2 as that determines in part how sensitive you are to flanking, it also doesn't help that few field battles take place, because numbers win, while people are afraid of showing themselves, after which the fight moves directly to base camping.


Side armour is not weak, it is WEAKER. Weaker doesn't imply weak, it compares it with a stronger side. This means that you can show your side when you must. In fact, I'm not sure if you ever heard of the sidegrades, but there is this thing that makes your side armour equal to your frontal armour.

If you don't dare show your side, that means you'll hardly ever get to expose their softer side either. If you play in groups of players, both showing your side from opposite sides of an enemy (overtaking while pincering) means that the enemy has lost the engagement: at least one of its weaksides is exposed to one of you, if not to you both. You can then both turn to show your strong side again and even if the enemy turns, one of you engages its weakest side: its rear.

So they got a shot in your weaker side? Woopdedoo. Who cares?



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA.

As for if I can play tanks solo?

Overall Results:
Battles Participated: 11 782
Victories: 6 311 (54%)
Defeats: 5 237 (44%)
Battles Survived: 3 163 (27%)

Battle Performance
Destroyed: 12 448
Detected: 16 808
Hit Ratio: 58%

(ie. Kills/match: 1.06, K/D: 1.44, that's above average, for the record. The amount of assists is even bigger, but hey. Not tracked).

Hit ratio is lowered due to the artillery I've played (27-35% accuracy), usualy around 65%-70% with tanks while firing a lot on the move. I play scouts, mediums, heavies, tank destroyers, snipers and artillery. I'm an all-round above average player that's best at TDs and scouts/mediums. When it comes to heavies, I've mostly played with weak hull heavies on purpose, as they force you to play and maneuvre well, while stronger hull heavies just derp their way through. As such, I'm not afraid to toot my own horn and say I'm pretty decent. Not the best, but definitely good.

Average players have a 49% winratio. Organised clan players have a team around them when playing organised matches (and more often platoon) and usualy have a bit higher winratio with the best between 55 and 67%.

Pretty much every match am in the top 3 of my team if not top rated player, including losses.


Don't tell me how to solo drive a tank. Don't make insulting assumptions just to try to make yourself feel good about yourself and think you've scored a hit. You however told me how you play: fear of showing side or rear and playing long range sniper and consider anything else the ultimate sin in tanking, so I don't have to assume anything. You're a very limited tanker in that respect (no offense, but you are) and you would be perfectly happy with the TD compromise I'd provide you with.



With my skill level (whatever you want to qualify it as), playing solo tanks usualy means beating one or two other solo tanks in combat by isolating and outmaneuvring them and using hull down to my advantage. Yet I'm self-aware enough to know my efficiency is much lower than when I drive for other people and I'm at least very aware of the power of tag teams. Unlike self-absorbed people that just say they can drive and gun, those people are so happy with themselves, they never stopped to see if they could be better as a team.

When me and one or two other PS1 players platoon in WoT, we get winratios around 70-80% in random matches (15 vs 15) on an evening. Often with 6-9 kills between us. Why? We coordinate, we pincer enemies and abuse their refire rate by firing while they reload, by turning their turret away from allies, etc. As mediums we very often take out tanks two tiers higher without problem (in some cases I sacrifice myself for the team to exploit that directional damage - people tend to turn their hull to the nearest enemy after all).

But knowing how to overcome the efficiency deficiency with solo tanks, that's one big reason why crewed tanks need a physical advantage to be on par with playing with a wingman. I AM a good solo tanker, that's why I know it's OP.

But the current PS2 game context doesn't allow for that sort of advantage without breaking one or more other parts of the game. Why this is apparently so hard to comprehend, I don't know, it's pretty common sense.








Look, it's not that people CANNOT play solo at all, it's that they play crap solo and even if they are the best of solo players, they are still comparitively inefficient. Why is that hard for you to understand? Team players per definition get an efficiency boost in everything they do. This boost is primarily felt in dynamic combat, something that does not exist in this game at this point because TTK has always been too short for fights to show skill and because players are too inept moving-gunners while driving and to inept drivers while gunners to even dare try until they are forced to.

Again though, two crap efficiency players can still trump two efficient teamplayers if the leverage their tool provides them is greater than that of the tool of the teamplayers. It needs to be equalised, which you can't do with the same specs on a tank and the current design of the MBTs in firepower and endurance is almost where a team vehicle should be. But it's currently balanced for single players and is therefore almost as weak as a Lightning. That makes gunners pretty worthless, tbh. Of course, 2/2 will beat 1/2 one on one, but 1/2 vs 2x 1/2 is a bigger power distance.

Why you want tanking to be boring is beyond me though.



Lightning.

I'll quote this whole thing because it is a genuinely bad post. This post is an example of why devs have stopped posting on this forum consistently, because it is full of fools who still consider PS2 a sequel to PS1. IT ISN'T.

Everyone in this thread has bitched and moaned about how they THINK solo MBT's have hurt this game, and yet provided NO evidence. They spew their opinions all over these fucking forums and call it FACT, when in reality, ITS AND OPINION.

I could care less about World of Tanks, that's a COMPLETELY different game, where the mechanics are 120% different. This just proves that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to tanks in PS2.

The lightning isn't a MAIN battle tank. It is a LIGHT tank. I don't want the Lightning, why is this impossible for you to understand? You seem to filter out what you don't want to hear and just reply to everything else.

I don't want tanking to be boring, you do. If you take away solo MBT's, there will be significantly less tanks on the field, and less fun targets for tankers to engage. I want tanking to remain EXACTLY the same as it is now, so stop creating a straw man just because you are incapable of actually have a discussion concerning my original points. It's pathetic.

If team players get an efficiency boost, then there should be no need to balance anything! This is why I said there should be a compromise! I'm not struggling to understand anything, especially when I brought it up in my first post in this fucking thread. I take it reading comprehension isn't your strong point?

You're incorrect when you attempt to tell me how to play. If you want to be one of those idiots who goes ahead and charges a faster, more damaging, more maneuverable tank and bitch and moan about when you lose, go ahead, I'll be killing those enemy tanks while you stupidly distract them.

Fear of exposing my rear armor, DUH? I don't like dying in my tanks, not sure about you. Perhaps this is why you think tank combat should change, because you are incapable of adapting to it in this game and therefore get pissed off everytime you fail, which I take it is most of the time.

Go back to your infantry fighting Figment, the tankers are talking.



ALSO! For World of Tanks, I looked you up as Figment, couldn't find anything that matched those numbers. So here are mine, for my character Doomandgloom:

Battles Participated: 9 627
Victories: 5 040 (52%)
Defeats: 4 439 (46%)
Battles Survived: 2 777 (29%)

Destroyed: 11 183
Detected: 10 679
Hit Ratio: 70%
Damage Caused: 9 592 119
Capture Points: 27 796
Defense Points: 10 565

So to recap: Kills per match: 1.16 K/D 1.63

Who's the bad tanker here?

World of Tanks doesn't mean shit in Planetside 2, you'll learn that one day I guess.

TL;DR You have posted no verifications, only your own opinion. You claim to have evidence backing up your statements, but you don't. You think this is PS1, but it isn't. If anyone disagrees with you, you accuse them of multiple things: wanting to ruin tanking; being selfish; destroying the balance of the game; being and idiot; being blind.

You also have a knack for being a hypocrite, telling others that they are using their own opinions for arguments when that is all you have done, and telling others that they want to ruin tanking when all they want is to keep it exactly the same while YOU are the one who wants to turn tanking on it's head for absolutely NO good reason.

[Figment]

I'm on the EU server. Look again. (http://worldoftanks.eu/community/accounts/500575344-Figment/)

Av. exp. used was 611 last week. Hmm, guess grinding IS3 isn't good for average exp.

And ffs, where have I mentioned this is PS1? I hardly even mentioned or referenced it (aside from showing it is actually fun, I never insinuated PS2 is PS1) throughout this debate since alpha! Stop trolling. The evidence is all around you, every time there's 20+ tanks around a base. Every time a small group tries to tackle a larger group.


We KNOW you want the heavy tank, but you have not been able to show why - from a gameplay perspective - you SHOULD GET the heavy tank. Wanting it is no reason to get it. Some people might want a tactical nuke, doesn't mean they get it.

Heavy equipment is justifiable by teams to an extend, but not at all in the hands of individual players. NOT IN PVP. Players that want that are powerhungry gits that rely on crutches and don't care about general gameplay balance because they're too self-absorbed with what they want. That fits you to a tee. This is a MMO, you seem to completely ignore that.




Oh btw, love how you tell me how to play tanks while you're a worse tanker. Despite my "failures" and slightly more frequent deaths in WoT (27% survived vs 29%) I get a higher winrate. Maybe you don't know that winning is more important than self-preservation by being a coward in the rear and that assists (which is what scouting and weakening enemies is about as a tag team) doesn't mean you get the highest K/D ever. You rely on others to expose enemies in WoT, while I expose enemies (thus get more of them killed while damaging and killing a lot myself). Excellent show. Just because you're too inept to drive dynamically and can't imagine that flanking DOESN'T INVOLVE A SUICIDE RUN doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I mean really? Have you ever even flanked an enemy?


I mean what the fuck is this about:

If you want to be one of those idiots who goes ahead and charges a faster, more damaging, more maneuverable tank and bitch and moan about when you lose, go ahead, I'll be killing those enemy tanks while you stupidly distract them.

What is happening in that corrupt mind of yours?


AND FFS, YOU DEMANDING THE HEAVY FOR YOURSELF INSTEAD OF BALANCING IT AROUND A TEAM BECAUSE YOU WANT MORE POWER == EGOCENTRISM == SELFISH. Of course I will call you what you are. Your ego is just too great to accept it. You take it as an insult, but it's just fact. You are not interested in the interests of all players of this game, JUST of your own. You haven't once tried to explain why having multiple tanks is better for enemies for instance, no, all you focus on in your entire tirade is yourself and what you and people like you want. How the fuck do you consider that NOT selfish?

For the record, MY compromise gives you a unit that fits you perfectly. Yet you don't want that, because it's not the most powerful unit in game to be exploited solo. Boohoo. Liked BFRs much?

Less tanks means far MORE fun for tanks, because they get maneuvring and breathing space and can actually engage them proper.

[moosepoop]

i think the solo mbts are suffering from the "bfr syndrome". they basically behave like mini bfrs. too much damage and survivability for a single person.

the bfrs should have had double the crew. two gunners for each arm, and one gunner for the back turret, with the pilot dedicated to driving.

[Kerrec]

Landtank,

Word of advice... just give up. All the important bits have been said, people can and will make up their own mind if they care.

Figment has a history of perpetuating argumentative threads like these and in most cases it just degenerates to a point where Hamma steps in and warns people to use the [ignore] function or risk getting banned.

Even though I don't know you, I'll risk a wager and say Figment has alot more tenacity and won't stop rebuking what you write, right or wrong.

Just move on.

[bpostal]

Landtank,

Word of advice... just give up. All the important bits have been said, people can and will make up their own mind if they care.

Figment has a history of perpetuating argumentative threads like these and in most cases it just degenerates to a point where Hamma steps in and warns people to use the [ignore] function or risk getting banned.

Even though I don't know you, I'll risk a wager and say Figment has alot more tenacity and won't stop rebuking what you write, right or wrong.

Just move on.

Move on, Ignore, whichever but I personally find a vast majority of Figment's threads and posts to be constructive and in line with my own thoughts as to which direction PS2 should be headed towards.
Even if that fucker did run me over in a Lightning.

I do agree though that this is a topic that has been discussed to death and at this point anyone continuing to beat the dead horse is just participating in necrophilia. It's easier if everyone who wants driver/gunner combos just gives up on enjoying tanker combat.
I dunno if it was Battlefield or COD or what that convinced SOE to fuck up vehicle combat but well played. Enjoy.

[Figment]

Figment has a history of perpetuating argumentative threads like these and in most cases it just degenerates to a point where Hamma steps in and warns people to use the [ignore] function or risk getting banned.

The annoying thing is that if it isn't perpetuated, chances are people believe the argument has either:

1. Settled.
2. Is no longer supported or considered relevant.
3. The supporters moved on.
-> "dead horse". As long as issues are alive though, dead horses don't exist.

But apparently, Landtank didn't comprehend the argument considering his responses show he's using the wrong mathematical model and needs a clarification. And another. And another. So if anyone perpetuates it, it's him. As for the degeneration... I don't like people who keep posting unconstructive things, particularly things brought up before and cut down due to not solving the issues. It makes me very angry when people don't have the courtesy to read, aren't interested in even understanding the problem definition and then go and say "just do this, everyone happy, we get to keep it" when the latter is the rootcause of the problem...

Even though I don't know you, I'll risk a wager and say Figment has alot more tenacity and won't stop rebuking what you write, right or wrong.

Just move on.

Probably am more tenacious. An issue needs to stay alive to get addressed as said before.

Just a question Kerrec, since you're interested in his debating effort and apparently mental well-being, what did you think when you read:

Tell me: if you charge the enemy like an idiot, how long do you think you will last? And against a more maneuverable tank? Exactly.

and:

If you want to be one of those idiots who goes ahead and charges a faster, more damaging, more maneuverable tank and bitch and moan about when you lose, go ahead, I'll be killing those enemy tanks while you stupidly distract them.

Did you think "gee, how constructive and imaginative"?

Mind, I was talking about this kind of tag team tactics (http://wiki.worldoftanks.com/images/7/78/Tactics_preventFlankingMultiple.png).

[Kerrec]

Move on, Ignore, whichever but I personally find a vast majority of Figment's threads and posts to be constructive and in line with my own thoughts as to which direction PS2 should be headed towards.
Even if that fucker did run me over in a Lightning.

I do agree though that this is a topic that has been discussed to death and at this point anyone continuing to beat the dead horse is just participating in necrophilia. It's easier if everyone who wants driver/gunner combos just gives up on enjoying tanker combat.
I dunno if it was Battlefield or COD or what that convinced SOE to fuck up vehicle combat but well played. Enjoy.

If you look back far enough, you'll find a post in this thread where I said I agree in principle with some of the issues Figment brings to the table. I am not posting here to say yay or nay or give my own opinion on this topic, since I am not going to let myself get ensnared in another Figment never ending circling argument.

Figment, if you had placed those quotes in a separate thread and asked, "who do you think said this, Figment or Landtank?" I wouldn't even be able to take a guess. That kind of jab is well within your "personality". If you think that is an affront to you, go back and re-read what you have written to him and others, and be honest about it. It has become a game of tit for tat... retaliation. Who can throw out the bigger insult.

And lastly, I don't really care for Landtank's personel well being. I just want the thread to stop being bumped up to the top.

[Whiteagle]

Who would be pissed off by the crewed MBT replacing what we have now? I mean, a cert refund of the MBT purchases can easily go into making the Lightning a suitable replacement if you don't just put them back into the MBT.

So what possible reason is there for anyone to actually be against the Lightning being the 'solo tank'? We've already proven that crewed MBTs work, and we've demonstrated that solo MBTs are hurting PS2, so honestly, what is the argument in favor of solo MBTs? Introducing a heavy crewed tank is worse for solo MBTs than anyone else, so even with that 'compromise' solo MBTing takes a massive hit.
We have demonstrated it. Verified it. Showed how it works in theory, in practice, in many contexts and why contexts aren't portable.

The problem is people not wanting to see the verification because it would mean defeat and the loss of their precious. Personal interest is the sole reason this thread still exists and that personal interest lies with solo MBT players who try their best to use speculative fear argumentation and authority assertion instead of valid reasoning on how their ideas or the status quo is BETTER for gameplay.

Virtually all we get is "but I like it" and of course the "but they wouldn't like it". Look, someone who likes BFRs OP said the same things.
Indeed, the only arguments AGAINST have used the old cries of "People won't like it!"
You know, I didn't like they made my Skyguard a "Deterrent" toward air, and how even after they "buffed it" its still more lethal to TANKS and other Ground Vehicles then Aircraft...

But did that stop them from doing it?

I don't like that they want to make Rocket Pods an Anti-Infantry weapon, but will that stop them?
Probably not, but I can at least hope that they turn it into an area denial splash weapon instead of an insta-infantry-gibbing nuke...

Does this mean they should make the fucking crew tank need a CREW?
Hell fucking YES, because it's a god-damned multi-crewed vehicle that needs to be balanced as one!

Right now we've been upgraded to Cardboard Tanks that can't actually Tank but are still objectively better solo options then the ACTUAL one man Tank...
A MBT shouldn't be just a heavier Lightning, it should be an MAIN BATTLE TANK!

Move on, Ignore, whichever but I personally find a vast majority of Figment's threads and posts to be constructive and in line with my own thoughts as to which direction PS2 should be headed towards.
Indeed, I don't personally agree with his three-crew point of view, but he is still presenting the best argument here.

I dunno if it was Battlefield or COD or what that convinced SOE to fuck up vehicle combat but well played. Enjoy.
Oh, haven't you heard?

I did deal with it.... I'M THE EVIL S.O.B. who encouraged them to have the MBT as driver/gunner combo and I'd do it again in an instant Muwhahahahahahahahah (not really but it makes a funny post ;))
IT'S ALL CANARIS' FAULT!!!
GET'IM!!!

As for the degeneration... I don't like people who keep posting unconstructive things, particularly things brought up before and cut down due to not solving the issues. It makes me very angry when people don't have the courtesy to read, aren't interested in even understanding the problem definition and then go and say "just do this, everyone happy, we get to keep it" when the latter is the rootcause of the problem...
Now now Figment, the incompetence burns us too, but you'll just have to grin and bare it until the rags are soaked with kerosene and they've fallen asleep...

[Landtank]

The annoying thing is that if it isn't perpetuated, chances are people believe the argument has either:

1. Settled.
2. Is no longer supported or considered relevant.
3. The supporters moved on.
-> "dead horse". As long as issues are alive though, dead horses don't exist.

But apparently, Landtank didn't comprehend the argument considering his responses show he's using the wrong mathematical model and needs a clarification. And another. And another. So if anyone perpetuates it, it's him. As for the degeneration... I don't like people who keep posting unconstructive things, particularly things brought up before and cut down due to not solving the issues. It makes me very angry when people don't have the courtesy to read, aren't interested in even understanding the problem definition and then go and say "just do this, everyone happy, we get to keep it" when the latter is the rootcause of the problem...



Probably am more tenacious. An issue needs to stay alive to get addressed as said before.

Just a question Kerrec, since you're interested in his debating effort and apparently mental well-being, what did you think when you read:



and:



Did you think "gee, how constructive and imaginative"?

Mind, I was talking about this kind of tag team tactics (http://wiki.worldoftanks.com/images/7/78/Tactics_preventFlankingMultiple.png).

Ill go ahead and quote this whole post as well because it is genuinely sad.

You see yourself as some sort of hero to planetside, as a lone warrior fighting against the stupidity of others. What you fail to realize ENTIRELY is that you are alone for a reason. The reason this issue has never gained more traction is because the majority of people do not agree with you.

You seem to be incapable of realizing that, and like a spoiled child you insist on bitching and moaning until you get what you want. You use arguments that on the surface sound good, but once you ask a single question they fall apart. You cover up your opinion by saying that anything else is unbalanced, when it ISN'T. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with tank don't in PS2. You create these problems in your head, and then spend months trying to convince people that there is a problem. It's hilarious.

If you think my posts about how you are incapable of using your tank to its advabtages are unconstructive, then don't bring it up. This was a classic example of you stating your opinion as fact, me arguing against it, you not agreeing but being entirely incapable of actually presenting a good counter argument, and instead attacking me for being "unconstructive and unimaginative".

Sorry for any mistakes I'm on my phone!

[Baneblade]

The reason this issue has never gained more traction is because the majority of people do not agree with you.

Actually, not.

[moosepoop]

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with tank in PS2.

theres nothing wrong with tank gameplay right now, because tanks are glass cannons like esfs. you can get taken out instantly. its "balanced", but its also gay.

[moosepoop]

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with tank in PS2.

as long as you cod kiddies insist on soloing mbts, youre gonna get instantly blown the fuck up by a lone infantry, anytime, anywhere. balance of power, yo. its your destiny.

you think tank mines and av turrets are invisible by accident?

personally ill enjoying farming the hell out of mbt drivers in my dual fracture with maxed out lockdown. welcome to balance, bro.

[Whiteagle]

What you fail to realize ENTIRELY is that you are alone for a reason. The reason this issue has never gained more traction is because the majority of people do not agree with you.

Actually, not.
AND MY AX!!!

[moosepoop]

super heavy tank concept

ARMA2 - Baneblade Assault! - YouTube

[Ghoest9]

Because you wont let this lame ass thread die.


The Harasser proves that its fun to drive a high speed dune buggy.


Most of us already figured as much.

[moosepoop]

Because you wont let this lame ass thread die.


The Harasser proves that its fun to drive a high speed dune buggy.


Most of us already figured as much.

I don't think this thread is lame. I think its a very important topic.

I consider dedicated driver mbt to be part of quality of life. since devs said they are focusing on quality of life issues, I want to continue to push for this. I posted a video of a six man crew tank gameplay in action to show how awesome it might be.

[Hobnail]

If we didn't have the Magrider with its fixed main gun I would think the best thing SOE could do right now is give the #2 player control of the main gun and have the #1 in charge of driving and the secondary. This is the mechanic for the Liberator and the harasser and there's no doubt they're more effective when crewed.

This change also immediately makes the Lightning make more sense. Alone and got no buddy? Want to solo it? Fine, pull a Lightning. Want a heavier hitter? A more agile vehicle? Find a friend and pull a tank/harasser.

Maybe it's time to give the Maggie a turret.

[Whiteagle]

If we didn't have the Magrider with its fixed main gun I would think the best thing SOE could do right now is give the #2 player control of the main gun and have the #1 in charge of driving and the secondary. This is the mechanic for the Liberator and the harasser and there's no doubt they're more effective when crewed.
Just switch the Gun Mounts, Secondaries on the Nose and Primary up Top...

That's what the Original Magrider was!

[moosepoop]

Just switch the Gun Mounts, Secondaries on the Nose and Primary up Top...

That's what the Original Magrider was!

I don't see why it would be hard for devs to design a new model for dedicated version of magrider. they might even have an ancient turreted model somewhere in the pre alpha assets.

[Ghodere]

I posted a video of a six man crew tank gameplay in action to show how awesome it might be.
Know what else had a six man crew? The Galaxy Gunship. And that thing was a blast to pilot.

[Hmr85]

The reason this issue has never gained more traction is because the majority of people do not agree with you.


And right here is where I completely disagree with you. I have 100+ members in my outfit that would love to see Multi-Crewed tanks make a return. We have had extensive talks about this. Nobody likes this battlefield solo tanker BS we have now.

[MrMak]

the issue with swaping the guns on the magrider is that it doesnt achieve anything becouse it still would have 2 players while the Prowler and Vanguard would have 3 andsecondaries such as the Walker and Ranger wouldnt be exactly poptimal in a fixed forward slot. Gettign rid of the forwar fixed gun i nfavour of a standard turret config ould take away from what makes the tank unique and get rid of its primary disadvantage blancing it's ability to strafe (and climb walls).

The only way I can think of to make it work is giving the main gun the ability to move side to side a bit without a full turret, kind of like a World War II tank destoryer. Of course then gunners could complain they are too dependant on the river to aim.

So while the Prowler and Vanguard are a simple matter overhauling the magrider in any of thep ossible way s will piss someone off.


Option number 3 would be to give the drivers on all 3 tanks a second secondary (tertiary?) weapon. A fixed, hull mounted, version of the secondaries, but limited to universal (Basilisk) and anti infantry options. There would stil lbe the issue of balancing the fact the magridercould strafe AND have a turret.

[omega four]

And right here is where I completely disagree with you. I have 100+ members in my outfit that would love to see Multi-Crewed tanks make a return. We have had extensive talks about this. Nobody likes this battlefield solo tanker BS we have now.

Your 100+ member outfit is not indicative of how the majority of PS2 gamers feel about multicrewed tanks.

As a casual gamer, who is representative of the largest gaming demographic of PS2 and games in general, I can tell you that I thoroughly enjoy using tanks that I can drive and gun with at the same time.

Yes, I can do it with the Lightning. But it's more fun to do it with a heavy tank. SOE knows how we feel about this issue and that's why they don't require heavy tanks to have crews.

If anything else, SOE KNOWS how to appeal to the masses and largest demographic of gamers (i.e. casual gamers). It's why PS2 looks more like BF3 and less like PS1.

[moosepoop]

Your 100+ member outfit is not indicative of how the majority of PS2 gamers feel about multicrewed tanks.

LOL

As a casual gamer, who is representative of the largest gaming demographic of PS2 and games in general, I can tell you that I thoroughly enjoy using tanks that I can drive and gun with at the same time.
as a casual gamer and hardcore BF3 player I can tell you I enjoy crewed MBT tanks, and Bf3 players enjoy multi crewed tanks.

[Sledgecrushr]

I would absolutely love to see a three man variant on the vanguard. With the new resource costs it makes sense to spread that cost out three ways and it would be a lot of fun as well.

[omega four]

I would be open to crewed variants of heavy tanks so long as it didn't eliminate solo operated heavy tanks and impede my ability to drive and gun a heavy tank by myself.

I would absolutely love to see a three man variant on the vanguard. With the new resource costs it makes sense to spread that cost out three ways and it would be a lot of fun as well.

[MrMak]

Or....this might sound crazy but bare with me....use the light tank..... which realy isnt that much diferent.

[omega four]

No, I think SOE is best served by introducing a crewed heavy tank variant.

It'll be just one more thing that SOE can sell accessories for in exchange for real world money.

It's a win/win/win proposition. You get your crewed heavy tank. I get my solo heavy tank. And SOE gets to make even more money farming PS2 gamers.

I never understood why all the crewed tank proponents are dead set on not allowing others to use solo heavy tanks as well. Everyone gets what they want.

Or....this might sound crazy but bare with me....use the light tank..... which realy isnt that much diferent.

[Ghoest9]

Once again.

The best solution ias to simply make the secondary gun roughly equal to the primary gun.

That way both the driver driver has fun being a big part of the shooting action and yet he still feels that the crew is vital.


This is an obvious solution - but the 3 or 4 whiners here dont want it because its not exactly how PS1 was.

[moosepoop]

Once again.

The best solution ias to simply make the secondary gun roughly equal to the primary gun.

That way both the driver driver has fun being a big part of the shooting action and yet he still feels that the crew is vital.




the secondary gun is already as powerful as the main gun.

[Whiteagle]

the issue with swaping the guns on the magrider is that it doesnt achieve anything becouse it still would have 2 players while the Prowler and Vanguard would have 3 andsecondaries such as the Walker and Ranger wouldnt be exactly poptimal in a fixed forward slot.
Actually, I figured the Drivers of Vanguards and Prowlers would get the Secondary Gun as well, and I'd be more worried about weapons like the Halbert then the AA Guns on the Magrider...
I mean, AA Guns have to have a high traverse anyways, so the only real down side is the need to keep the whole tank pointed at the target.

The Halbert and PPA on the other hand might be a different story...

As a casual gamer, who is representative of the largest gaming demographic of PS2 and games in general, I can tell you that I thoroughly enjoy using tanks that I can drive and gun with at the same time.

Yes, I can do it with the Lightning. But it's more fun to do it with a heavy tank. SOE knows how we feel about this issue and that's why they don't require heavy tanks to have crews.
...You know how I said that I like you...

...I don't anymore.

[omega four]

LOL. No worries. I'm sure I'll find something to say that we both agree on again and then I'll be back in your good graces...




...You know how I said that I like you...

...I don't anymore.

[Baneblade]

I would be open to crewed variants of heavy tanks so long as it didn't eliminate solo operated heavy tanks and impede my ability to drive and gun a heavy tank by myself.

Lightning, it's been waiting for you.

[omega four]

You can have the Lightning. I've got the solo operated heavy tank to play with, thank you very much.

Lightning, it's been waiting for you.

[Rolfski]

Just when you think you've discussed this tiring crewed mbt subject to the death in another exhaustive Harrasser thread (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=55578), someone thinks it's a good idea to necro another Harasser topic and start the circus all over again.

I'm really starting to wonder what's more to say about this that hasn't been said before. Some people like it, some people don't, nothing you can really change about that. Keep bringing it up for the sake of keep bringing it up doesn't make the discussion particularly more interesting.

[Figment]

Ill go ahead and quote this whole post as well because it is genuinely sad.

There is one person that's sad here, and it's you.

You see yourself as some sort of hero to planetside, as a lone warrior fighting against the stupidity of others.

Mainly the minority, people like you.

What you fail to realize ENTIRELY is that you are alone for a reason.

Shall we do a count, AGAIN? You have never been the majority. Keep being delusional.


But if you think alone means that 90% of the people in the thread support my vision and points and 67% on the survey supports dedicated driver MBTs, okay, I'm "alone" then. Grow up already. You are so pathetic you can't even admit the minority (about a third of players) supports soloable MBTs.


Alone means being solo.


Look around in your soloed tank. THAT is what being alone is.

The reason this issue has never gained more traction is because the majority of people do not agree with you.

Really? Then why are your lot outnumbered 9 to 1 in these kind of threads?

The SOLE reason it hasn't gained "traction", is SMEDLEY, because he's got the handbreak on it!

You seem to be incapable of realizing that, and like a spoiled child you insist on bitching and moaning until you get what you want. You use arguments that on the surface sound good, but once you ask a single question they fall apart. You cover up your opinion by saying that anything else is unbalanced, when it ISN'T. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with tank don't in PS2. You create these problems in your head, and then spend months trying to convince people that there is a problem. It's hilarious.

Funny, you never asked a single question, you've never pointed out a single flaw where you were actually correct (your logic doesn't make sense at all and falls apart as soon as you make ANY scenario - ANY SCENARIO AT ALL - ALL scenarios are per definition argueing in my favour and I challenge you to provide one that shows I'm wrong!). In fact, all you ever say is "YOU ARE WRONG, BECAUSE I WANT MY SOLO TANK AND SINCE I ASSUME OTHERS WANT A SOLO TANK IT IS FACT THAT OTHERS WANT A SOLO TANK, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE FROM BF3 SO NAH!". And that's ALL you've done for two years, like the spoiled brat you indeed are, even though the majority of BF3 players actually wanted to see 3-4 crew tanks instead of solo tanks... But hey.


You have never been constructive in this debate since all you have been trying to do is sabotage it, WITHOUT making an argument that goes anywhere else than "I" want this", "I want this". THAT is acting like a spoiled brat.

AS SOON AS YOU ARGUE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW THAT "IT IS GOOD BECAUSE YOU WANT IT AND SCREW EVERYONE ELSE" YOU LOSE 100% OF YOUR MATURITY AND RIGHTS TO BE TAKEN SERIOUS. You have NEVER given even an example of why it is has a good effect on gameplay in general, because you focus your entire argument on the solo player who wants to drive a POWERFUL tank. You completely ignore everyone else and every other unit in game because it doesn't suit your argument.

UNLIKE ME. I have NEVER argued from the point that "I WANT THIS", always from the point that "This is better, because [A, B, C, D, E, F] effects on gameplay". You are such a huge hypocrit and I've honestly never seen you contribute to this community, ever.

If you think my posts about how you are incapable of using your tank to its advabtages are unconstructive, then don't bring it up. This was a classic example of you stating your opinion as fact, me arguing against it, you not agreeing but being entirely incapable of actually presenting a good counter argument, and instead attacking me for being "unconstructive and unimaginative".

Because you are. You don't understand why you are wrong because you don't WANT to understand it, admitting it would mean your defeat.

You have nothing to add to this discussion and never had. Stop posting and trolling by attempting to rile me and others up without ever making a constructive post.






Landtank, I'm going to give you an ultimatum and challenge which if you are a man you will take on. Prove beyond doubt within a week that the fast majority of people in this game prefer solo player heavy tanks to crewed heavy tanks (more than 70%, should be easier than the 99,9999999% you claim since I'm "alone").


If not, you will stop using the arguments that it's "more fun" (because it's not) and that "most people want it" (because they don't). Neither is an argument based on gameplay and neither therefore has any weight in the first place. Worse, one is a subjective opinion argument and the other is a blatant lie based on a prejudiced assumption that people are like you. Which given the fact that I know from the top of my head 12 outfits with over 100 members where the majority of people agrees with my side of the argument, makes your assumption utterly unlikely.


But please. Go on and prove me wrong. You've never tried (I have tried to prove me wrong by actually asking and polling...) and unfortunately my estimation of your character is you won't even try. If you don't try, you will go on ignore, which you should have been 2 years ago

[Warborn]

The harasser is really fast and agile. Tanks are slow and clumsy. Harasser benefits from drivers being unarmed because driving such a fast vehicle takes all their attention, and it's cool to get sick air in them. Tanks do not require a lot of attention to drive effectively, because they're slow and don't rely on speed to survive.

So it's a bad comparison.

[Figment]

The harasser is really fast and agile. Tanks are slow and clumsy. Harasser benefits from drivers being unarmed because driving such a fast vehicle takes all their attention, and it's cool to get sick air in them. Tanks do not require a lot of attention to drive effectively, because they're slow and don't rely on speed to survive.

So it's a bad comparison.

http://youtu.be/YbqVIacTwQE

Superslow...


Check your facts first Warborn. You're better than making a useless remark based on "stop and go" gameplay that ruins your average speed to a mere fraction of your max speed due to the poor acceleration.

integral (a b) v * dv = integral (a b) a * ds

If you constantly stop you have to constantly accelerate from V0 = 0 m/s. If you stay at top speed, you'll have an average speed between 60 (MOUNTAIN UP) and 80 (DOWN), doing 70 on average, meaning 7/9th of the Harasser average speed.

How the hell is that slow?


Just because you don't realise how fast it is because you hardly ever get to experience the speed (only when it doesn't really matter for the driving experience: while transporting between areas), doesn't mean it's actually slow. It's anything but slow.

Racer chassis for the Lightning makes you go from 68 to 85 full speed. So there's really no noticable difference there either (10-20 kph difference is next to nothing tbh).

[moosepoop]

Just when you think you've discussed this tiring crewed mbt subject to the death in another exhaustive Harrasser thread (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=55578), someone thinks it's a good idea to necro another Harasser topic and start the circus all over again.

I'm really starting to wonder what's more to say about this that hasn't been said before. Some people like it, some people don't, nothing you can really change about that. Keep bringing it up for the sake of keep bringing it up doesn't make the discussion particularly more interesting.

I brought it back to post video of BANEBLADE. its a creative vision of what I would like in a super heavy multi crew tank in ps2, a tracked version of a bfr.

it is not from the dawn of war strategy game, its from a mod for arma 2. a real drivable, 6 man crewed BANNEBLAADE

[moosepoop]

The harasser is really fast and agile. Tanks are slow and clumsy. Harasser benefits from drivers being unarmed because driving such a fast vehicle takes all their attention, and it's cool to get sick air in them. Tanks do not require a lot of attention to drive effectively, because they're slow and don't rely on speed to survive.

So it's a bad comparison.

the lightning and flash are just as fast. I don't find them as "fun to drive".

[omega four]

I don't know. If you gave me rocket launchers or a forward firing cannon to use while driving a harasser, I'd gladly do so.

I'd solo a harasser and harass the heck out of enemy armored columns.

The harasser is really fast and agile. Tanks are slow and clumsy. Harasser benefits from drivers being unarmed because driving such a fast vehicle takes all their attention, and it's cool to get sick air in them. Tanks do not require a lot of attention to drive effectively, because they're slow and don't rely on speed to survive.

So it's a bad comparison.

[Whiteagle]

I don't know. If you gave me rocket launchers or a forward firing cannon to use while driving a harasser, I'd gladly do so.

I'd solo a harasser and harass the heck out of enemy armored columns.
Get a Halbert, switch seats...

[Figment]

How players would use speed IN COMBAT.
https://imageshack.com/a/img441/6760/unx.png

Pretty much what I see in the arguments presented regarding "fun to drive" perception. I don't think people realise just how minimal the speed difference is.



Typically, the only times solo MBT drivers reach top speed is when they aren't in combat but transporting themselves to the next fight.

Lightnings players may try to circle but then again, once they've circled, stop to fire, lowering their average speed reached and maintained by a lot in comparison (Lightning acceleration is pretty decent however, so it's more prone to reaching top speed during combat). I'd bet you that solo Lightnings would have a lower average speed than crewed MBTs.

[Rivenshield]

/snaps fingers

Make the dedicated driver slot a certable upgrade -- and along with it, you get a hull gun. You know. Like tanks in WW2 had. Make it upgradable with additional certs. That way, the driver can have fun too... but if you look to the side, the targeting reticle slides off your screen. Hull guns only fire to the front.

Imagine the dakka.....

/drool

[omega four]

Now, that wouldn't work. Some harasser drivers just don't have the courage to drive towards armored columns.

I don't have the time or patience to find a driver that does in the warp gate, given my limited playing time.

Never mind. I'll just solo a heavy tank instead. Thankfully, SOE gives me the ability to do so.

Get a Halbert, switch seats...

[omega four]

I never have and never will use "fun to drive" as my reason for supporting solo heavy tanks in PS2.

My reason is simply I enjoy driving and gunning heavy tanks by myself. I like not having to depend on a competent gunner or driver for a crewed tank (whatever the case may be), let alone finding one in the warp gate.

Those who insist on crewed tanks claim that solo tankers like me can use the Lightning. Guess what? I do NOT want to use the Lightning.

I want to use a heavy thank. Thankfully, SOE allows me to do so, much to the chagrin of the crewed tank advocates.

How players would use speed IN COMBAT.
https://imageshack.com/a/img441/6760/unx.png

Pretty much what I see in the arguments presented regarding "fun to drive" perception. I don't think people realise just how minimal the speed difference is.



Typically, the only times solo MBT drivers reach top speed is when they aren't in combat but transporting themselves to the next fight.

Lightnings players may try to circle but then again, once they've circled, stop to fire, lowering their average speed reached and maintained by a lot in comparison (Lightning acceleration is pretty decent however, so it's more prone to reaching top speed during combat). I'd bet you that solo Lightnings would have a lower average speed than crewed MBTs.

[Figment]

Those who insist on crewed tanks claim that solo tankers like me can use the Lightning. Guess what? I do NOT want to use the Lightning.

I want to use a heavy thank. Thankfully, SOE allows me to do so, much to the chagrin of the crewed tank advocates.

Give a better reason than "want". And don't quote me without actually replying to my argument. But if you don't want to drive, then don't. Gun for someone else (AND YES, IF PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO GET GUNNERS, THEY WOULD ACTUALLY WAIT FOR THEM).


Wanting something doesn't mean you should get it.

That wasn't true when you were three y/o and wanted the candy that's bad for your teeth or didn't want to share with the other kids in the playground and it still isn't. "Wanting" more power than other players doesn't mean you should get it. Use, the Lightning. It IS the same thing.

[omega four]

Here is a short video giving an example of crewed tank gameplay. One word: BORING

http://youtu.be/5dJxWtObM9c



Now, here is an example of solo heavy tank gameplay: One word: EXCITING

http://youtu.be/QYXHw6is5LA


Thankfully, SOE opted to let gamers like me enjoy solo heavy tank gameplay. I can't even describe how much fun it is to solo a heavy tank and not have to depend on other gamers to drive/gun.

[omega four]

You want me to give a better reason than stated.

You want me to use the Lightning.

You're right. Wanting something doesn't mean you should get it.

Give a better reason than "want".


Wanting something doesn't mean you should get it.

That wasn't true when you were three y/o and it still isn't. "Wanting" more power than other players doesn't mean you should get it. Use, the Lightning. It IS the same thing.

[Figment]

Troll.

You didn't even pick combat footage.

http://youtu.be/lqZWqe-gL5c

http://youtu.be/mrJblIp9sHw

http://youtu.be/O_f9pARWp0w

http://youtu.be/_6qsoCbs7EI

And again, you can do what you want to do in that vid you provided equally well with the Lightning, so why would you need the MBT for it? Just for the HITPOINTS? So how the bloody hell are you going to justify those extra hitpoints? GREED?

[AThreatToYou]

Defending solo driver/gunner... I just think that's bigotry... Then again, thinking that is bigotry is bigotry. We will get nowhere until the devs change it, or at least opt to change it on the test server. I don't see how you would not want to use the Lightning. There is a clear barrier here. If you want a solo heavily armed and armored vehicle, ask for BFRs/Mechs. See how well that will go over!

Crewed tank gameplay in PS1 was exciting as all shit. You picked the most boring video of crew in MBTs, mostly because it's some silly "realism" mod for battlefield 2. I might accept the driver/gunner combo if we had stabilized turrets, but we don't.

The Beowulf tank in Tribes 2 used driver/gunner positions; it was damn awesome. It says a lot when a game about raw speed, agility, and individual player freedom used a driver and gunner set-up.

[Figment]

Btw, in comparison:

http://youtu.be/xB5opSo9wEk

Two things are noticable: suddenly it became 1. Attrociously aimed spam instead of aiming while firing on the move (people firing in third person even to at least see something) 2. bad driving (constant collisions) 3. A lot more Stop & Fire 4. Numerical vehicle spam.

There's a distinct difference in organization level and quality of gameplay between the vids I showed before and this one, while the power as a group between the four videos doesn't differ much when used for the same roles, because the power per individual is balanced against that of another player using something else. This is not the case with soloable PS2 MBTs, which is why everything else has to kill them so damn quickly, ruining vehicle gameplay in general.

Only numbers matter in these circumstances. Now if these had all been MBTs, the endurance and firepower difference would have been huge. That would never have been fair to whatever infantry would oppose them.

In PS1 however, the devs recognised that problem and ensured that the Lightning was a light vehicle with a light weapon to promote crewed units. And it worked wonderfully. There were NEVER as many threads with complaints about PS1 driving systems as there are about the lack of it and frustration with it in PS2.

In fact, I can't recall a single one ever being posted, because everyone enjoyed it. Instead, people argued over the balance between ES units due to them using different setups.



But, in PS1, both were possible, were competitive and complemented each other, rather than doing the same thing and off-setting the balance of power between two players using different units for the same purpose due to role overlap.



And what do you get with solo vehicles everywhere in PS2?

http://youtu.be/nbnRoYDRJz8

http://youtu.be/y0fUKgsFmIE
Traffic Jams.

Because THAT is such dynamic, fun, gameplay. :rolleyes:

(Want to see more traffic jams? https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=planetside+2+traffic+jam&oq=planetside+2+traffic+jam&gs_l=youtube.3...773356.776881.1.777185.24.24.0.0. 0.0.109.1089.23j1.24.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.hA 7m78wMfF4 )

[Ghoest9]

the secondary gun is already as powerful as the main gun.

Then go away and quit trying to nerf other peoples fun.
If the secondary gunner does the same damage as the main gunnewr then stop complaining and asking for the primary gun to be nerfed.

If both guns do the same damage then team work is vital already.

You just a bunch of whiners who want attention.

[Baneblade]

You can have the Lightning. I've got the solo operated heavy tank to play with, thank you very much.

I solo in the Vanguard plenty, but I'd rather not. And I've found the Lightning to be a better solo vehicle most of the time anyway.

Fortunately, your playstyle can't trump mine since mine isn't even in PS2 so long as there are no crewed tanks. You not only have one tank, but two to choose from for your solo tanking experience.

[Shogun]

In fact, I can't recall a single one ever being posted, because everyone enjoyed it. Instead, people argued over the balance between ES units due to them using different setups.

there might have been a few complains of players who certed in the mbt, that they couldn´t use the maingun for their invested points. but since ps2 geves you all vehicles for free, and you can freely choose if you want to use certpoints for your personal advantage or for a gunner, this argument isn´t valit any more.

[omega four]

I find soloing the heavy tanks to be much more fun than Lightnings, but that's just me.

SOE has given me both heavy tanks and lightnings to solo, if I wish. I have no complaints about that.

I solo in the Vanguard plenty, but I'd rather not. And I've found the Lightning to be a better solo vehicle most of the time anyway.

Fortunately, your playstyle can't trump mine since mine isn't even in PS2 so long as there are no crewed tanks. You not only have one tank, but two to choose from for your solo tanking experience.

[Baneblade]

Right, and my complaint is that I have no options for being a dedicated driver in a tank.

[omega four]

Understood. SOE should make a heavy tank variant that does allow for crewed members then.

That way, everyone is happy. You get your crewed heavy tank. I get my solo heavy tank. SOE can sell us stuff for money.

Right, and my complaint is that I have no options for being a dedicated driver in a tank.

[moosepoop]

Then go away and quit trying to nerf other peoples fun.
If the secondary gunner does the same damage as the main gunnewr then stop complaining and asking for the primary gun to be nerfed.

If both guns do the same damage then team work is vital already.

You just a bunch of whiners who want attention.
I will not go away, ghost9. I will never go away. I will always be with you like obiwan Kenobi.

I have maxed out prowler. I can go on endless killstreaks if I wish. but I don't. because its not fun and doesn't take skill. im not the kind of player who likes to stand still and get cheap kills over and over.

[Baneblade]

Understood. SOE should make a heavy tank variant that does allow for crewed members then.

That way, everyone is happy. You get your crewed heavy tank. I get my solo heavy tank. SOE can sell us stuff for money.

As long as my crewed tank is cheaper than your solo tank, has more hp, and does more damage.

[omega four]

Seeing as SOE hasn't given you your crewed tank yet, you probably shouldn't be so picky.

Beggars can't be choosers. Until then, see you on the battlefield in our solo heavy tanks.

As long as my crewed tank is cheaper than your solo tank, has more hp, and does more damage.

[GS Ourous]

As long as my crewed tank is cheaper than your solo tank, has more hp, and does more damage.

Already have 2 of three

[Whiteagle]

Now, that wouldn't work. Some harasser drivers just don't have the courage to drive towards armored columns.

I don't have the time or patience to find a driver that does in the warp gate, given my limited playing time.

Never mind. I'll just solo a heavy tank instead. Thankfully, SOE gives me the ability to do so.
Well fuck you, my Harrasser is a fine Tank Hunter when I use it just like a DriverGunner MBT...
Stop, switch seats, Snipe Tank Asses, switch seats when they catch on and drive off!

[moosepoop]

Well fuck you, my Harrasser is a fine Tank Hunter when I use it just like a DriverGunner MBT...
Stop, switch seats, Snipe Tank Asses, switch seats when they catch on and drive off!

don't bother. dude is obviously trolling

[Ghodere]

I've been in the threads on this topic for quite some time, and have yet to see a half decent argument posted in favor of the status quo, so I'll go ahead and posit one:

SOE is, for some reason, terrified of offering refunds.

When they were going to change G2A launchers to not have a dumbfire, they chose to back down on the change rather than offer refunds. When they completely changed the role of the Saron and to a lesser extent the Enforcer, not so much as a peep as to compensation. The Cosmos (VS MAX AI) went from the very best option available to the very worst and, regardless if you think that deserves a refund or not, nothing was mentioned.

Solo MBTs cannot be replaced with crewed MBTs without compensation. It just cannot work; the shitstorm would kill the game all over again. So, there, one more barrier standing in the way of crewed tonks.

[omega four]

Shareholders don't look to fondly upon publicly traded for-profit companies that are in the habit of offering refunds when it can be avoided.

I've been in the threads on this topic for quite some time, and have yet to see a half decent argument posted in favor of the status quo, so I'll go ahead and posit one:

SOE is, for some reason, terrified of offering refunds.

When they were going to change G2A launchers to not have a dumbfire, they chose to back down on the change rather than offer refunds. When they completely changed the role of the Saron and to a lesser extent the Enforcer, not so much as a peep as to compensation. The Cosmos (VS MAX AI) went from the very best option available to the very worst and, regardless if you think that deserves a refund or not, nothing was mentioned.

Solo MBTs cannot be replaced with crewed MBTs without compensation. It just cannot work; the shitstorm would kill the game all over again. So, there, one more barrier standing in the way of crewed tonks.

[Figment]

Solo MBTs cannot be replaced with crewed MBTs without compensation. It just cannot work;

World of Tanks does this pretty much every patch: free slot, free premium time, free extra exp, free researched experience when they replace something, etc. There's tons of ways to do this.


Just refund the certification points and station cash invested in the MBT. If people whine, next time give them a bonus 100 SC or a 5% cert point bonus.

Nobody can complain they spend money if they get a full return of their investment (and perhaps even a small bonus).


They should simply track purchase history (SC), which will always tell if a player used station cash or certification points to unlock something. If you adjust a weapon or in this case a vehicle, simply refund everything to do with that weapon, or in this case, the vehicle.


Nobody has the right to complain then, because they have been compensated and they have been able to get certs out of the time where they used an OP weapon version.

If they still whine even when compensated, let the immature selfish bastards quit. Good riddance tbh if you can't handle being compensated in full and then some, because you want to continue to exploit OP stuff.



And Omega Four, you're full of it. Shareholders don't care AT ALL about SERVICE REFUNDS. If people have to be compensated FOR ALL THE MONEY THEY INVESTED, yeah that would be felt. But refunding STATION CASH, AN ALREADY BOUGHT IN GAME CURRENCY, DOESN'T ACTUALLY AFFECT SOE'S FINANCIAL POSITION, AT ALL, BECAUSE THE MONEY IS ALREADY OBTAINED.

A refund doesn't mean it costs SOE any money in this regards.

Shareholders wouldn't give a flying fuck about station cash OR certification point returns! So much for your stupid argument.

[Dougnifico]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/266309376/h1D0524A5/

[omega four]

You're not looking at the big picture. Or perhaps you don't have experience working at Japanese multinational corporations. Whichever it is, your ignorance is readily apparent.

Shareholders will frown up any company that refunds services rendered when more services can be sold for money. SOE doesn't need to refund SC for services rendered when it can sell MORE SC.

Whether you care to admit it or are incapable of understanding the concept, refunds for services rendered represent a loss to a company.

But given your immature response and post, I don't think you've ever worked in Finance or Corporate Planning for a Fortune 100 corporation before. Nor do you ever have plans on doing so. If you did, you'd find your penchant for childish, immature prose would do little to sway others to your point of view.

Shareholders don't care AT ALL about SERVICE REFUNDS. If people have to be compensated FOR ALL THE MONEY THEY INVESTED, yeah that would be felt. But refunding STATION CASH, AN ALREADY BOUGHT IN GAME CURRENCY, DOESN'T ACTUALLY AFFECT SOE'S FINANCIAL POSITION, AT ALL, BECAUSE THE MONEY IS ALREADY OBTAINED.

A refund doesn't mean it costs SOE any money in this regards.

Shareholders wouldn't give a flying fuck about station cash OR certification point returns! So much for your stupid argument.

[omega four]

This thread won't die because some gamers are exercising their rights to free speech and demanding certain game aspects ad nauseum.

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/266309376/h1D0524A5/

[PredatorFour]

But this free speech may come at a cost..

[Figment]

You're not looking at the big picture. Or perhaps you don't have experience working at Japanese multinational corporations. Whichever it is, your ignorance is readily apparent.

Shareholders will frown up any company that refunds services rendered when more services can be sold for money. SOE doesn't need to refund SC for services rendered when it can sell MORE SC.

1. SOE is an AMERICAN company, regardless of its ties to Sony.
2. Irrelevant statement. Shareholders care not for individual transactions and service refunds.

If you think so, you have not been paying attention to Wargaming, which is selling like hot buns to both consumers and shareholders, while having a more than decent customer service scheme because it actually makes customers come back.

A refund like this would retain the customer and the investment is not under threat. In fact, it encourages future investments by that consumer.

You know that good consumer pleasing policies on such small scales actually stimulate consumers, thus please shareholders? Right? Right? You do realise that shareholders that actually are capable of understanding that SOE doesn't lose money, but makes money out of such a refund and thus wouldn't be upset, at all?

Whether you care to admit it or are incapable of understanding the concept, refunds for services rendered represent a loss to a company.

Seems like you don't understand the concept of selling station cash: once sold, it is sold. The company does not care what you do with it or what game you spend it on: you already bought whatever.

Virtual currency refunds are NOT THE SAME AS AN ACTUAL REFUND (where you'd have had a point). You ensure that the consumer does not take the money elsewhere.

But given your immature response and post, I don't think you've ever worked in Finance or Corporate Planning for a Fortune 100 corporation before. Nor do you ever have plans on doing so. If you did, you'd find your penchant for childish, immature prose would do little to sway others to your point of view.

Immature? "BUT MOMMY I WANT IT". That is immature. If you can't make a case on why it's good for the game rather than why it's good for you, then don't bother asking for something.

And if you do work there, I seriously wonder if you have any idea what you're talking about and if you shouldn't be fired because of your poor consumer relationship skills and lack of insight in consumer and shareholder thinking. Sounds like your priorities are fucked up. There is no company without consumers and your method of "well let's just piss people off to not potentially offend the people that are pissing other people off out of selfish greed even if we can easily compensate those players" means people will be pissed off. And leave.

I know a lot of outfits that already left, in large part due to the vehicle spam and the boring vehicle gameplay. If this change would make more players come in than the few that would leave (nobody would leave over making the MBT crewed, don't kid yourself), then shareholders would actually be quite pleased.


You don't seem to understand the concept of station cash or gold refunds in the same in game currency and the effect on consumer retention, which will lead to future purchases. Where if you DO NOT refund them, the client will say "this is the last time I spent SC on anything, because it's not a risk free investment". And when THAT happens, shareholders will be FAR MORE WORRIED.





But still, I must say this is the lamest excuse for retaining control over OP weaponry I've ever heard.

"If I don't get to keep my tank, the shareholders of SOE will be pissed off!"


RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. Sod off. If you can't defend your position and are reaching for straws, just sod off.

[Boomzor]

I see what Omega Four is saying.

However, if a refund is equalled to a lost sale, and that as the cause for them not doing it, how do you explain double or even triple SC deals?

That is an equal loss of sale. And we've seen plenty of those.

[Shogun]

Shareholders will frown up any company that refunds services rendered when more services can be sold for money. SOE doesn't need to refund SC for services rendered when it can sell MORE SC.

rly?
then why could soe give out the loyal soldier promotion for free without their shareholders going rampage? they could have sold this package for money, so the promo was a loss of money according to your theory.

or the triple station cash promotions. soe could get three times the cash they got by NOT doing this!

sure, now you will say "but those were promotions to lure in more players to buy something". cool! and where is the difference to refunding certs or sc when doing changes to prevent people from stopping to buy anything?

it´s the same thing, and since no real money is refunded, it is no loss to soe at all. it is customer service and promotion all together.

[omega four]

LOL. You really are quite clueless, even for someone in his late 20s/early 30s.

SOE is the American subsidary to a Japanese multinational corporation. As such, SOE takes its marching orders from a Japanese company. Regardless of what you may think, SOE follows Sony's directives (at least if they want to keep their jobs).

With that, I won't bother educating you further about what shareholders do and don't care about as it's obvious that such an education would be entire lost and wasted on someone of your immature, childish nature.

Besides, I somehow doubt I'll be seeing you at any shareholder meetings anytime soon....

1. SOE is an AMERICAN company, regardless of its ties to Sony.
2. Irrelevant statement. Shareholders care not for individual transactions and service refunds.

If you think so, you have not been paying attention to Wargaming, which is selling like hot buns to both consumers and shareholders, while having a more than decent customer service scheme because it actually makes customers come back.

A refund like this would retain the customer and the investment is not under threat. In fact, it encourages future investments by that consumer.

You know that good consumer pleasing policies on such small scales actually stimulate consumers, thus please shareholders? Right? Right? You do realise that shareholders that actually are capable of understanding that SOE doesn't lose money, but makes money out of such a refund and thus wouldn't be upset, at all?



Seems like you don't understand the concept of selling station cash: once sold, it is sold. The company does not care what you do with it or what game you spend it on: you already bought whatever.

Virtual currency refunds are NOT THE SAME AS AN ACTUAL REFUND (where you'd have had a point). You ensure that the consumer does not take the money elsewhere.



Immature? "BUT MOMMY I WANT IT". That is immature. If you can't make a case on why it's good for the game rather than why it's good for you, then don't bother asking for something.

And if you do work there, I seriously wonder if you have any idea what you're talking about and if you shouldn't be fired because of your poor consumer relationship skills and lack of insight in consumer and shareholder thinking. Sounds like your priorities are fucked up. There is no company without consumers and your method of "well let's just piss people off to not potentially offend the people that are pissing other people off out of selfish greed even if we can easily compensate those players" means people will be pissed off. And leave.

I know a lot of outfits that already left, in large part due to the vehicle spam and the boring vehicle gameplay. If this change would make more players come in than the few that would leave (nobody would leave over making the MBT crewed, don't kid yourself), then shareholders would actually be quite pleased.


You don't seem to understand the concept of station cash or gold refunds in the same in game currency and the effect on consumer retention, which will lead to future purchases. Where if you DO NOT refund them, the client will say "this is the last time I spent SC on anything, because it's not a risk free investment". And when THAT happens, shareholders will be FAR MORE WORRIED.





But still, I must say this is the lamest excuse for retaining control over OP weaponry I've ever heard.

"If I don't get to keep my tank, the shareholders of SOE will be pissed off!"


RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. Sod off. If you can't defend your position and are reaching for straws, just sod off.

[omega four]

Thank you. It's good to see others who understand where I'm coming from, even if some like Figment are too young/immature/childish/inexperienced to do so.

You've asked an excellent question. Double and triple SC sales are one of SOE's ways to incentivize gamers to spend real money on SOE games (e.g. PS2). As you've astutely noted, SOE does leave some money on the table, so to speak, when it runs these sales. By not selling SC at full real world monetary value (e.g. 1 SC = $1 USD), SOE is effectively losing money (or giving money away) when it sells 2 or 3 SC for $1 USD.

Such incentive programs are viewed by SOE (and other companies) as the cost of doing business. But, it is a painful cost to bear. That is why SOE does not run these SC sale deals very often (especially the Triple SC deals).

Furthermore, shareholders and stock analysts view incentive program deals like SC sales in a more favorable light than they do refunds, as these incentive program deals actively bring in more real money, whereas refunds do not.

I see what Omega Four is saying.

However, if a refund is equalled to a lost sale, and that as the cause for them not doing it, how do you explain double or even triple SC deals?

That is an equal loss of sale. And we've seen plenty of those.

[omega four]

Your question is similar to Boomzor's. So my answer will be similar as well.

Much like its double and triple SC sales, Loyal Soldier Promotions are one of SOE's ways to reward existing gamers' loyalty and incentivize gamers to spend real money on SOE games (e.g. PS2). The hope is once gamers experience all the benefits a subscription have to offer for a month, then gamers will subscribe to SOE's programs. As you've astutely noted, SOE does leave some money on the table, so to speak, when it offers these incentive programs.

These incentive programs are viewed by SOE (and other companies) as the cost of doing business. But, it is a painful cost to bear.

Furthermore, shareholders and stock analysts view incentive program deals like SC sales in a more favorable light than they do refunds, as these incentive program deals actively bring in more real money, whereas refunds do not.

Just because no real money is refunded does not mean that an opportunity cost is not incurred. I encourage you and others who don't see this to take a introductory business class or Microeconomics 101. It'll help clear things up.

rly?
then why could soe give out the loyal soldier promotion for free without their shareholders going rampage? they could have sold this package for money, so the promo was a loss of money according to your theory.

or the triple station cash promotions. soe could get three times the cash they got by NOT doing this!

sure, now you will say "but those were promotions to lure in more players to buy something". cool! and where is the difference to refunding certs or sc when doing changes to prevent people from stopping to buy anything?

it´s the same thing, and since no real money is refunded, it is no loss to soe at all. it is customer service and promotion all together.

[Shogun]

Such incentive programs are viewed by SOE (and other companies) as the cost of doing business. But, it is a painful cost to bear. That is why SOE does not run these SC sale deals very often (especially the Triple SC deals).

Furthermore, shareholders and stock analysts view incentive program deals like SC sales in a more favorable light than they do refunds, as these incentive program deals actively bring in more real money, whereas refunds do not.

ok, so the whole shareholder thing is a totally unvalid argument on the topic, according to your own argumentation...

refunding as a compensation for changing mbt to driver/gunner would be a one time thing, soe wouldn´t have to more than once, and therefore it is not more frequent than sc deals.

and an option to recert would keep paying customers happy and more willingly to spend more money. that would equal the second part of the quote.

the whole shareholder arguments are hollow bullshit. just don´t call it "refund" and everything is ok. enable a recert option in general, or just for limited time after patches, for the affected items, problem solved.

this should also fall under business costs, because keeping customers happy and loyal is valuable service.

[omega four]

Like I said, please consider taking a introductory business class or Microeconomics 101. It'll help clear things up.

ok, so the whole shareholder thing is a totally unvalid argument on the topic, according to your own argumentation...

refunding as a compensation for changing mbt to driver/gunner would be a one time thing, soe wouldn´t have to more than once, and therefore it is not more frequent than sc deals.

and an option to recert would keep paying customers happy and more willingly to spend more money. that would equal the second part of the quote.

the whole shareholder arguments are hollow bullshit. just don´t call it "refund" and everything is ok. enable a recert option in general, or just for limited time after patches, for the affected items, problem solved.

this should also fall under business costs, because keeping customers happy and loyal is valuable service.

[Shogun]

Like I said, please consider taking a introductory business class or Microeconomics 101. It'll help clear things up.

nice way of avoiding to acknoladge defeat...
and very arrogant to send people off to read a book or get aditional education. especially for someone who doesn´t know the difference between there their and they´re.

[Whiteagle]

By not selling SC at full real world monetary value (e.g. 1 SC = $1 USD), SOE is effectively losing money (or giving money away) when it sells 2 or 3 SC for $1 USD.
Wow, way to show a lack of research...

Station Cash normal monetary value is $0.01 USD, or 100 SC per US Dollar...

the whole shareholder arguments are hollow bullshit. just don´t call it "refund" and everything is ok. enable a recert option in general, or just for limited time after patches, for the affected items, problem solved.
Indeed, especially considering how they've ALREADY done this with redundant account and bundle purchases.

While they can't refund Station Cash, supposedly due to some gobblety goop involving their transaction system, they can refund for the equivalent the Certifcation Point cost.

[omega four]

It's clear that my attempts to educate you have failed. The only recourse is for you to learn the fundamentals of business and microeconomics to understand where I'm coming from for our conversation on this topic to continue in a meaningful fashion.

Until then, you're free to interpret what I've said from the perspective of a gamer that isn't versed in business concepts and disagree to your heart's content.

Or to put it in simpler terms, I can tell you that 2+3 = 5 until I'm blue in the face. But until you learn simple arithmetic, you'll continue to tell me that I'm wrong and I'd be foolish to continue attempting to convince you otherwise.

Anyway, back on topic, I'm glad SOE continues to allow PS2 gamers to solo heavy tanks.

nice way of avoiding to acknoladge defeat...
and very arrogant to send people off to read a book or get aditional education. especially for someone who doesn´t know the difference between there their and they´re.

[omega four]

You do know that "E.g." means "for example", right? It's not to be confused with "i.e.", which means "that is". There IS a difference.

I wasn't sure of the exact ratio of SC to USD, as its been a while since I last purchased SC for money.

There must be an "adults only" forum somewhere around here....


Wow, way to show a lack of research...

Station Cash normal monetary value is $0.01 USD, or 100 SC per US Dollar...


Indeed, especially considering how they've ALREADY done this with redundant account and bundle purchases.

While they can't refund Station Cash, supposedly due to some gobblety goop involving their transaction system, they can refund for the equivalent the Certifcation Point cost.

[Figment]

Thank you. It's good to see others who understand where I'm coming from, even if some like Figment are too young/immature/childish/inexperienced to do so.

Do continue being a twat.


You're working from obsolete dogma and misunderstandings. But hey, easier to insult others while distracting from your extremely mature selfish "I want this" whining, isn't it?

You've asked an excellent question. Double and triple SC sales are one of SOE's ways to incentivize gamers to spend real money on SOE games (e.g. PS2). As you've astutely noted, SOE does leave some money on the table, so to speak, when it runs these sales. By not selling SC at full real world monetary value (e.g. 1 SC = $1 USD), SOE is effectively losing money (or giving money away) when it sells 2 or 3 SC for $1 USD.

Only, it doesn't. Because you make the false assumption that that money would have been spend on Station Cash anyway by the consumer (you'd only "lose" money if that money was guaranteed, but it is not, therefore it is not a loss, it's a reduced profit margin!). SOE is selling a virtual good. Therefore, there's no significant product investment made by SOE beyond initial production and any gain on a virtual currency (which is basically an image and integer value in a database, nothing more) is a 100% gain for SOE.

The Station Cash deals are frequent because they bring in a lot more money than regular sales do.


Not sure when you did your economics, but Free-to-play was considered to be more volatile and risky business than fixed subscription rates, but SOE found out that F2P is actually extremely lucrative and PS2 is actually making tons of money due to huge profit margins on extremely cheap to produce products like cosmetics. Camo texture etc. is very simple to make and doesn't cost an awful lot.

You have to remember these are mass sales of an endless supply (endless copies) of a digital product with relatively high margins. The goal is to get players to spend money on the virtual currency. If they get it returned due to a product change only to have the same money invested again doesn't matter at all:

That money is considered invested by the player. Where the player invested it will not matter, because he purchased some sort of product that is entirely interchangeable from the perspective of the company.

Such incentive programs are viewed by SOE (and other companies) as the cost of doing business. But, it is a painful cost to bear. That is why SOE does not run these SC sale deals very often (especially the Triple SC deals).

Completely wrong! It's a very lucrative incentive that can be used to earn quick cash. Companies are just now discovering the micro-transaction market and find that there are tons of psychological things to exploit to get the consumer to purchase products.

The reason it is not done more frequently is to create the "RARE EVENT" effect and use the "Do not miss out on this chance!" psychological effect. If they were to do it too often, the "rare event" would be a common event. They would devaluate the regular sale of Station Cash if they were too common. Beyond that, they're extremely lucrative because players invest money instantly they would otherwise probably not spend over time.

Wargaming utilises this principle very well on a weekly basis. How? By constantly putting other things on discount. SOE does the same discount, limited time offer thing with all sorts of micro-transactions.


But in the end, they are not selling a limited resource product, they are selling a virtual good. A good which has been produced once by developers, so the only costs involved is the original development time (paying the employee who made it for the time it took to create it). Which they got out of it after the first round of sales. So any future sale are pure and unadultered profit that can be sold again to new consumers endlessly!

This is what makes free to play so profitable.

Furthermore, shareholders and stock analysts view incentive program deals like SC sales in a more favorable light than they do refunds, as these incentive program deals actively bring in more real money, whereas refunds do not.

Refund programs in virtual currency for rebalance purposes are one time deals and extremely rare events per item (if they occur at all). They do not effect the opinion of shareholders, at all.

If you think so, you are unable to differentiate between an actual good or service and a virtual good or service.

But to prevent such refund programs, the best thing to do is extensive testing before selling the product or accessories for the product and ensuring it doesn't need to be rebalanced tremendously. Extensive testing of a virtual good doesn't cost a whole lot of money as you can test it alongside loads of other things. That cost is shared by all the new things under test.

[Hmr85]

Thank you. It's good to see others who understand where I'm coming from, even if some like Figment are too young/immature/childish/inexperienced to do so.


Showing your age aren't ya. :rolleyes:

[Figment]

Funny thing is, I understand where he is coming from, but he can't accept that people simply think he is wrong.

That's how mature he is.


You ask him what gameplay reasons there are that justify him getting the heaviest vehicle solo? "I want it" and then thinking that is actually a reason. Imagine him at an investment meeting:

"Let's invest money in this thing!"

"Why? What does it do for the company?"

"Because I want it."

Mature, convincing argument.

[omega four]

I love how some young gamers compare playing games to investment meetings. Classic!

[Figment]

I love how some young gamers compare playing games to investment meetings. Classic!

It's a good enough argument for you to make design decisions on. As a designer, it isn't for me, since I have to consider everyone involved. ALL stakeholders, not just you.

I love how you don't understand that a game design is actually more than "what I want" though. As long as you don't comprehend that, you shouldn't be in a GAMING forum, NOR a management role for a GAMING company.


So go back to playing with finances and ripping people off for "good shareholder economics", the real world and virtual world are too hard a thing for you to grasp and it really is questionable who is wearing the mature pants, unfortunately I'm letting you troll a bit by dignifying with a response to your constant stream of insults and content lacking posts.

[omega four]

That's where your youthfulness and inexperience shines through. You're NOT a PS2 game designer. You're a PS2 gamer (as I am).

As such, gamers know what they like and want, without having to necessarily justify such desires to anyone, let alone anonymous persons on a public internet forum.

I enjoy soloing heavy tanks. PS2 and its developers thankfully allow me to do so by catering to my wants. And that is good enough for me. Nothing you say or do will change my wants or desires with respect to PS2. You can keep trying, but it'll all be for naught.

Likewise, I can keep telling you that 2+3 = 5, but you can continue to say I'm wrong and rationalize why, as is your prerogative. It's of no consequence to me, as some persons are unwilling or incapable of learning and expanding their horizons.

It's a good enough argument for you to make design decisions on. As a designer, it isn't for me, since I have to consider everyone involved. ALL stakeholders, not just you.

I love how you don't understand that a game design is actually more than "what I want" though. As long as you don't comprehend that, you shouldn't be in a GAMING forum, NOR a management role for a GAMING company.


So go back to playing with finances and ripping people off for "good shareholder economics", the real world and virtual world are too hard a thing for you to grasp and it really is questionable who is wearing the mature pants, unfortunately I'm letting you troll a bit by dignifying with a response to your constant stream of insults and content lacking posts.

[Shogun]

It's of no consequence to me, as some persons are unwilling or incapable of learning and expanding their horizons.

lol. yeah, those persons exist. it is just too ironic, that they don´t realise it and blame others for the same thing...

[omega four]

I can understand why older adults said what they did when I was younger. Perhaps you will too as you get older and hopefully mature.

lol. yeah, those persons exist. it is just too ironic, that they don´t realise it and blame others for the same thing...

[Whiteagle]

I can understand why older adults said what they did when I was younger. Perhaps you will too as you get older and hopefully mature.
Yeah kid, keep telling yourself that...

Figment has been playing the Original Planetside for, what, a decade now?

[Figment]

That's where your youthfulness and inexperience shines through. You're NOT a PS2 game designer. You're a PS2 gamer (as I am).

Actually, I'm a designer and PS2 gamer. You're just a PS2 gamer.

It's funny that you continue with the youthfulness and inexperience, because you show your complete and utter disregard and disrespect for game design and make assumptions about my age in a way to attack my authority and personality.

Ie. you are unable to make an actual argument, so you reach, once again, to unfounded assumptious insults.

Very mature. In fact, that's so mature, you must probably get your diaper changed by now because you'll have peed in it from the giggles you gained out of being so exceptionally sharp and witty.

(Yes, that is sarcasm).

Can you be mature and polite for once?

As such, gamers know what they like and want, without having to necessarily justify such desires to anyone, let alone anonymous persons on a public internet forum.

When a design decision is to be made, justification is extremely important especially in balance. If a gamer wants to preserve or change a status quo (or in fact, a change), providing a thoroughly argumented reasoning is completely relevant. Otherwise that person should be completely ignored because he has no argumented opinion, just random opinion.

And you should be ignored as you present no argument and have no idea why you formed that opinion. You render yourself void even if you are given a chance to be heard and make your case. You refuse to, so why should anyone listen to you?

I enjoy soloing heavy tanks.

Some people enjoyed playing with BFRs in the exact way they were when they were released. Completely killed PS1 by skewing the entire gameplay experience in favour of a few individuals in soloable units and boring and frustrating everyone else to hell.

So that's not an argument, that's called a "sample consumer sentiment". It's not enough to base a decision on, certainly not if there's no reasoning to back it up.

With gaming balance, EVERYONE involved should be able to be happy with the balance, not just the users. In fact, if only the users like it, it's probably in need of change. In this case, even a lot of the users DO NOT like it.

PS2 and its developers thankfully allow me to do so by catering to my wants. And that is good enough for me. Nothing you say or do will change my wants or desires with respect to PS2. You can keep trying, but it'll all be for naught.

It's irrelevant what you want, that's the whole point. That you got catered to is your luck, but that doesn't mean you should continue to get catered to.

I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just showcasing why your argument is void and shouldn't be listened to - you make it exceptionally easy by refusing to even back up your side of the argument. In fact, you've done a lot of harm to your side of the story by providing a textbook case example of the type of player that does like this: people that act like egotistical, selfish, immature little kids with an instant gratification need, but aren't actually interested in fair competitive balance and good overarching gameplay.

So, thanks for that.


You are not actually my target group (other designers are), you're just the subject of annoyance and irritation. And not because you're trolling, but one that defends an undefendable design decision out of personal greed while refusing to back it up with any reasoning.

Likewise, I can keep telling you that 2+3 = 5, but you can continue to say I'm wrong and rationalize why, as is your prerogative. It's of no consequence to me, as some persons are unwilling or incapable of learning and expanding their horizons.

Maybe you don't (want to) realise this, but you're not telling us that. You're telling us:

"I want 2 or 3, because the rest is 1, because 2 and 3 > 1 and I like having the power of three on my own without sharing it."

That's your argument. In fact, I'm the one telling you that 2 (players) + 3 (players) should be equal to 5 (players).

Your maths are flawed. You're not telling us 2+3=5, you're telling us "1=5 because I like it that way", which is an utterly ridiculous and childish statement. Pretending you state 2+3=5 doesn't mean you actually are telling us that. So stop making that suggestion (as long as YOU want a heavy tank alone, while others are infantry or a light tank alone, you ask for more individual power than others. Capiche?).


Naturally, given your self-centered personality and lack of respect, regards and interest for and in the people playing the game around you, you like being more powerful than the rest. And since you're acting like a selfish egotistical bastard when non-socially playing the game alone, you think there's nothing wrong with having the same or more power than a group of other people.

We know that. We find that attitude horrifying and insulting and most of all, extremely dumb and from a game point of view even self-destructive: chasing of everyone but the powerhungry leads to a bad gaming experience for the remainder.

That this ruins the gaming experience for other people? Eh. Not your problem, as long as you have what YOU want. That's why you should not influence balance design. You would purposefully distort them to your own desires and screw others over in the process.



Worse, you just refused to make a reasoning why IN A DESIGN DEBATE ABOUT THE DEEPER MEANINGS, EFFECTS, CONSEQUENCES AND IMPLICATIONS OF A PARTICULAR DESIGN, by saying "I don't have to have a reason, just an opinion, I'm a gamer and all I need to know is what I like or don't". Great. But consider that we will completely disregard anything you have to say on this matter.



To prevent further fueding with you, I'll put you on ignore since you stated you will never contribute something constructive.

[Wahooo]

http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/780489870.png?1370962790

I think the same thing hold true for repeating that you are a mature person.

[omega four]

Not as catchy as "A Lannister always pays his debts" in my opinion.

http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/780489870.png?1370962790

I think the same thing hold true for repeating that you are a mature person.

[Shogun]

yeah, putting that 5 year old "mature business expert" on ignore is certainly the only way to get this discussion back on topic and constructive again. so cya (not)

congratulations, you won the internet!

[Baneblade]

I love how some young gamers compare playing games to investment meetings. Classic!

I love how some random person on an internet forum tries so hard not to come across as a 15 yr old with no standing in any circle of import despite trying to ascribe concepts in business that do not apply to the relationship between Sony and SOE. SOE is autonomous from Sony in all of the important ways. To the Sony shareholders, SOE is just a division that is either making money or it isn't. The actual decisions SOE makes never make it to the shareholder meetings as anything other than a brief in a folder unless they present a significant item for the verbal presentation's minutes.

Oh, and the resorting to ad hominem and straw mans are getting old.

[omega four]

You really have no idea what you're talking about when you say that SOE is autonomous from Sony in all of the important ways.

Stick to talking about games. At least you know something about that.

And with that, I'm off this forum. There are too many young, immature, childish kids around here. Guess I was wrong when I thought they'd only stay on the official PS2 forums.

I love how some random person on an internet forum tries so hard not to come across as a 15 yr old with no standing in any circle of import despite trying to ascribe concepts in business that do not apply to the relationship between Sony and SOE. SOE is autonomous from Sony in all of the important ways. To the Sony shareholders, SOE is just a division that is either making money or it isn't. The actual decisions SOE makes never make it to the shareholder meetings as anything other than a brief in a folder unless they present a significant item for the verbal presentation's minutes.

Oh, and the resorting to ad hominem and straw mans are getting old.

[moosepoop]

-claims to be "mature"
- says ps2 should be more like bf3

LOL

[Baneblade]

You really have no idea what you're talking about when you say that SOE is autonomous from Sony in all of the important ways.

Do me a favor and ask John Smedley how many times he has to call Kazuo Hirai for permission to do... anything.

You obviously have negative zero experience with inter-corporate hierarchies. Yes, ultimately SOE answers to Sony. But you are wrong on every other thing you have said, implied, or alluded to.

So consider this my calling your bluff. You have no idea what you are talking about and you are talking out of your ass, all in the name of keeping your solo tank.

As for your 'And with that, I'm off this forum. There are too many young, immature, childish kids around here. Guess I was wrong when I thought they'd only stay on the official PS2 forums.'... well I guess I can only say:

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

[Whiteagle]

You obviously have negative zero experience with inter-corporate hierarchies. Yes, ultimately SOE answers to Sony. But you are wrong on every other thing you have said, implied, or alluded to.

So consider this my calling your bluff. You have no idea what you are talking about and you are talking out of your ass, all in the name of keeping your solo tank.
Indeed kid, just because you took an economics course doesn't make you an expert in anything.

As for your 'And with that, I'm off this forum. There are too many young, immature, childish kids around here. Guess I was wrong when I thought they'd only stay on the official PS2 forums.'... well I guess I can only say:

So long, and thanks for all the fish.
...I would have gone with, "We apologize for the inconvenience." myself...

[Shogun]

still feeding the troll?

ignore button helps.
the only thing he wanted was killing off this thread by derailing it with stupid bullshit. and it seems like he succeeded. and only out of selfishness because he wants to keep solotanking and realised that the driver/gunner faction has the better arguments.

but ;) on so long, and thanks for all the fish! too bad he will have to google the reference ;)

[MrMak]

I remember that omega guy now. Some months ago (near release actualy) he was on the official forums wanting SOE to sell certs directly becouse he feels he should not have to play the game to progress becouse he is casual or whatever.

[moosepoop]

the harasser really brought back good memories of team coordinated play from ps1. I really hope the devs will see our passion for this gameplay style.

im willing to pay money for a "tank driver module".

[Shogun]

the driver/gunner configuration is a great part of the harasser, but not the only thing that makes it so much fun. all the other vehicles behaviour and handling is way off.

but the handling of the other vehicles could use some work, too.
the whole physics still seem to be whacky and the harasser is the only one that feels like it does what you want it to do.

[Baneblade]

I actually think the Vanguard handles pretty close to what you expect, it just needs a dedicated c
driver to reach the place it should be.

[blashyrk]

It has become evident that SOE does not want this game to be balanced at all. They like things to be OP so everyone will invest money in them and then "balance" it after a while. As long as a 2/3 harasser can destroy an 2/2 MBT in ANY situation, this game is a ****fest.

[GeoGnome]

You really have no idea what you're talking about when you say that SOE is autonomous from Sony in all of the important ways.

Stick to talking about games. At least you know something about that.

And with that, I'm off this forum. There are too many young, immature, childish kids around here. Guess I was wrong when I thought they'd only stay on the official PS2 forums.

Rule of life #1: Anyone who feels the need to throw their credentials around, likely sucks at their job.

Being a professional means that you know slightly more than the average person about your subject. The average person isn't a very high bar to overcome. Telling people something when speaking from the perspective of someone who works in one field or another should be something you do carefully, and without bluster. No one cares about your personal success, if you wish to provide insight, by all means do so, but if you wish to attempt to place yourself above other people based on something arbitrary like occupational choice or income bracket... seriously, get a life.

Back on topic: Harasser Dedicated driver chiming in here, by and far my favorite vehicle, I've stopped pulling MBTs because they lack a dedicated driver seat. They just aren't viable IMO anymore.

[Whiteagle]

Rule of life #1: Anyone who feels the need to throw their credentials around, likely sucks at their job.

Being a professional means that you know slightly more than the average person about your subject. The average person isn't a very high bar to overcome. Telling people something when speaking from the perspective of someone who works in one field or another should be something you do carefully, and without bluster. No one cares about your personal success, if you wish to provide insight, by all means do so, but if you wish to attempt to place yourself above other people based on something arbitrary like occupational choice or income bracket... seriously, get a life.
Indeed, I kept introducing myself as the Terran Tactical Forecaster around the Empire Showdown as a bit of a joke...

Back on topic: Harasser Dedicated driver chiming in here, by and far my favorite vehicle, I've stopped pulling MBTs because they lack a dedicated driver seat. They just aren't viable IMO anymore.
Yeah, I never liked the Prowler because it:

A. Was built for Wide Area Bombardment instead of actual Tank Combat.

B. Came with an extra Weapon no one would ever jump in to operate because they could just pull their own Prowler instead.

It's rather irritating when I'm in a Platoon and the Lead calls for everyone to pull MBTs, because then you just end up with a bunch of half filled Tanks clogging the road.

The Harrasser on the other hand is in and of itself a viable kinetic weapon, so even playing Solo I'll pull one just to run enemies over!
If someone bothers to jump in I'm more than happy to drive for them, otherwise I can just switch to the Gunner Seat if I see a Target of Opportunity.

[Belhade]

You know what? I understand where the "solo MBT" crowd is coming from. It makes perfect sense, of course. We should apply it to aircraft, too. I want a solo Liberator with pilot-manned Dalton as the default weapon. That would be *much* more fun than the stupid ESFs. Those things are worthless.

[MrMak]

You know what? I understand where the "solo MBT" crowd is coming from. It makes perfect sense, of course. We should apply it to aircraft, too. I want a solo Liberator with pilot-manned Dalton as the default weapon. That would be *much* more fun than the stupid ESFs. Those things are worthless.

Not sure if sarcastic or should be shot.

[Belhade]

Not sure if sarcastic or should be shot.

Sarcastic, and apparently a few pages too late. Hadn't noticed how far this thread had gone lately.