harrasser proves dedicated driver is great

[moosepoop]

everyone is loving the harraser. no one is complaining about not being able to solo gun in it. i think based on this feedback, dedicated driver seat for the mbts will be welcomed.

the current armor buff means lightning is a much better solo vehicle now. i think the game is ready for crewed mbts.

[DirtyBird]

Are all occupants sharing XP?

[EVILPIG]

Everyone can love the Harasser, but that does not prove your point of view. The Harasser might be more fun if you could drive and gun, but that is a story for another time.

[AThreatToYou]

the harasser would be balls hard if you could drive and gun it, but also balls strong.

[moosepoop]

Everyone can love the Harasser, but that does not prove your point of view.

the harasser uses a dedicated driver and players are fine with that. it proves my view.

with the buff to mbt armor and appearance of super heavy tanks in the game files, there is a good possibility for dedicated drivers.

[Sledgecrushr]

Im nc, and if i was stuck only driving that slow boring hunk of nanites vanguard I would be very sad. The thing that makes it bearable is being able to fire the cannon. The harasser on the other hand drives like a hopped up rally car. Exciting to drve and I think totally suicidal if you arent paying attention to where you are going.

[AThreatToYou]

Sludge makes a good point. Vanguard would be incredibly boring to drive, lol.

[bpostal]

I'd rather have dedicated driver and gunner positions. Probably never going to happen though.
Personally I view the introduction of the Harasser to indicate that the time is right to reintroduce the LLU.

[moosepoop]

Im nc, and if i was stuck only driving that slow boring hunk of nanites vanguard I would be very sad. The thing that makes it bearable is being able to fire the cannon.

tank spam makes more people sad.

besides, mbt is already boring since you have to completely stop to land your shots.



I'd rather have dedicated driver and gunner positions. Probably never going to happen though.

never give up hope.

i hope we get the raider one day :)

[wasdie]

besides, mbt is already boring since you have to completely stop to land your shots.


No you don't. This is a flat out lie. Just because you cannot shoot worth crap while moving doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

[moosepoop]

No you don't. This is a flat out lie. Just because you cannot shoot worth crap while moving doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

your mother is a flat out lie. you cant predict random terrain bumps.

[wasdie]

your mother is a flat out lie. you cant predict random terrain bumps.

Doesn't bother me. I can do fine while moving and shooting. I do it with the lighting and vanguard with absolutely no problem.

I know I'm not the only one.

[moosepoop]

Doesn't bother me. I can do fine while moving and shooting. I do it with the lighting and vanguard with absolutely no problem.

I know I'm not the only one.

you are ok with shitty annoying game design, good for you.

[wasdie]

you are ok with shitty annoying game design, congratulations.

Only it isn't.

[moosepoop]

Only it isn't.

this isnt philosophy class. you cant fool anybody with that hardcore elite gamer attitude.

if you are so super duper with your leet tank skills, you wont mind having that big cannon taken away from you and be a dedicated driver. it will make you even more deadly :)

[wasdie]

this isnt philosophy class. you cant fool anybody with that hardcore elite gamer attitude.

if you are so super duper with your leet tank skills, you wont mind having that big cannon taken away from you and be a dedicated driver. it will make you even more deadly :)

And you're not fooling anybody with your childish arguments.

I'm not the best tanker, I'm pretty easily beaten by better tankers in a 1v1 fight and always beaten when it's my 1/2 tank vs. a 2/2 tank. I have no problem driving and gunning. Even if you had a dedicated driver, if you cannot somehow deal with the bumps in the road you'll still need to have your driver stop so you can make a level shot. Suddenly having a dedicated driver isn't going to level out the turret any better than a solo tank. If you find yourself needing to stop to shoot with a solo tank then you'll find yourself having to stop to shoot with a 2 man tank.

So if that's your argument, that's pretty weak.

If you can run and shoot as an infantry while compensating for recoil, sudden changes in elevation, and a moving target, you can do it with a tank.

[WSNeo]

you are ok with shitty annoying game design, good for you.

Just because you are bad at moving and shooting does not mean that the design is bad. Hell i chase Sunderers all day with my racer frame and AP rounds on my Mag.

Sounds like a shit player to me!

Edit: It amazes me what outlandish stuff players say nowadays, first something about feeding certs to the enemy (otherwise known as attempting to defend/retake a base), radar means that the game is dumbed down, and now someone complaining about moving and shooting and blaming the game for his inability to do so. LOL!

[BlaxicanX]

you are ok with shitty annoying game design, good for you. this isnt philosophy class. you cant fool anybody with that hardcore elite gamer attitude.

if you are so super duper with your leet tank skills, you wont mind having that big cannon taken away from you and be a dedicated driver. it will make you even more deadly :)

What sort of ass logic is this?

Anyway, I lovr the helk out of the harrasser, but while I think needing a dedicated gunner for an mbt would be great for thr PS2 metagame, it would suck on the fun-factor scale. Why would anyone want to be stuck on the monotonous driver position when they could just drive a lightning?

[moosepoop]

Just because you are bad at moving and shooting does not mean that the design is bad. Hell i chase Sunderers all day with my racer frame and AP rounds on my Mag.


lol @ magrider oblivious to turret stabilization problem

i make up my lack of "elite tank skillz" with enginner av turret. it gives me +20 skillz.

[moosepoop]

What sort of ass logic is this?

because every time someone complains about turret stabilization, this guy starts barking about the posters "inferior tank skillz". even 4 months ago this guy was saying the exact same words on official forums.




Why would anyone want to be stuck on the monotonous driver position when they could just drive a lightning?

lessen tank spam, promote teamwork, increased driver awareness leading to great tank maneuvers

[wasdie]

because every time someone complains about turret stabilization, this guy starts barking about the posters "inferior tank skillz". even 4 months ago this guy was saying the exact same words on official forums.

Still attacking the person instead of arguing. Cute.

Again, the mechanic works fine. You're the one who hasn't been able to adapt so you want it changed.

[moosepoop]

Still attacking the person instead of arguing. Cute.

Again, the mechanic works fine. You're the one who hasn't been able to adapt so you want it changed.

i made a passing comment about turret wobbling and you call me a liar, and say my skills are not worth crap.

i would like to discuss more about implementing crewed mbts, but im not gonna let you throw out drive by insults and think you can get away with it.



Again, the mechanic works fine. You're the one who hasn't been able to adapt so you want it changed.

if everything in the game is "fine", the devs wouldnt be constantly changing, updating, and polishing the game.

[wasdie]

i made a passing comment about turret wobbling and you call me a liar, and say my skills are not worth crap.

"besides, mbt is already boring since you have to completely stop to land your shots."

That is not a passing comment. That is you making assumptions about how to play the vehicle and then arguing on those assumptions. I called you on it because it's false.

Now you're attacking me because I called you on it and you couldn't actually back it up.

I've already said my reasons why I support one man tanking over and over and I don't feel like repeating myself in this thread. What I decided to do is call you out on something you said. You're the one making the argument, are you offended when somebody challenges it?

I'm not the one insulting. I'm saying you're arguing on a false assumption due to your personal experience.

[WSNeo]

lol @ magrider oblivious to turret stabilization problem

i make up my lack of "elite tank skillz" with enginner av turret. it gives me +20 skillz.

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/thumb/2/2d/Trollface_HD.png/618px-Trollface_HD.png

[moosepoop]

you can "adapt" to that, cant you?

[wasdie]

if everything in the game is "fine", the devs wouldnt be constantly changing, updating, and polishing the game.

Nice strawman.

You really are pulling every argumentative fallacy in the book out in this thread.

[moosepoop]

Nice strawman.

You really are pulling every argumentative fallacy in the book out in this thread.

giving ideas to improve gameplay is a "fallacy".


you sound like making tanks easier to aim while moving is a crime against humanity. its been friggin 4 months and you still freak out at the mention of it.

[leifnielsen]

You guys are all wasting your energy. Stop feeding the troll. It's obvious he's just trying to start shit.

Go flip some Galaxies at the warpgate, moosepoop. You know you want to.

[moosepoop]

You guys are all wasting your energy. Stop feeding the troll. It's obvious he's just trying to start shit.

Go flip some Galaxies at the warpgate, moosepoop. You know you want to.

every time i talk about dedicated gunners, the same guy has not only derailed my thread here, but also on the official sony forums. he literally copy pastes the exact post he made back in december.


i made a good point and i stand by it. the harrasser uses a dedicated driver and people like it. it shows it can work in planetside 2, just like in planetside 1.


people taunt me a lot when i argue for things in the game they dont like, but when it gets implemented, i never taunt them or gloat, because im not a little punk, i dont care about that. i just want to improve the game, and right now i feel the state of the game is perfect for dedicated drivers right now.

[Falcon_br]

I was really going to post here the excellent day I had with my outfit using harasser in lots of ways and everyone having fun with it and make some observations about it.
But now, I just wish they close this thread and some people banned.

PS: I don't recall the last time I had so much fun with planetside 2

[moosepoop]

I was really going to post here the excellent day I had with my outfit using harasser in lots of ways and everyone having fun with it and make some observations about it.
But now, I just wish they close this thread and some people banned.

PS: I don't recall the last time I had so much fun with planetside 2



im sorry if your mood is soured, but i still would really like to hear you opinion.

i shouldnt have responded the way i did, but the dude just irritates me, reminds me of a milder idukenukem.

[Whiteagle]

with the buff to mbt armor and appearance of super heavy tanks in the game files, there is a good possibility for dedicated drivers.
Where did you see a Super Heavy Tank?

Sludge makes a good point. Vanguard would be incredibly boring to drive, lol.
Which is why you give the Driver the Secondary Gun, so he can shoot things that get too close to the Precious!

[Roy Awesome]

I think it has nothing to do with the dedicated driver/gunner.

It's more of the Harasser rewards teamwork and coordination. It's also fast and has silly physics which doesn't help.

I have the same fun with a Battle Galaxy, which also has a dedicated driver/gunner crew. PS2 needs more mechanics that reward teamwork, and dedicating drivers isn't necessarily the way to do that.

appearance of super heavy tanks in the game files

You must know something I don't. What heavy tanks?

[moosepoop]

Where did you see a Super Heavy Tank?


Which is why you give the Driver the Secondary Gun, so he can shoot things that get too close to the Precious!

i saw it on reddit, and i think it was posted here some time ago.

despite tray saying the quadruple prowler cannon wasnt gonna be in game, they added textures and a proper tank model.

there were also artillery turrets, and a giant minigun turret for the prowler.

[Whiteagle]

I think it has nothing to do with the dedicated driver/gunner.

It's more of the Harasser rewards teamwork and coordination. It's also fast and has silly physics which doesn't help.

I have the same fun with a Battle Galaxy, which also has a dedicated driver/gunner crew. PS2 needs more mechanics that reward teamwork, and dedicating drivers isn't necessarily the way to do that.
Well it kind of is...

...You see, the problem with MBTs as they are now is that they are a LightningPLUS...
Even with a single Driver+Main-gunner they have more fire-power and more armor then a Lightning.

To quote my argument over at the Sony Forums:
Since a stock MBT has better firepower and MORE ARMOR then a stock Lightning for the paltry cost of 10-20kph maximum speed, a stock MBT where the Driver has simultaneous control of the Main Cannon is a far superior choice then the much weaker Lightning.
The Lightning's real advantage is suppose to be its lower crew requirement and cheaper cost to allow larger numbers to be fielded, much like the Soviet T-34 ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34') in comparison to the German Panzer IV ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV'), but since the cost advantage is currently "balanced" at 3:2 and full crew requirements 3:4 its much easer to pull two 1/2 MBTs as opposed to the three Lightnings.

[moosepoop]

Well it kind of is...

...You see, the problem with MBTs as they are now is that they are a LightningPLUS...
Even with a single Driver+Main-gunner they have more fire-power and more armor then a Lightning.

To quote my argument over at the Sony Forums:

people assume crewed mbt would be boring, but so far none of the other multi crew vehicles have been boring. harrassaer, battle sunderer,galaxy mortar gunship, the lib.

[Whiteagle]

people assume crewed mbt would be boring, but so far none of the other multi crew vehicles have been boring. harrassaer, battle sunderer,galaxy mortar gunship, the lib.
Yeah, which really makes there "I pulled the Tank, SO I GET TO FIRE THE BIG BOOM!" argument rather annoying...
...Would having the Secondary REALLY be that hard for you selfish brats?

[moosepoop]

Yeah, which really makes there "I pulled the Tank, SO I GET TO FIRE THE BIG BOOM!" argument rather annoying...
...Would having the Secondary REALLY be that hard for you selfish brats?

higby basically agreed to consider the idea even way back in beta, the only thing stopping them from implementing it is scaring away casual players.

the thing is they underestimate the iq of casuals. most casual players do expect ps2 to be deeper than what they usually play.

[Whiteagle]

higby basically agreed to consider the idea even way back in beta, the only thing stopping them from implementing it is scaring away casual players.

the thing is they underestimate the iq of casuals. most casual players do expect ps2 to be deeper than what they usually play.
We need to get this on the Test Server man...
They don't have an excuse for us to NOT test this now.

[moosepoop]

We need to get this on the Test Server man...
They don't have an excuse for us to NOT test this now.

thats my train of thought also man. it would also be easy to implement, since youre just adding an extra seat, you dont even need to change the assets.

id also love to test the giant unused cannons man. the prowler minigun cannon oozes pure phallic power.

[Whiteagle]

thats my train of thought also man. it would also be easy to implement, since youre just adding an extra seat.
Nope, don't even need an Extra Seat, just switch the guns around!

...Mag might need a bit of work putting Ball Turreted Secondary on the nose though...

[moosepoop]

Nope, don't even need an Extra Seat, just switch the guns around!

...Mag might need a bit of work putting Ball Turreted Secondary on the nose though...

magrider needs a model change, but i think we can still test prowler and vanguard pretty early

higby said multiple times he would consider dedicated driver in the future, and he thought heavy tanks would be a great idea. so my hopes are still high, despite it not being on the monthly plans.

most likely scenario is we keep the solo mbt, nerf it and introduce the super heavy tank, since that would make new op items for people to spend station cash on. it would also fill content quotas.



the thing is, even if mbts cost 750 resources and have 1 hour cool down, an organized outfit can still all pull them at the same time and crush all resistance. the only way to limit the absolute number of mbts on the field at the same time is to introduce manpower sinks with multicrews.

[Whiteagle]

magrider needs a model change, but i think we can still test prowler and vanguard pretty early

higby said multiple times he would consider dedicated driver in the future, and he thought heavy tanks would be a great idea. im just greasing the wheels right now.
No, the Mag doesn't need a Model Change, just it's weapons!
Make the Main Cannon different molds of the current Sauron Secondary, while putting Ball Turreted guns or the old Cannons as Secondaries on the front.

It will pretty much then be an Upgrade of the Original's Magrider!

most likely scenario is we keep the solo mbt and introduce the super heavy tank, since that would make new cash sinks for people to spend station cash on.
This isn't good, because it makes my poor Lightning doubly redundant...
Why pull a Paper Tank with a wet Newspaper Cannon when you can easily drive AND Gun a Medium and have a better chance against monstrous Heavies?

I'm not against Super Heavy Land Battleship, but those would be practically Mobile Bases like the Air Carrier; huge and powerful but also slow and hard to maneuver, which makes them targets for Infantry to storm.

the thing is, even if mbts cost 750 resources and have 1 hour cool down, an organized outfit can still all pull them at the same time and crush all resistance. the only way to limit the absolute number of mbts on the field at the same time is to introduce manpower sinks with multicrews.
That's a bit extreme, but yeah...

Really my method doesn't stop solo-tankers, it just makes them sacrifice Mobility for Fire-power like One-man Liberators...

[leifnielsen]

every time i talk about dedicated gunners, the same guy has not only derailed my thread here, but also on the official sony forums. he literally copy pastes the exact post he made back in december.


i made a good point and i stand by it. the harrasser uses a dedicated driver and people like it. it shows it can work in planetside 2, just like in planetside 1.


people taunt me a lot when i argue for things in the game they dont like, but when it gets implemented, i never taunt them or gloat, because im not a little punk, i dont care about that. i just want to improve the game, and right now i feel the state of the game is perfect for dedicated drivers right now.

Now see the difference between some of your previous posts and this one are like night and day.

I agree that dedicated drivers would be more fun, but I don't think it'll happen with the MBT. If we do end up getting a Super Heavy Tank, I think it's possible they'll implement dedicated drivers if people push hard enough for it.

The company is always thinking of how it can make the most money though. The more people who throw certs into their tank, the more willing they'll be to buy the good weapons or cosmetic upgrades for it. If MBT's used dedicated drivers, not as many people would pull MBTs, so sales on all MBT weapons and cosmetics would drop.

[Whiteagle]

The company is always thinking of how it can make the most money though. The more people who throw certs into their tank, the more willing they'll be to buy the good weapons or cosmetic upgrades for it. If MBT's used dedicated drivers, not as many people would pull MBTs, so sales on all MBT weapons and cosmetics would drop.
AH, but this is where giving the Driver the Secondary Gun has its Silver Lining!

After all, there are MORE Secondary Weapon options then Main Cannons, correct?

[moosepoop]

The company is always thinking of how it can make the most money though. The more people who throw certs into their tank, the more willing they'll be to buy the good weapons or cosmetic upgrades for it. If MBT's used dedicated drivers, not as many people would pull MBTs, so sales on all MBT weapons and cosmetics would drop.

you and SOE is completely right. more solo mbts means more people spending cash. that has also led to tank spam. at this point need for profit is overcome by need to maintain a balanced playable game.

is that tactic really squeezeing extra money? most tanks stick with vulcan/saron/enforcer. the big bucks is on infantry weapons. smgs, ns guns, shotguns, new max guns. much more stuff to spend money on.

you just cant have that much saturation for a heavy weapons platform, and make it so deadly, durable, and disposable.

this is why SOE is releasing new vehicles intead of even more weapons for the tanks. this way they will spread out the cash spending more evenly. lower player "investment" on mbts, increase vehicle diversity.

[Falcon_br]

I will just tell the best part today, we where sniping over the stronghold, defending it from the NC.
A stationary heavy was in the middle of the NC snipers, most of the snipers firing at him, lots and lots of hits, everyone telling: omg, immortal heavy!
I pressed Q, the pop name was:
HigbyEast.
Ok, more 200 head shots on him, I was not on steam but I pressed print screen several times, in the worst case I place the screenshot on the paint.
So, most of the platoon went to tawrich and my squad went to circle it around capturing small bases.
In the way to the north base of the stronghold, my sunderer gunners start firing at a heavy both with m60, he was not dead!
Parked the sunderer, hit Q: HigbyEast again?
Lots of c4, mines, rockets, knifes, Harlem shake, I just hope someone recorded it on video!
Ok, everyone back to the sunderer, placed him in front of the sunderer and started push him with us!
It was fun, a full crewed sunderer arriving at the enemy base with a heavy on the hood, it was epic! Too bad he missed after that, I think he looked at the monitor and said: - WTF am I doing in here? How the hell do I get there?

Also the harasser is faster them a flash, much faster, without turbo and upgrade!
A heavy as a don't hit the brakes pilot, a engineer gunner and me as anti air max in the back was awesome! Got lots of anti air kills and when the ESF tried to run we was going so fast that he couldn't get away before I killed him.
Also a max with fracture, we can easily drive by a MBT and hit it hard in the back before he could turn!
Seeing all those flashes getting outrun it was awesome.

[Lonehunter]

Vanguard would be incredibly boring to drive, lol.

Have you tried the Sunderer? or Lightning? or running infantry? Cause it seems that is where you actually belong if you think that : /

And independent driver working with a gunner can do wonders. The situational awareness alone is improved dramatically. LA with C4, incoming fire, infantry...

[moosepoop]

AH, but this is where giving the Driver the Secondary Gun has its Silver Lining!

After all, there are MORE Secondary Weapon options then Main Cannons, correct?

you can also have a front mounted tickle gun for the driver, like panzer tank.

[moosepoop]

And independent driver working with a gunner can do wonders. The situational awareness alone is improved dramatically. LA with C4, incoming fire, infantry...

ya man, the teamwork involved is really satisfying. in planetside 1 i would jump in a random tank, if we kicked a lot of ass we add each other to buddy list. there was so much comradery from that. magical times, man.

in ps1 everytime i jump in a tank of a driver, i felt like we got each others back, like we were a badass team. it wasnt as fast paced, but the teamwork and coordination made it really intense.

[Whiteagle]

is that tactic really squeezeing extra money? most tanks stick with vulcan/saron/enforcer. the big bucks is on infantry weapons. smgs, ns guns, shotguns, new max guns. much more stuff to spend money on.

you just cant have that much saturation for a heavy weapons platform, and make it so deadly, durable, and disposable.

this is why SOE is releasing new vehicles intead of even more weapons for the tanks. this way they will spread out the cash spending more evenly. lower player "investment" on mbts, increase vehicle diversity.
Well again, I think this is a Market they aren't fully exploiting since the Driver gets the Main Cannon...

You can only add one or two more Factionally-flavored Main Cannons, because how many different variations of "Very Powerful Gun" can you really make?

But Secondaries, with their much lower amount of fire-power, can have far greater variety in both function and mechanics.
Hell, they currently have TWO different common pool Anti-Air weapons, the Default Basilisk, as well as each having their Faction Specific Anti-Infantry and Anti-Armor options on top of the Common Pool ones!

you can also have a front mounted tickle gun for the driver, like panzer tank.
Now THAT would get boring really quickly...
I'd much rather give them the other gun already ON the Tank then have them complain about being "Taxi Drivers"...
If anything, I'd give them Front Mounted Flamethrowers as an ability if they want to shove their noses into the enemy.

[TheSaltySeagull]

To be fair here using the harasser as an example for why we should have crewed tanks is kinda off to me. The harasser is actually fun to drive unlike the current MBTs for one and the harasser was designed with a very different play style in mind than the MBTs are. The harasser is a high speed assault vehicle that puts an emphasis on agility for hit and run style attacks while MBTs are designed with an emphasis on armor and firepower at the expense of agility and speed.

I mean hell the prowlers special anchors it to the damned floor. What exactly is the dedicated driver supposed to do when the tank is in "siege mode"? And as others have said the vanguard is in a similar spot because like the prowler it is big, slow, and clunky to drive. The only MBT with a reasonable degree of maneuverability is the mag which you can make a case for being fun to drive as a result. I will not speak for others but I for one would never touch an MBT if it was dedicated driver/gunner. I didn't touch them in PS1 for that very reason(with the exception of the mag) and I was not the only one.

I understand the reasoning as to why people want crewed tanks(promote teamwork, reduce potential tank spam, etc) and they have valid points. But it is also true that dedicated gunners and drivers on clumsy vehicles like the MBTs is not the most fun game design either. If I was SOE what I would have done is what somebody else said earlier and that is allow the drivers to operate the vehicles secondary weapons while the passenger/gunner crews the vehicles main armament similar to the ps1 magrider or the current lib. This way it necessitates MBTs be crewed by more than one person but also makes driving less boring as the driver can also gun.

But this is an argument that has been hammered to death over time and everything said here is stuff we and the devs have heard before. I just disagree with the idea of using the harasser as an example to further the argument for crewed tanks. The harasser and the MBTs are VERY different in how they handle and the play style they offer. Its like saying ESFs are an example as to why we should make the lib a single person aircraft. Its comparing apples to oranges in my opinion.

[Gatekeeper]

MBTs drivers also getting the main gun has always been my biggest problem with PS2, I would love to see it fixed - and I agree with the OP, the Harasser proves that players have no problem (in principle) being a dedicated driver.

Of course a Harasser is not the same as a MBT, so it doesn't guarantee that people would like being a dedicated tank-driver, but it shows there's no fundamental issue with it (although of course Libs, Sundies and Gals already proved that too, but for some reason people seem to forget that). The devil is in the details, of course, but it's high time SOE gave it a shot.

[leifnielsen]

I mean hell the prowlers special anchors it to the damned floor. What exactly is the dedicated driver supposed to do when the tank is in "siege mode"?

Every time your gunner scores a hit: Take a shot.

Every time the enemy scores a hit on you: Take a shot.


Other suggestions:

[Nur]

MBT tanks need separate driver from the main gunner.

It is how war works and this game is about war not about farming certs.

[Fenrys]

We can keep the current MBT's and change the "M" to mean medium.

Then release an NS heavy tank with a crew of 3-5. Driver, main gun, secondary chaingun, tertiary mortar, and quadrinary electronic warfare kit (directional radar that you aim, EMP shells, radar jamming, AoE buffs or debuffs, smoke, chaff, flares, etc...). Maybe give the electronics kit to the driver, so they can paint and debuff targets for their crew?

Or just a driver, main, and 2ndary.

Personally, I'd rather pull a Lightning than a Magrider most of the time. It's a faster, smaller target, that takes less damage because it gets noticed and hit less and can use cover that would block a Magrider's main cannon.

The only time it seems reasonable for me to pull a Magrider is if a buddy is out of vehicle resources and needs a lift - it does not have enough staying power to justify putting a 2nd body in it when there are better alternatives available (like 2 Lightnings).

A Heavy tank would need enough armor and firepower to be at least as good as 3-5 Lightnings if it's running a crew of 3-5.

[psijaka]

Whilst I'm in favour of dedicated driver and main gunner, I don't see how the Magrider could be made to work with a dedicated gunner, so I think that we are stuck with the current MBTs as they are. Perhaps they could nerf the main cannon a bit, and buff the secondaries?

I think the future lies in a new breed of heavy tanks with dedicated gunners. Hopefully.

and the Harrasser - what a sound the engine makes! Spot on.

[Snydenthur]

I think it's too early to draw any conclusions. Harrasser came out yesterday, so obviously it is used a lot. Maybe after month or so, if the harrasser is still as popular as now we can think that people actually might like tanks this way too. Or not, since they are two different vehicles for different purposes.

[Osmo]

I played vanguard driver for years in planetside. I had a dedicated gunner who was pretty much always gunning for me if we were both online at the same time. We went from newbs to cavalry driver platinum - ground gunner platinum together. Without a gun to worry about, my focus was on giving him good firing opportunities and keeping us alive - no sticking around for that last shot if it was probably going to kill us. He grew used to anticipating my movements and learned his shooting timing. Plus we were permently on vent together. We'd be barelling it full pelt through the hills with mosquitos chasing us and he'd tell me when to turn to avoid incoming fire and he;d shoot those damn things right outta the sky while I avoided 90% of their fire.

Awesome times.

If you haven't experienced it, you can't know how great it was.

I'd LOVE to go back to driving full time with a dedicated gunner, probably the thing I miss the most from Planetside.

[Whiteagle]

Whilst I'm in favour of dedicated driver and main gunner, I don't see how the Magrider could be made to work with a dedicated gunner, so I think that we are stuck with the current MBTs as they are.
That's EASY, make the Top Gun the Main Cannon and the Nose Mount a Secondary!

I don't like the idea of a Heavy Tank added just to please the Crewed Tank Crowd, that doesn't solve the issue of the MBTs being LightningPLUS at all and puts the Lightning in a position where it's even MORE redundent.

Personally, I'd rather pull a Lightning than a Magrider most of the time. It's a faster, smaller target, that takes less damage because it gets noticed and hit less and can use cover that would block a Magrider's main cannon.

The only time it seems reasonable for me to pull a Magrider is if a buddy is out of vehicle resources and needs a lift - it does not have enough staying power to justify putting a 2nd body in it when there are better alternatives available (like 2 Lightnings).
Well your probably like me, you can't stand the idea of that gun sitting up top with no one in it as ineffeffent... and that your Faction's MBT isn't all that good at Tank on Tank as the Lightning.

The Lightning is currently balanced cost wise at 5:4 with MBTs, meaning that five equally skilled Lightning operators should be at the same level as four MBTs...
But should four 1/2 MBTs be a match for five Lightnings?

Personally I don't think so, but I was under the impression MBTs were 300 Mechanized instead of 250, so that two fully manned MBTs would at least be worth three Lightnings if not more...

I'm of the opinion that Lightnings should have Quantity over the MBTs Quality, one favoring numbers and speed while the other consolidates strength for better coordination.

A Heavy tank would need enough armor and firepower to be at least as good as 3-5 Lightnings if it's running a crew of 3-5.
Which is where my idea of a Super Heavy comes in, it's not so much a big tank as the land-bound equivalent to an Air Carrier; a massive weapons platform that makes up for its lack of Mobility with Superior Firepower.
They would be less of an offensive vehicle and more of a Mobile Base around which armor columns can form on and regroup behind.
Two of these monster clashing should be like smashing two Major Facilities together, massive amounts of Vehicles and Infantry just pounding away at each other in the hopes that the other sides' Land Battleship is destroyed first.

[leifnielsen]

Can we have CIWS Phalanx's on our Super Heavy Tanks?

[Figment]

Internal seat switching screws up any plans for heavy tanks.


Remove seat switching completely first. Otherwise, just split controls for MBTs.

[Dougnifico]

http://www.troll.me/images/jackie-chan-whut/why-is-this-thread-back-again.jpg

[Gatekeeper]

Because a lot of people feel very strongly about this, and nothing PS2 has done has changed their minds? And because SOE have done really well in responding to a lot of player complaints and requests, but is still holding out on this one, big issue? And because the success of the Harasser proves (again) that their arguments about the driver "needing to have the big gun because they paid the certs and resources to create it" is just drivel? :)

[Shogun]

this thread will be back again and again, until we get good tanks.

the vanguard in ps1 wasn´t a fast funvehicle as well, but i don´t think it was a problem.
at least i saw more vanguards than lightnings in ps1 and don´t say that was because of the different certsystem. everybody who had certed the vanguard also had the cert for the lightning. but still there were plenty of vanguard drivers.

the complains on the forums from people who wanted to drive AND gun at the same time obviously came from a vocal minority and led to the introduction of BFRs.

the lightning is 4/5 as strong as a MBT, so why is the MBT almost exactly the same vehicle as the lightning? in ps1 it was a valid because you had the choice to take more firepower with the need of a gunner or less firepower but singleplayer use.

you say only driving a tank would be boring? i always liked it, and i say just gunning with a secondary gun is boring because the driver mostly drives oly to bring his maincannon to a good position. the secondary gunner is ignored and just kind of a bonus.
with a dedicated driver fun is guaranteed for both, because the drivers job is to bring the tank to a good position for the gunner.

[Illtempered]

We are absolutely loving it. We were having some epic fights with NC around Saurva last night. It had a very Mad Max feel.

[Baneblade]

The very existence of the Lightning completely invalidates any argument against crewed MBTs. Period.

I personally think both the existing weapons should be gunner only, but let the driver have a Flash style forward oriented weapon for those opportunity kills.

[Figment]

A forward limited arc Basilisk / Kobalt would be okay and suffice, pretty much PS1 Magrider caliber.

[Canaris]

I say forget about asking for the current MBT's to be made into dedicated drivers and instead maybe ask for a new tank to be designed, something like a NS common pool one that is a two or three man tank with a dedicated driver, similar in strength to the current ones. Best of both worlds?

Something akin to the Lightning just it's bigger brother
First comes the Lightning then
The Thunder
http://media.desura.com/images/members/1/542/541153/Futuristic_3.jpg

[HiroshiChugi]

I say forget about asking for the current MBT's to be made into dedicated drivers and instead maybe ask for a new tank to be designed, something like a NS common pool one that is a two or three man tank with a dedicated driver, similar in strength to the current ones. Best of both worlds?

^THIS! I couldn't handle being either a driver or a main gun operator... I don't trust people to use my IR smoke correctly and plus I love to drive my Vanny AND shoot it oo... My High Explosive gun is just too much fun.! :D! But, I think I could handle a common pool dedicated driver tank.

[Deadeye]

People tend to take the path of least resistance and hate to be forced to rely on others for their points. In PS1, I never touched Vanguards beyond one or two times when I gunned for them and even on TS, it never worked out.

By being able to drive and gun for myself, I was far more effective because my driver knew exactly where to park for that perfect shot and my gunner could anticipate every turn and bump in the road. Did I run into stuff? Yeah but it was alright; still preferred driving and gunning since lightning didn't lose much except against MBTs.

I also noticed something in PS1. when running with the zerg, I tended to notice a lot more reavers being pulled despite plenty of people around for gunning. Why? They were faster, had rockets that decimated things and, I believe the most important reason, they only required one person for all this.

So I think while yes, there will be fewer tanks, the soloers will gravitate to other vehicles that don't restrict them like lightnings and especially ESFs will see a lot more play.

[Gatekeeper]

Something akin to the Lightning just it's bigger brother
First comes the Lightning then
The Thunder


Nice :D

I'd still like them to change the current MBTs to have a dedicated driver, but I'd settle for this as an alternative.

Make it a three-man tank, with a fixed-forward driver gun (same choices as for Flash?) and two dedicated gunners (one for the main cannon, one with an MBT-type secondary).

As we've seen with the Harasser, you can easily sell the dedicated driver role when it's bundled with a cool new vehicle - so I think this is something that both die-hard PS1 vets and newer driver=gunner types could get behind.

[Figment]

People tend to take the path of least resistance and hate to be forced to rely on others for their points. In PS1, I never touched Vanguards beyond one or two times when I gunned for them and even on TS, it never worked out.

Without meaning disrespect, that just means you stink at it. And I mean, are absolutely rotten at teamwork. Which means you have nothing to add to the conversation regarding the design of teamwork units, because they're not designed FOR YOU. And they never should be. Which means, you should focus on having units that are designed for players like you (the Lightning) and having them balanced fairly (as in weaker, but competitive in groups).

We had two gunners on TS for a single vehicle with less firepower (Thundere and Deliverer) and we rampaged with a FAR LESSER ENDURANCE UNIT THAN A PS1 TANK. Which means you're just a biased liar, because you pretend to speak for everyone else while you're only speaking for an absolute minority of players that suck at teamwork.


I'm really sorry, but bad players shouldn't get to design the game by ruining the game for good team players. And you really, utterly stink. I mean really, you sucked at Vanguards so you didn't use them and used other equipment you could use instead. So where's the problem? If something isn't for you, you shouldn't use it! That's how life works!


Every person that brings up they couldn't work together with another person, is an utterly lousy teamplayer. Which means they should avoid using teamplayer units NOT @$(^@($*&@*$&@# DEMAND TO REMOVE ANY AND ALL TEAMWORK UNITS BECAUSE THEY SUCK AT USING THEM THEMSELVES.


Hell, if there's a new heavy tank unit that would be stronger, they'd go and demand them to be used by themselves, just because they absolutely stink at playing the game in relation to other players.

Honestly, what the hell are you doing in a teamwork oriented game?




PS: As for why people used reavers: next to no field AA, heaviest armoured air vehicle, solo usage, highest firepower of any unit in game, second to highest speed of any vehicle in game, could get repairs at any air tower or repair crystal which usualy were within a few hundred meters flying, could bail out from it for a second life at a moment's notice, ignored terrain impediments and CE and could be used against any type of unit with at the least 50-50 odds. They were pretty OP really, especially after the unnecessary armour buff Brewko gave them.

They should have been two crew units.

[ThatGoatGuy]

I absolutely adore the harasser. The problem I'm seeing with a dedicated MBT driver verses the Harasser is that it simply is not fun. Not only that, but imagine the comparison between something that goes around 100 kph compared to something that goes what? 20 kph? (I'm not in a tank much because I just find them too slow. Harasser shall forevermore be mah jam)

[Gatekeeper]

I absolutely adore the harasser. The problem I'm seeing with a dedicated MBT driver verses the Harasser is that it simply is not fun. Not only that, but imagine the comparison between something that goes around 100 kph compared to something that goes what? 20 kph? (I'm not in a tank much because I just find them too slow. Harasser shall forevermore be mah jam)

After racking my brain for what possible solution there could be for this problem, I've finally come up with this: how about making the MBTs a bit faster and more fun to drive? :)

As a trade-off for now requiring a crew of two, I think it's pretty doable.

Also one advantage the MBTs would have over the Harasser in terms of fun is that the driver would (presumably) still have a gun - it'd just be the secondary now, instead of the primary.

Unless we're making them 3-man tanks, in which case buffing their speed and armour even more is probably fine, in terms of overall balance.

[Dodgy Commando]

I say forget about asking for the current MBT's to be made into dedicated drivers and instead maybe ask for a new tank to be designed, something like a NS common pool one that is a two or three man tank with a dedicated driver, similar in strength to the current ones. Best of both worlds?

Something akin to the Lightning just it's bigger brother
First comes the Lightning then
The Thunder
http://media.desura.com/images/members/1/542/541153/Futuristic_3.jpg

I like this. A lot.

This exact concept could integrate very well lore-wise and the design is great!

I would also prefer dedicated drivers, but don't see it happening to the current crop of MBT's either. This concept could be a great way of keeping the current MBT's solo fun factor, while adding something new that caters to those who want teamwork (also: more spending opportunities for players to fill SOE's coffers ;P).

Balancing could be a nightmare because you not only have the other MBT's to take into account, but also this fellow's little brother. We don't want to make the latter even less relevant. I like the Lightning, but I don't find it as fun as the PS1 version, which had the chaingun as well as the 75mm. Let's just not risk making it useless with such an awesome addition as the one proposed above.

[Baneblade]

Without meaning disrespect, that just means you stink at it. And I mean, are absolutely rotten at teamwork. Which means you have nothing to add to the conversation regarding the design of teamwork units, because they're not designed FOR YOU. And they never should be. Which means, you should focus on having units that are designed for players like you (the Lightning) and having them balanced fairly (as in weaker, but competitive in groups).

We had two gunners on TS for a single vehicle with less firepower (Thundere and Deliverer) and we rampaged with a FAR LESSER ENDURANCE UNIT THAN A PS1 TANK. Which means you're just a biased liar, because you pretend to speak for everyone else while you're only speaking for an absolute minority of players that suck at teamwork.


I'm really sorry, but bad players shouldn't get to design the game by ruining the game for good team players. And you really, utterly stink. I mean really, you sucked at Vanguards so you didn't use them and used other equipment you could use instead. So where's the problem? If something isn't for you, you shouldn't use it! That's how life works!


Every person that brings up they couldn't work together with another person, is an utterly lousy teamplayer. Which means they should avoid using teamplayer units NOT @$(^@($*&@*$&@# DEMAND TO REMOVE ANY AND ALL TEAMWORK UNITS BECAUSE THEY SUCK AT USING THEM THEMSELVES.


Hell, if there's a new heavy tank unit that would be stronger, they'd go and demand them to be used by themselves, just because they absolutely stink at playing the game in relation to other players.

Honestly, what the hell are you doing in a teamwork oriented game?




PS: As for why people used reavers: next to no field AA, heaviest armoured air vehicle, solo usage, highest firepower of any unit in game, second to highest speed of any vehicle in game, could get repairs at any air tower or repair crystal which usualy were within a few hundred meters flying, could bail out from it for a second life at a moment's notice, ignored terrain impediments and CE and could be used against any type of unit with at the least 50-50 odds. They were pretty OP really, especially after the unnecessary armour buff Brewko gave them.

They should have been two crew units.

This.

[ThatGoatGuy]

After racking my brain for what possible solution there could be for this problem, I've finally come up with this: how about making the MBTs a bit faster and more fun to drive? :)

As a trade-off for now requiring a crew of two, I think it's pretty doable.

Also one advantage the MBTs would have over the Harasser in terms of fun is that the driver would (presumably) still have a gun - it'd just be the secondary now, instead of the primary.

Unless we're making them 3-man tanks, in which case buffing their speed and armour even more is probably fine, in terms of overall balance.

I'm totally up for it if you're suggesting that we just throw a prowler barrel on the Harasser. I don't think, even with a massive speed/handling buff that the tank, with its treads and all, could no be nearly as fun as anything else when it comes to those two things. Also, tanks don't have turbo!

[Figment]

I absolutely adore the harasser. The problem I'm seeing with a dedicated MBT driver verses the Harasser is that it simply is not fun. Not only that, but imagine the comparison between something that goes around 100 kph compared to something that goes what? 20 kph? (I'm not in a tank much because I just find them too slow. Harasser shall forevermore be mah jam)

Bullox. First off, you have no idea what the actual speed is. It's closer to triple that (55 kph).

Point in case.

Note how the driver has absolutely zero situational awareness regarding enemies, because he's facing forward with his gun the entire time... because otherwise he'd bump into objects. Meaning... HE CAN'T GUN AND FIRE ON THE MOVE AND USE HIS SPEED TO FLANK OTHER UNITS. Much like most WoT players, btw.



But how would you know? Solo MBT users don't ACTUALLY TRY TO USE THEIR MOBILITY BECAUSE THEY STINK AT GUNNING AND DRIVING AT THE SAME TIME.

Sorry, but it really pisses me off that people that have no idea what they're talking about have a really retarded opinion which they try to pass off as a majority opinion when it's clearly not. Let alone not having any understanding of the factual relevance of having a dedicated gunner to increase a unit's efficiency.


What we want from MBTs:

- high unit efficiency
- mobility being used
- higher endurance
- no gun switching
- significantly less total units (half to a third)
more maneuvrable high efficiency tanks == much better, competitive, adrenaline pumping, dynamic tank combat and dogfights where all skills are important factors (maneuvring, dodging, evading, situational awareness, aiming, using hills and cover, etc).
less heavily armoured units == fairer infantry gameplay


I find it utterly insane that people are argueing from a stationary turret point of view and then complain that drivers have nothing to do while they're a stationary turret like the Prowler lock down mode. HELLO!? They are MBTs! They shouldn't have lockdown, because that's an artillery thing!

[Gatekeeper]

I'm totally up for it if you're suggesting that we just throw a prowler barrel on the Harasser. I don't think, even with a massive speed/handling buff that the tank, with its treads and all, could no be nearly as fun as anything else when it comes to those two things. Also, tanks don't have turbo!

Sounds good to me ;)

Seriously though, the Mag is pretty fun to drive - except for its slow speed. And it does have a turbo :)

Can't speak for how the other tanks handle, and I doubt any of the tanks will ever be as fun to drive as the Harasser - but a lot of the fun of being a dedicated driver comes from the teamwork, which is universal. MBT's don't need to be super-fun to drive for dedicated drivers to be viable, just not *too* boring.

[Sledgecrushr]

Sounds good to me ;)

Seriously though, the Mag is pretty fun to drive - except for its slow speed. And it does have a turbo :)

Can't speak for how the other tanks handle, and I doubt any of the tanks will ever be as fun to drive as the Harasser - but a lot of the fun of being a dedicated driver comes from the teamwork, which is universal. MBT's don't need to be super-fun to drive for dedicated drivers to be viable, just not *too* boring.

A lot of stuff would have to change with a driver/gunner setup. Fir instance i the third person view remains the same you would be very susceptible to air attacks. Because I wouldnt be a good driver if my view was always trained to the rear and up. So the third person view for the driver/secondary gunner would have to change to a higher and more expanded command view. They should introduce certble barrel stabilisation for dedicated driver/gunner tanks to tak advantage of the new better mobility of this mbt variant.

I really think that three man tanks would be more effective than driver/gunner 2 man tanks in the field.

[VaderShake]

I say forget about asking for the current MBT's to be made into dedicated drivers and instead maybe ask for a new tank to be designed, something like a NS common pool one that is a two or three man tank with a dedicated driver, similar in strength to the current ones. Best of both worlds?

Something akin to the Lightning just it's bigger brother
First comes the Lightning then
The Thunder
http://media.desura.com/images/members/1/542/541153/Futuristic_3.jpg

I would like to see this as a heavy tank addition to the armor battles, high pooled resources 3 man crew, Driver, Main Gunner, Secondary Gunner. (exposed top of the tank light machine gun)

Make it slower manuvering (not speed) than the MTB's. Faction specific or universal I don't care, but universal would eb easier to balance probably.

[EVILPIG]

moosepoop, you need to take your blame and look in a mirror. You come off as "everyone else is wrong, I am right" with no regard for others' opinions. I disagree with you completely. The Harasser is fun to drive. That doesn't mean tanks need to have dedicated drivers. It only proves that the Harasser is fun to drive.

[Whiteagle]

you say only driving a tank would be boring? i always liked it, and i say just gunning with a secondary gun is boring because the driver mostly drives oly to bring his maincannon to a good position. the secondary gunner is ignored and just kind of a bonus.
with a dedicated driver fun is guaranteed for both, because the drivers job is to bring the tank to a good position for the gunner.
Indeed, right now that Secondary feels about as useful as a Liberator's Tailgun, which I'd honestly want to see at least a turret traverse buff on so it could actually help with Ground Attacks and Point Defense!
It's a superfluous extra that doesn't see a lot of use because if the situation calls for it, someone ELSE can just switch seats into it!!!

I say forget about asking for the current MBT's to be made into dedicated drivers and instead maybe ask for a new tank to be designed, something like a NS common pool one that is a two or three man tank with a dedicated driver, similar in strength to the current ones. Best of both worlds?
No it's not...
It still makes the Lightning redundant because MBTs are currently LightningPLUS anyways...
Almost everything the Lightning can do, an MBT can do better!
More armor, more main firepower, extra secondary firepower, all the same special abilities PLUS Factional Special Abilities and for what, a bit of MAXIMUM DRIVING SPEED?

Without meaning disrespect, that just means you stink at it. And I mean, are absolutely rotten at teamwork. Which means you have nothing to add to the conversation regarding the design of teamwork units, because they're not designed FOR YOU. And they never should be. Which means, you should focus on having units that are designed for players like you (the Lightning) and having them balanced fairly (as in weaker, but competitive in groups).
Hell, I'm more of a Lightning Driver and I agree with this!

While I'm not actually bad when it comes to crew operation, my poor social skills leave me unable to form a team more often then not, so because I knew this would happen I equipped up my Lightning...

...But Lightnings are forced out of their natural battlefield niche as a Light Tank because EVERYONE can just Solo Operate their Main Battle Tank JUST as effectively!

After racking my brain for what possible solution there could be for this problem, I've finally come up with this: how about making the MBTs a bit faster and more fun to drive? :)

As a trade-off for now requiring a crew of two, I think it's pretty doable.

Also one advantage the MBTs would have over the Harasser in terms of fun is that the driver would (presumably) still have a gun - it'd just be the secondary now, instead of the primary.
Yeah, and the Secondary would give you the same situational awareness you have now with the Main Cannon, because it's still a turret on the Prowler and Vanguard while the Magrider switches mounts for its Guns!

This allows the MBTs to be buffed into something TRULY fearsome, because a solo operator will have to choose between Mobility OR Firepower instead of having BOTH at the same time.

And since it would be in a lower fire position, the Vanu could then argue trading their PPA for a Faction Specific Secondary they'd actually want to use!

Unless we're making them 3-man tanks, in which case buffing their speed and armour even more is probably fine, in terms of overall balance.
But we've already got Battle Sunderers for that!
Seriously though, anything heavier then an MBT should be the Ground Equivalent to an Air Carrier, a damn-near Base on Treads that's the centerpiece of an Armor Column just because other vehicles can use its massive bulk as COVER.
Can't you just imagine the fun you would have coming up on an Armor Formation with a Halo Mammoth in the middle?

[Figment]

@Evilpig: that's not true. Frequently the argument was made that "it simply isn't fun to just drive", which isn't related to any sort of unit frame, but is a general remark.

@Whiteagle: I'd even say more effectively since you can have two different weapons on your MBT on top of the increased endurance and all that at the cost of a tiny little bit of speed. In fact, if you're VS, you even gained strafing.

[Shogun]

the seat concept of ps1 was good. i will never understand what the devs smoked when they decided to let 1 person do the job of 3 players by enabling him to switch to any seat on an instant.

it was more fun, it was more immersive and more logical. and there was NEVER a lack of players who liked to drive a tank without a driver-gun.

so what if we could at least get the dedicated driver setup as a certable tank-customisation? this would silence the bf3 kiddys who think driving alone is boring because they are not forced to change anything. and it would help the players who actually want to drive dedicated.
make it as a tank chassey option like the r#speedracer or hillclimber upgrade.
but this setup should not only switch guncontrol of all guns to the secondary seat, it should also buff the maincannons damage to compensate the loss of the slot and the ability to shoot at 2 targets at once.

but the lightning is still redundand, so why not make the mbt dedicated (and give a fucking refund on all previous mbt certs so the whiners and quitters shut up) and the lightning the one man tank, like it was intended in the first place?

[Figment]

Shogun, how can you make a two shotting main gun and ohk on infantry gun more powerful? :/

Instakill? 80% instead of 60%? not going to be felt much. Larger splash? We finally got less splash...



It needs a shitload more endurance, but then you're basically asking for people to use hot swapping between driver and gunner and solo it anyway... So that isn't an option as long as seat switching exists!

[Whiteagle]

@Evilpig: that's not true. Frequently the argument was made that "it simply isn't fun to just drive", which isn't related to any sort of unit frame, but is a general remark.
Indeed, which really doesn't sit well with me because I LIKE Transport Driving!
If I had regular gunners on my Sunderer, we'd be the Deadliest Battle Bus on Waterson!

@Whiteagle: I'd even say more effectively since you can have two different weapons on your MBT on top of the increased endurance and all that at the cost of a tiny little bit of speed. In fact, if you're VS, you even gained strafing.
Hell the Vanu would probably get the most out of Crewed Tanks...
Not only would they gain the coveted top Turreted Main Cannon they are always bugging the other two factions about, but their Nose Mounted Saron Equivalent would probably just be the same Supernova FPC they have now...

...In fact, they could probably just tweak the Supernova FPC and VPC a little bit and, VIOLA, a One-man Mag now pulls double duty as a Hover version of the Anti Armor or Anti Infantry Python Lightning!
No Python HEAT equivalent though, you either Specialize, use the Default Basilisk, or have something like the current Proton II PPA which can damage both.

Shogun, how can you make a two shotting main gun and ohk on infantry gun more powerful? :/

Instakill? 80% instead of 60%? not going to be felt much. Larger splash? We finally got less splash...
Yeah, this is why I see any Super Heavy having Multiple Main Cannons; more consolidated firepower without making each gun even more powerful.

It needs a shitload more endurance, but then you're basically asking for people to use hot swapping between driver and gunner and solo it anyway... So that isn't an option as long as seat switching exists!
Well that's the genius part of Multiple Main Cannons on a Land Battleship, they won't be doing much better then going solo in an MBT, but will be a MUCH larger and slower moving target to hit!

[Rbstr]

I'm fine with solo driver tanks. I love bouncing around in the Mag....and I pretty much always roll with a gunner.

I also like driving harasser.
I don't get the hard on people have with it though. Yay, it's way less powerful than a tank but I get to drive and not shoot things?

I'd rather not change tanks to be like that.

or have something like the current Proton II PPA which can not do useful damage to anything.
FTFY. That gun is worthless.

[Figment]

Well that's the genius part of Multiple Main Cannons on a Land Battleship, they won't be doing much better then going solo in an MBT, but will be a MUCH larger and slower moving target to hit!

Perhaps, but they will not replace the requested crewed MBTs and will not solve the problem we're dealing with right now.

@Rbstr: good to hear VS waste crew on gunner slots when they could be making double the strafing targets with double the endurance and double the variety in firepower.

[Canaris]

Perhaps, but they will not replace the requested crewed MBTs and will not solve the problem we're dealing with right now.

which is why I suggested a new tank to fill the roll, I don't see them changing the current MBT setup and I think you knocking your heads against a wall asking for it, there's just to many people who like it as is. Me being one of them but instead of just saying NO, I tried to come up with an alternative that could work.

I know some people aren't happy with the current MBT vs Lightnings but I do see loads of people playing with the Light and enjoying it as it though maybe it could also use some new gear to make it more appealing to soloists also?

[Bags]

the magrider is hella fun to drive

[Figment]

which is why I suggested a new tank to fill the roll,

It's pointless. The current MBT has too much firepower to make a new tank more powerful. It would require almost triple the endurance to be fairly balanced to the other MBTs and that would greatly upset the balance with other units. These sort of solutions only create new balancing problems and should therefore not be looked at, certainly not before the MBT is balanced properly (and I do hold the position that the only way that can be done fairly is my way).

People should stop trying to use firepower as balance, unless they nerf the hell out of the current MBTs weaponry, which isn't likely. The current MBT (and I'd add, the Lightning's) firepower is balanced for a multicrew unit. Yes, the Lightning is OP right now in terms of firepower. At least, in the hands of someone who knows what a reticule does.

I don't see them changing the current MBT setup and I think you knocking your heads against a wall asking for it, there's just to many people who like it as is. Me being one of them but instead of just saying NO, I tried to come up with an alternative that could work.

I'll keep saying NO because there aren't any alternatives. There simply aren't any. What you are suggesting is a placebo bandaid. Not an actual alternative. It sounds like it solves it, but in fact it doesn't address any of the balancing reasons for crewed MBTs and is therefore a moot suggestion.

I know some people aren't happy with the current MBT vs Lightnings but I do see loads of people playing with the Light and enjoying it as it though maybe it could also use some new gear to make it more appealing to soloists also?

Of course people play Lightnings whenever they're on a timer or MBTs aren't available due to not having a Tech Plant. But that doesn't mean they pick it OVER the MBT, just because they CANNOT pick the solo-MBT at that point.


Observing Lightnings being used is therefore also completely uninteresting, because it has NOTHING to do with the arguments and reasonings mentioned here!




I don't care for anyone who says they like the current situation. Liking something you use yourself is never an indication of it being appropriately balanced, so it's a worthless argument to stop it from getting rebalanced.

[Canaris]

It's pointless. The current MBT has too much firepower to make a new tank more powerful. It would require almost triple the endurance to be fairly balanced to the other MBTs and that would greatly upset the balance with other units. These sort of solutions only create new balancing problems and should therefore not be looked at, certainly not before the MBT is balanced properly (and I do hold the position that the only way that can be done fairly is my way).

People should stop trying to use firepower as balance, unless they nerf the hell out of the current MBTs weaponry, which isn't likely. The current MBT (and I'd add, the Lightning's) firepower is balanced for a multicrew unit. Yes, the Lightning is OP right now in terms of firepower. At least, in the hands of someone who knows what a reticule does.



I'll keep saying NO because there aren't any alternatives. There simply aren't any. What you are suggesting is a placebo bandaid. Not an actual alternative. It sounds like it solves it, but in fact it doesn't address any of the balancing reasons for crewed MBTs and is therefore a moot suggestion.



Of course people play Lightnings whenever they're on a timer or MBTs aren't available due to not having a Tech Plant. But that doesn't mean they pick it OVER the MBT, just because they CANNOT pick the solo-MBT at that point.


Observing Lightnings being used is therefore also completely uninteresting, because it has NOTHING to do with the arguments and reasonings mentioned here!




I don't care for anyone who says they like the current situation. Liking something you use yourself is never an indication of it being appropriately balanced, so it's a worthless argument to stop it from getting rebalanced.

you see though I can just flip that arguement and say, you've not convinced me it's unbalanced just because you don't like it.

[moosepoop]

It's pointless. The current MBT has too much firepower to make a new tank more powerful.


crewed heavy tanks doesnt neccessarily need to have more firepower, it just has armor because it has more people inside. it can even have less dps than standard mbts.

I absolutely adore the harasser. The problem I'm seeing with a dedicated MBT driver verses the Harasser is that it simply is not fun.


it used to be not fun because of rear armor. tanks can only go forward or back. with the rear armor buff tanks can now do a lot more daring and exciting maneuvers. if its combined with a dedicated driver, it can open up a lot of possibilities.

which is why I suggested a new tank to fill the roll, I don't see them changing the current MBT setup and I think you knocking your heads against a wall asking for it, there's just to many people who like it as is. Me being one of them but instead of just saying NO, I tried to come up with an alternative that could work.


i think introducing a new crewed super heavy tank is probably the most possible outcome. its the only direction for the power creep, and the best way to get more sales from tank lovers. we know SOE wants to reintroduce bfrs in the near future, or some kind of super vehicle that resembles bfrs. this can be the chance to satisfy both fans and SOE.

[Figment]

you see though I can just flip that arguement and say, you've not convinced me it's unbalanced just because you don't like it.

No you can't. Because then you would not have listened to anything I've said and you'd just be a really poor troll.

Unlike the people who are pro solo mbt, I've brought up tons of balance arguments with other units, group balance and balancing within units and very little has to do with personal preference, hardly anything really. Unlike the solo-mbt people, I'm also not denying any playstyle or gameplay, nor am I upsetting any form of gameplay. On the other hand EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF SOLO MBTS IS ABOUT PERSONAL WANT. Every. Single. One.

Don't make stupid statements Canaris, it doesn't become you. You can't turn this around and you know it.

[moosepoop]

No you can't. Because then you would not have listened to anything I've said and you'd just be a really poor troll.

Unlike the people who are pro solo mbt, I've brought up tons of balance arguments with other units and very little has to do with preference, hardly anything really. On the other hand EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF SOLO MBTS IS ABOUT PERSONAL WANT. Every. Single. One.

Don't make stupid statements Canaris, it doesn't become you.

why you attacking him? hes on your side bro.

you do make a vital point about soloers. its about personal want and advancing their personal power.

personal sacrifice and teamwork is the heart and soul of planetside 2. compromise this and the game falls apart.

[Sardus]

Something tells me that the "heavy" tanks they are working on are going to have 3 seats, and one will be a devoted driver.

[Figment]

why you attacking him? hes on your side bro.

1. It's not an attack, it's a counter to his counter attempt.
2. He's not on my side, he's on the "solo-mbt + placebo tank if you really want one" side. If he were on my side, he'd be going all out to remove solo-mbts and couldn't possibly like them.

It may sound arrogant, but there really is no alternative possible that includes the current MBT. If you'd do the maths, you'd understand.

[Whiteagle]

FTFY. That gun is worthless.
Well you have to realise it's a long ranged Grenade Launcher capable of damaging both Infantry and Armor, not just a slow firing Machine Gun...
That's why I can actually get kills with the Lasher; you don't aim at the Emeny, just his feet!

Perhaps, but they will not replace the requested crewed MBTs and will not solve the problem we're dealing with right now.
Well to be fair this would be AFTER switching the Driver's Gun Control, so 1/2 MBTs could either MOVE or SHOOT the Main Cannon, or have to buy a proper Anti-Armor Secondary to do both and STILL be less effective then the same 2/2 Tank.

No you can't. Because then you would not have listened to anything I've said and you'd just be a really poor troll.

Unlike the people who are pro solo mbt, I've brought up tons of balance arguments with other units, group balance and balancing within units and very little has to do with personal preference, hardly anything really. Unlike the solo-mbt people, I'm also not denying any playstyle or gameplay, nor am I upsetting any form of gameplay. On the other hand EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF SOLO MBTS IS ABOUT PERSONAL WANT. Every. Single. One.
Indeed, these Solo-MBTs apparently have never flown a Galaxy, Liberator, or driven a Sunderer.
Why does the Liberator, the Aircraft equivalent to an MBT, need a Belly Gunner to be most effective while the Tank can go Solo?

2. He's not on my side, he's on the "solo-mbt + placebo tank if you really want one" side. If he were on my side, he'd be going all out to remove solo-mbts and couldn't possibly like them.

It may sound arrogant, but there really is no alternative possible that includes the current MBT. If you'd do the maths, you'd understand.
Indeed man, another Tank isn't going to fix this problem Moose, we need to fix the ones we have so that each has their own advantages and disadvantages!

[Rbstr]

Yup, it's math and totally not personal preference.

Your subjective math supports your subjective possition that two-man tanks are better.

One man tanks = more tanks = more fun. Did the math, my side came out on top. Sorry to be arrogant.

[moosepoop]

One man tanks = more tanks = more fun. Did the math, my side came out on top. Sorry to be arrogant.

we are not enemies, bro. solo powerful vehicle spam isnt good for anyone.

when im part of tank zergs we just steamroll thru everything, i dont even have anything to kill, i just wait outside the spawn for 5 min. nobody wants to fight me, they just run to biolab. that aint fun.

my prowler is maxed out in everything bro. i still find ps1 tanks more fun.

[moosepoop]

2. He's not on my side, he's on the "solo-mbt + placebo tank if you really want one" side. If he were on my side, he'd be going all out to remove solo-mbts and couldn't possibly like them.
it seems to me he realizes SOE is not likely gonna change the mbt. too many soloers have grown "attached" to the tanks. i would like crewed mbts, but i realize this is unfeasible. the best might be have both for everyone, hence introducing a heavy tank.

It may sound arrogant, but there really is no alternative possible that includes the current MBT. If you'd do the maths, you'd understand.
sure there is. they can nerf the mbts, put mbt bundle on sale one week before, then introduce op heavy tank with dedicated driver. :)

[Whiteagle]

One man Main Battle tanks = more Main Battle tanks =Armor Steamrolls that leave Attackers bored and Defenders quiting out of frustration.
FTFY...:rolleyes:
it seems to me he realizes SOE is not likely gonna change the mbt. too many soloers have grown "attached" to the tanks. i would like crewed mbts, but i realize this is unfeasible. the best might be have both for everyone, hence introducing a heavy tank.
No, the Devs just have blatantly ignored the possibility, even back in Beta when we were telling them this was going to be a BIG problem...
The only reason it's "Infeasible" is that they screwed it up to begin with!

[Hamma]

Be nice everyone.

[Figment]

Yup, it's math and totally not personal preference.

Your subjective math supports your subjective possition that two-man tanks are better.

One man tanks = more tanks = more fun. Did the math, my side came out on top. Sorry to be arrogant.

That's not just arrogant, it's also irresponsible, stupid, childish, biased, unfair towards me and an inflamatory trolling attempt.


My maths aren't subjective at all. I've literally weighed every option against other options and pointed out the ups and downs of each solution while looking at at least 10 different aspects of the tanks in each configuration.

I've actually done the perfect TTK maths for each and every single one of those situations and everything pointed to the same conclusion.

Btw, you can find some of the maths below:

Here's a list:

(Dis)advantages of ONE unit with TWO gunners over the same, ONE unit with ONE gunner

Note: A unit is described as any player operated avatar in game: tank, infantry, aircraft, etc. A player is any real life person operating as an unit that will be in game at the same time anyway.

The first comparison is just the effect on the single tank.

PER UNIT (driver=gunner + gunner vs driver=gunner, both in one unit)
Situational awareness per unit: doubled and a little (gunner not needing to watch road, two sets of eyes)
Variety of potential perspectives per unit: Equal
Number of potential units: Equal
Enemy firepower dispersion: Equal
Hitpoints per unit: Equal
Firepower per unit: Doubled
AA options available: Equal (no need to switch)
Resource cost per unit: Equal
Maneuvrability per unit: Equal
Tactical options per unit: Equal
Expected lifespan per unit: Slight increase
Execution of available tactical options: Slight increase in efficiency


So that looks pretty neat and beneficial, right? Until you actually look at what the above means for the actual potential of two players.

PER PLAYER (Two separate units vs one unit)
Situational awareness per player: Minor increase
Number of potential units: Halfed
Variety of potential perspectives per unit: Halfed
Enemy firepower dispersion: Halfed
Hitpoints per player: Halfed
Firepower per player: Equal
AA options available: Halfed
Maneuvrability per player: Halfed
Resource cost per player: Halfed
Maneuvrability per player: Virtually halfed
Tactical options per player: Severely restricted
Expected lifespan per player: Reduced by a third to half
Execution of available tactical options: Slight increase in efficiency

Meaning the only thing that improves ever so slightly is the first and last efficiency (driving and awareness) and resource cost. Firepower effectively remains the same and therefore does not double even if it appeared to do so. But the kicker is that all other statistics are halfed!

And it gets worse when you compare the potential of three players with three in one unit, again per unit and per player:

(Dis)advantages of ONE unit with TWO gunners and dedicated driver over the same, ONE unit with ONE gunner

PER UNIT (dedicated driver, two gunners vs driver=gunner, one unit
Situational awareness per unit: Tripled and a little (gunner not needing to watch road, three sets of eyes)
Variety of potential perspectives per unit: Equal
Number of potential units: Equal
Enemy firepower dispersion: Equal
Hitpoints per unit: Equal
Firepower per unit: Doubled
AA options available: Equal (no need to switch)
Resource cost per unit: Equal
Maneuvrability per unit: Increase in efficiency
Tactical options per unit: Equal
Expected lifespan per unit: Slight increase
Execution of available tactical options: Slight increase in efficiency

Note that compared to two players, for three players only maneuvring and situational awareness increase. Firepower does not. If it was a dedicated driver with just one gunner, firepower would equal per unit, but HALF per player.

PER PLAYER (Three separate units vs one unit)
Situational awareness per player: Negligible
Number of potential units: 1/3
Variety of potential perspectives per unit: 1/3
Enemy firepower dispersion: 1/3
Hitpoints per player: 1/3
Firepower per player: 2/3
AA options available: 1/3
Maneuvrability per player: 1/3
Resource cost per player: 1/3
Maneuvrability per player: Extremely reduced
Tactical options per player: Extremely restricted
Expected lifespan per player: Reduced by half to two thirds
Execution of available tactical options: Slight increase in efficiency

If you compare the per unit advantage, then sure everything looks nice and there only seem to be positive effects. When you start looking at manpower and thus player potential, you should immediately be shocked by the potential you remove from yourself by making a choice on the per unit statistics.

Considering the lifespan per player is reduced, it is also questionable whether the resource advantage really matters.


The only way to combat this is to design the unit to have significantly better endurance statistics than a single crew unit.

If you have Endurance [Em (mbt) or El (lightning)], Firepower [Fn], with n=1 for driver gun, n=2 for gunner and F3 for gunner of the three crew tank and F4 for the second gunner of the three crew tank. We really should assume Fn can be altered per unit type and can consist of a variety of weapons as well. I mean, why keep balance simple, right?

E on the other hand, being defined as the time to get killed conists of a formula of hitpoints and damage taken. This value of E remains the same in hitpoints, because we're talking about the same unit frame. In reality, it does vary with the angle at which the unit is approached. One must assume that angles differ more and become more advantageous as there are more vehicles involved for different positioning and encircling strategies. But, for the sake of simplicity, let's assume a set value of E for any particular unit. Keep in mind though that in reality, the less units you have, the lower your practical endurance.

The same goes for speed, acceleration and profile size and armour weaknesses: these WILL be the exact same for the same tank with one, two or three crew members inside because they're not going to make these separate certs. This also means you can NOT, I repeat NOT, use these variables to balance the unit against itself in a different configuration. This leaves only Firepower to work with!

Note also that F1, F2, F3 and F4 can vary in type and strength depending on MBT or Lightning as well as choice of weapons. Hence we will have F1m and F1l. Note that F1m can be AP, HE, HEAT. F2 can be Bassilisk, Kobalt, Fury, Enforcer, Halbert, etc. for a Vanguard. F1l can be AP, HE, HEAT, AA. Now, I'm not going over all those options seperately, but you can imagine you can replace those type of weaponry in any future comparison. These are already non-equal choices between them, but now you're also trying to balance them against a large variety of configuration options.

Then we can start looking at the amount of manpower used, because if you're going to pick a unit and have X crew available, you're going to try and utilise X crew as optimal as possible as a player. X will be the same for each option and we will treat manpower as a constant. The minimal crew size of each option will determine X, X is minimal 3 on the new cert option, so X will be three. As said, X determines the amount of units one can select, in this case, with three it's either:

[1] 3x Solo Tank (1 crew req. per time) - can be Lightnings or MBTs in any configuration that totals 3 tanks.
[2] 1x Solo Tank + 2 crew tank (driver gunning), two crewed tank + solo MBT or Lightning.
[3] 1x three crew tank.

Now, for [1], we have 3Em + 3F1m OR 3F2 tops (can switch guns), 3El least +3F1l. Combinations are possible in order to get the best mix, regardless, Etotal is always more than Em, firepower is at least 3F1l to 3F1m and may also be any combination that results in more firepower.
For [2], we have Em + Em or El, with F1m + F2 + F1m or F2 or F1l. It could also be a three crew tank manned by two, by which we have Em + F3 OR F4, + F1m or F2 or F1l.
For [3], we have Em + F3 + F4.

That's the obvious part: what could you bring? So far you can still follow right? Sounds like really simple choice balance already, doesn't it? And that's not even looking at different types of guns... ANYWAY.


Now let's start balancing this so they're equal alternatives.

To be a balanced choice of equal alternatives, the following has to be true:

1=2, 2=3, 1=3

Now to simplify this, the easiest way for a quick comparison is to look at the various ratios of damage taken vs damage dealt and also considering the alternative options you can use to create flexibility in the field.


OPTIONS [1]
3 MBTs (include all the following options):
3Em * 3F1m
3Em * 3F2
3Em * (2F1m + F2)
3Em * (F1m + 2F2)

2 MBTs 1 Lightning:
(2Em + El) * (2F1m + F1l)
(2Em + El) * (F1m + F2 + F1l)
(2Em + El) * (2F2 + F1l)

MBT + 2 Lightnings:
(Em + 2El) * (F1m + 2F1l)
(Em + 2El) * (F2 + 2F1l)

3 Lightnings:
3El * 3F1l

OPTIONS [2]
MBT (driver=gunner + gunner) + solo MBT:
2Em * (2F1m + F2)
2Em * (F1m + 2F2)

MBT (driver=gunner + gunner) + Lightning:
(Em + El) * (F1m + F2 + F1l)

MBT (driver=/=gunner + gunner) + solo MBT:
2Em * (F1m + F3)
2Em * (F1m + F4)

MBT (driver=/=gunner + gunner) + Lightning:
(Em + El) * (F3 + F1l)
(Em + El) * (F4 + F1l)

OPTIONS [3]
MBT (driver=/=gunner + 2 gunners):
Em * (F3 + F4)


As you can see, the endurance disadvantage of [3] is that you have a third to a half of the enemy endurance. This has to be completely compensated for by firepower! Is that really feasible?


What does that mean? Well, let's just start by equalising the obvious, three crew MBT vs three solo MBTs shall we?

Em * (F3 + F4) = 3Em * 3F1m
F3 + F4 = 3Em * 3F1m / Em
F3 + F4 = 9F1m

So, the simplified maths assuming ideal, fair conditions, suggests the combined firepower of F3 and F4 would have to be 9 times as strong as a main gun on a solo MBT to make up for its disadvantage in endurance. Okay, let's assume for simplicity that F3 = F4. That means that F3 would have to be 4,5 times stronger than the solo MBT main gun to make up for the endurance difference. Considering 4-5 is about the amount of shots it takes to kill a MBT, these would instantly kill any tank they see, especially Lightnings, to make it "balanced". That's going to upset other unit balance, how? I don't think I even need to go any further, do I?



Alternative evaluation: Stacking lives effect

And that's when we're NOT including the stacking effect of having multiple tanks and being able to use encircling tactics to increase lifespan and tanks only being able to tackle one enemy tank at a time. See, the effect of stacking can easily be demonstrated in a theoretical fight between two alternatives. Let's take the above situation of one tank fighting three tanks. Forget the above calculations for a second and start from scratch and just assume a total of three manpower for each situation. Any combination of three manpower must be equal in order to see them as equal choices.

If you focus fire to kill one tank, while there are three, as long as you haven't killed the first tank, the other two solo tanks take no damage, but can fire. Then, after you kill the first tank, you will concentrate fire on the second tank. As long as you concentrate fire on the second tank, the third tank takes no damage, but can fire. Finally, you can concentrate fire on the third tank. That's three "rounds" of fighting, in which the damage dealt by the solo tanks is 3 + 2 + 1 = 6 lives worth of damage, whereas the single tank in one life must try to triple that damage output, because their combined hitpoints is triple that of the damage the opponents have to deal. (3TTK vs TTK) vs 6DoT vs 1DoT => 6*3 =18.

The conclusion is that the TTK of one solo tank on another solo tank, must be 1/18th of that of a three crew tank on a solo tank, in order to be equal choices. So... F3 and F4 combined would have to actually be 18x stronger? Ouch.

The same can be done for a two crew tank vs two solo tanks as an alternative: 2+1 lives worth of damage vs the single two-crew tank who must equal that in one live. Again though, the multi-crew tank must deal double the damage to the two solo tanks, their damage output must therefore be double that of the two solo tanks. Here, balance suggests solo tanks must do a 1/2*1/3 = 1/6 of the damage a two crew tank deals to make them equal choices. In other words, a two-crew tank must deal 6 times the damage a normal tank deals.

However, the two conclusions above conflict with one another. At this point, both the 2 and 3 crew units would be able to instakill one another with a lot of potential extra damage on top of that. For one, that's not "fun". Two, it's not balanced and three it's extremely unlikely that this would be implemented.

In reality, any compromise vehicle would be significantly less powerful than the choice for multiple solo MBTs.


Ergo, they're not balanced. Ergo, they're not equal choices. Ergo, there's no such thing as "equal play styles" in this compromise.


Please show how they are biased. I know you can't show they are since they're objective comparisons that wern't doctored or manipulated and show both the ups and downs of each solution. Though I'm afraid I'll have to expect an evasive insulting comment or character attack instead. But since you insist they are biased, let's hear why.

I've also done the maths for comparing the amount of AV needed by infantry for stronger, less numerous crewed tanks in comparison to weaker, more numerous solo-tanks. From that it is concluded the crewed tanks has the least leverage over AV infantry and therefore is the fairest solution.


And let's also hear how come your maths wouldn't be biased, considering you immediately tie in an emotional thus subjective argument by using the line "more fun".


Also, substantiate "more fun" and show that infantry, other units and differently sized groups squaring off against one another have this "more fun" with the solo-MBT in comparison to the crewed MBT while you're at it.


My maths subjective? Right. :rolleyes:

[moosepoop]

FTFY...:rolleyes:

No, the Devs just have blatantly ignored the possibility, even back in Beta when we were telling them this was going to be a BIG problem...
The only reason it's "Infeasible" is that they screwed it up to begin with!


you gotta use strategies that appeal to these people who seek personal power and killstreaks, and thats the carrot on a stick, power creep method. introduce new op crewed tanks with new weapons, nerf solo mbts, and people will flock to it. we get crewed tanks, and SOE gets to milk more money, AND balance ground combat. kill three birds with one stone.

if crewed tanks is more powerful than solo tanks, people will use crewed tanks. SOE fears casual gamer "preferences" too much. people dont really care that much as long as it gives them an advantage. and ultimately crewed tanks will benefit the game more in the long run.

[Deadeye]

we are not enemies, bro. solo powerful vehicle spam isnt good for anyone.

when im part of tank zergs we just steamroll thru everything, i dont even have anything to kill, i just wait outside the spawn for 5 min. nobody wants to fight me, they just run to biolab. that aint fun.

And how would being the dedicated driver make those tank zergs more fun?

I wouldn't mind an option for two man tanks. Maybe have a series of turrets that swap the guns for driver and passenger.

What I'm personally against, more than the idea is this whole "my way requires teamwork therefore is better" argument. Teamwork is suppose to be fun because you choose to work with others to achieve a goal. It should not be used as an excuse to hamper a person's ability to have fun. The "teamwork" argument could be used justify anything. For instance, why not make all vehicles bigger than an atv crew manned? That would bring in a lot more of the "always-a-good-thing teamwork", wouldn't it? Why not make it take 2 medics to rez someone? More great "teamwork".

My point here is that I don't mind giving people options to play but I am totally against forcing people to play certain ways for no other reason than "it would require teamwork".

You want the option to play with 2man tanks, fine ask for the option, if 2manning is so superior you shouldn't need buffs to do it. but forcing people to play your way or to go take a hike doesn't make you a better player in any way, shape or form. It just makes you look like an arrogant SOB .

[Whiteagle]

you gotta use strategies that appeal to these people who seek personal power and killstreaks, and thats the carrot on a stick, power creep method.
So what is the Lightning for?
A waste of my Station Cash and Certs, because they need an uber OP Super Tank to knock down the One Man MBTs that have already outmoded it?
Tell me, WHAT IS THE LIGHTNING FOR?!?!

[moosepoop]

So what is the Lightning for?
A waste of my Station Cash and Certs, because they need an uber OP Super Tank to knock down the One Man MBTs that have already outmoded it?
Tell me, WHAT IS THE LIGHTNING FOR?!?!

it doesnt make sense bro. its just what SOE thinks casual gamers expect in a war game. every other game has solo mbt, so ps2 has to have solo mbt. thats a direct executive order from their management.

im for both crewed mbts and crewed heavy tanks. im presenting two options instead of saying "this is the only way and it must be done like this". when you give a number of ideas you have higher chance of one of them implemented.

when you tell the devs "it must be this way" they dont want to listen to you. we can only offer opinion and advice, never order them around. its not our place to do so.

[Shogun]

the math is not really right for everybody.

concerning me: when i use a 1 man tank, i don´t hit shit.
when gunning for a dedicated driver who knows how to drive, i am part of a deadly and effective unit.

so 2 players who can´t handle one man tanks efficiently are far better off in a 2 mn vehicle where both can concentrate on one thing, actually multiplying the efficiency.

but i agree, that the real problem is caused by the seat switching. the ps1 seat mechanics were far better. you could still man every seat you wanted, but you had to get out of the vehicle to change seats. even makes more sense in most cases. nobody could crawl from a cockpitseat to a tailgunnerseat. and nobody would do it in midair. same for tanks. nobody could change seats in the middle of a fight.

[Figment]

And how would being the dedicated driver make those tank zergs more fun?

...

Are you that unimaginative? Are you even listening to what we've said on the benefits?

They would be more dynamic, there'd be more dogfighting, they'd perform better, they could have more individual power, tank zergs would be smaller, thus they would have more room for maneuvring and evading instead of constantly being blocked by other vehicles (I've seen tons of traffic jams when the front stops to fire) and they'd be more fun for the opposition as well (maybe this is hard for you, but tank drivers aren't the only players who need to have fun!). Other units would face less firepower against them so the overal length of life would increase, which means less respawning and more time to have fun. The individual gunners would feel more important, the drivers would be more aware of threats. Overall the gameplay improves FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED.

I wouldn't mind an option for two man tanks. Maybe have a series of turrets that swap the guns for driver and passenger.

What good does that do? It doesn't address balance issues, that just creates more of the same balance issues or new ones...

What I'm personally against, more than the idea is this whole "my way requires teamwork therefore is better" argument. Teamwork is suppose to be fun because you choose to work with others to achieve a goal. It should not be used as an excuse to hamper a person's ability to have fun.

You're just trying to be a troll now, right? Because you're not making sense at all and you're putting words in people's mouth.

1. There currently is no teamwork tank. There is a solo-tank with the option of a gunner.
2. Nobody's ability is being hampered. The abilities of individual players are in fact enhanced by being more focused and you would be rewarded by having a better unit than if you would play an unit alone.
3. Using such an unit would be a choice between alternatives. Currently, there are no alternatives as there are only single player units. MBTs do not count as multicrew units even if they can hold a second player as long as that second player is optional, not required.
4. Nobody says "it's better because it requires teamwork". No, if anything the teamwork element is one argument among arguments. But I guess you're too busy trying to make arguments irrelevant or condensing it to something you might somewhat remotely understand to realise that there's around 40 arguments in favour of crewed tanks in the context of the game PlanetSide and that this debate has been going on since pre-alpha.

The "teamwork" argument could be used justify anything. For instance, why not make all vehicles bigger than an atv crew manned? That would bring in a lot more of the "always-a-good-thing teamwork", wouldn't it? Why not make it take 2 medics to rez someone? More great "teamwork".

You're once again just being silly, now by making a random unrelated hyperbole. The medic comment isn't an analogue comparison, that's just an arbitrary illogical example of combining two players to perform the same action. Your ridiculing of the argument only makes yours look weaker.

As for "why not make all vehicles bigger than an ATV crew manned?", you may not have noticed... But all other units except the Lightning and ESF DO require more than one player where the driver cannot drive and gun at the same time:

Galaxy
Harasser
Liberator
Sunderer

The ATV however, has a completely different role, while the Lightning and the MBT have the exact same basic role.

You're not seriously saying you're incapable of seeing this difference? :/ Please tell me you do actually know this?

My point here is that I don't mind giving people options to play but I am totally against forcing people to play certain ways for no other reason than "it would require teamwork".

Then you've never wanted to listen to any argument made, because nobody ever said that. Why make such an awful strawman?

What people have said is that if you give a single unit more power than other units, that this should be trade-off somehow. Since we man these units with players, players are a form of resource. Units are therefore represented by X amount of players. We call this the manpower that an unit represents. Hence it is imperative that you balance more powerful units in terms of manpower requirements, so that other units with other manpower requirements remain competitive.

The goal after all, is that players are competitive. Thus units should be competitive.

You want the option to play with 2man tanks, fine ask for the option, if 2manning is so superior you shouldn't need buffs to do it. but forcing people to play your way or to go take a hike doesn't make you a better player in any way, shape or form. It just makes you look like an arrogant SOB .

No, it makes you an arrogant SOB because you demand the endurance of two players, alone. Don't act as if only firepower is relevant in unit balance. Hitpoints are as well. (Hitpoints + firepower) per player should be fair between units, otherwise you ruin inter-unit balance.


Forcing people to play in teamwork doesn't exist.




With a crewed MBT (AND WITHOUT THE SOLO MBT, BUT THE LIGHTNING INSTEAD) the game provides the option for people to play as a team using a teamwork vehicle in order to gain access to more firepower and/or endurance, or to use the Lightning or other solo units instead. Nobody is stripping you from the option to play the game solo, you just should never be allowed to play with the heaviest of vehicles in game solo because that's not balanced in relation to that other unit peforming the same role. They should never have allowed solo-mbts for this reason alone or they should never have made the weapons on it this deadly, as it leaves no room for teamwork units that get a bonus as trade-off for using less units.


You're just too self-absorbed to see that. Perhaps you rely too much on the crutch that the solo-mbt is?


You say you're not against an option for players to work together, but you really are because you want to have the same power as they do. As long as you want that, you're being nothing more than an immature child who doesn't want to share. Why the hell are you playing a MMO if you can't accept the idea of having to work together to use everything at your disposal?



Why are you being such a hypocrite that you aren't whining that you can't use the Galaxy's alternate guns as driver? Why aren't you whining that the Sunderer doesn't have a cannon on top for the driver? Why are you being such a damn hypocrite?



I can't respect your attitude whatsoever. Stop acting as a spoiled brat and I might respect you. And yeah, I don't care if this hurts your ego. Your ego is the problem after all.

[Baneblade]

I would rather MBTs were removed entirely from the game than to remain as they are.

We don't need two Lightnings nor do we need more tanks.

[RykerStruvian]

Only it isn't.
Actually, it is. We've been complaining about this since the beta (sound familiar?) and Smed has been pretty much against any form of dedicated gunners. They won't allow it to be certable, they won't allow it to be part of the game options, nothing. They opted out of a dedicated gunner for the 'more fun' BF style tanks, which is totally just...BAD.

You pretty much neuter the capabilities of tanks and tank combat by doing this. Try forfeiting 'fun' for something with actual substance, not just backing forward and backward like just about EVERYONE.

[TheSaltySeagull]

...

Are you that unimaginative? Are you even listening to what we've said on the benefits?

They would be more dynamic, there'd be more dogfighting, they'd perform better, they could have more individual power, tank zergs would be smaller, thus they would have more room for maneuvring and evading instead of constantly being blocked by other vehicles (I've seen tons of traffic jams when the front stops to fire) and they'd be more fun for the opposition as well (maybe this is hard for you, but tank drivers aren't the only players who need to have fun!). Other units would face less firepower against them so the overal length of life would increase, which means less respawning and more time to have fun. The individual gunners would feel more important, the drivers would be more aware of threats. Overall the gameplay improves FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED.



What good does that do? It doesn't address balance issues, that just creates more of the same balance issues or new ones...



You're just trying to be a troll now, right? Because you're not making sense at all and you're putting words in people's mouth.

1. There currently is no teamwork tank. There is a solo-tank with the option of a gunner.
2. Nobody's ability is being hampered. The abilities of individual players are in fact enhanced by being more focused and you would be rewarded by having a better unit than if you would play an unit alone.
3. Using such an unit would be a choice between alternatives. Currently, there are no alternatives as there are only single player units. MBTs do not count as multicrew units even if they can hold a second player as long as that second player is optional, not required.
4. Nobody says "it's better because it requires teamwork". No, if anything the teamwork element is one argument among arguments. But I guess you're too busy trying to make arguments irrelevant or condensing it to something you might somewhat remotely understand to realise that there's around 40 arguments in favour of crewed tanks in the context of the game PlanetSide and that this debate has been going on since pre-alpha.



You're once again just being silly, now by making a random unrelated hyperbole. The medic comment isn't an analogue comparison, that's just an arbitrary illogical example of combining two players to perform the same action. Your ridiculing of the argument only makes yours look weaker.

As for "why not make all vehicles bigger than an ATV crew manned?", you may not have noticed... But all other units except the Lightning and ESF DO require more than one player where the driver cannot drive and gun at the same time:

Galaxy
Harasser
Liberator
Sunderer

The ATV however, has a completely different role, while the Lightning and the MBT have the exact same basic role.

You're not seriously saying you're incapable of seeing this difference? :/ Please tell me you do actually know this?



Then you've never wanted to listen to any argument made, because nobody ever said that. Why make such an awful strawman?

What people have said is that if you give a single unit more power than other units, that this should be trade-off somehow. Since we man these units with players, players are a form of resource. Units are therefore represented by X amount of players. We call this the manpower that an unit represents. Hence it is imperative that you balance more powerful units in terms of manpower requirements, so that other units with other manpower requirements remain competitive.

The goal after all, is that players are competitive. Thus units should be competitive.



No, it makes you an arrogant SOB because you demand the endurance of two players, alone. Don't act as if only firepower is relevant in unit balance. Hitpoints are as well. (Hitpoints + firepower) per player should be fair between units, otherwise you ruin inter-unit balance.


Forcing people to play in teamwork doesn't exist.




With a crewed MBT (AND WITHOUT THE SOLO MBT, BUT THE LIGHTNING INSTEAD) the game provides the option for people to play as a team using a teamwork vehicle in order to gain access to more firepower and/or endurance, or to use the Lightning or other solo units instead. Nobody is stripping you from the option to play the game solo, you just should never be allowed to play with the heaviest of vehicles in game solo because that's not balanced in relation to that other unit peforming the same role. They should never have allowed solo-mbts for this reason alone or they should never have made the weapons on it this deadly, as it leaves no room for teamwork units that get a bonus as trade-off for using less units.


You're just too self-absorbed to see that. Perhaps you rely too much on the crutch that the solo-mbt is?


You say you're not against an option for players to work together, but you really are because you want to have the same power as they do. As long as you want that, you're being nothing more than an immature child who doesn't want to share. Why the hell are you playing a MMO if you can't accept the idea of having to work together to use everything at your disposal?



Why aren't you being such a hypocrite that you aren't whining that you can't use the Liberator's and Galaxy's alternate guns at once? Why aren't you whining that the Sunderer doesn't have a cannon on top? Why are you being such a damn hypocrite?



I can't respect your attitude whatsoever. Stop acting as a spoiled brat and I might respect you. And yeah, I don't care if this hurts your ego. Your ego is the problem after all.

You need to chill out my man. Your post are starting to become hostile. Simply because a person expresses and opinion that differs with yours does not mean he is a troll or lacking in understanding of the game.

And to be honest your posting like this is more disruptive than anything. Its difficult to have reasonable discussion if you adopt the stance that "I am right and you all are wrong" and then become increasingly hostile to those that disagree with you. And this is not the first time you have done this.

[Shogun]

Actually, it is. We've been complaining about this since the beta (sound familiar?) and Smed has been pretty much against any form of dedicated gunners. They won't allow it to be certable, they won't allow it to be part of the game options, nothing. They opted out of a dedicated gunner for the 'more fun' BF style tanks, which is totally just...BAD.


exactly. but since this is an mmo and developement will not stop, i still have the hopes that even the overlord realises how bad we want this feature!
we know it is fun because we played it in ps1.
i would like to see it as a certable option or even as a radical mbt overhaul to balance to the lightning. but i have only hope to get at least the option to play this way. forcing the tankbattle lovers to play the casual way was the plain wrong decision. this large group of players deserves some love as well.
if the game only caters to casual players, it will eventually fail, because the game needs dedicated longterm players to unfold to its full potential, and those are scared away with all this downdumping.
the casual players stll have their lightnings to do the lonewulf fight.
the devs need to start catering to more different playergroups quickly.
especially to the ps1 veterans. this may not be the biggest group, but they will have positive impact on gameplay for everybody when they start having as much fun as they had with ps1.

[Figment]

You need to chill out my man. Your post are starting to become hostile. Simply because a person expresses and opinion that differs with yours does not mean he is a troll or lacking in understanding of the game.

And to be honest your posting like this is more disruptive than anything. Its difficult to have reasonable discussion if you adopt the stance that "I am right and you all are wrong" and then become increasingly hostile to those that disagree with you. And this is not the first time you have done this.

It's far more difficult to have a reasonable discussion if there's one side that's not even listening to anything you've said and talks to strawmen instead because all they're interested in is maintaining a status quo without room for fact, fairness or other reasoning.



And as far as I'm concerned I AM right, because nobody put up any logical defense, nor disproved any of my posts, instead they sometimes even confirmed it, if they didn't just dismiss it without looking at it. That's the whole problem. They've never even TRIED to disprove anything I've said, in fact, in the past I've been acknowledged to have some good points, but that their personal interests (personal K/D, not being reliant, not wanting to have to use the "inferior solo tank", etc) were THE reasons to not wanting crewed units.


Seagull, when the only reasons they can provide are selfabsorbed nonsense and made up statistics to claim a position of authority (the only person who conducted research on popular opinion is me...) they lose every little bit of respect.

If they call my maths biased without even trying to point out the flaws, they're not worth anyone's time.




These people have no place in the debate for crewed vehicles as long as they're not actually taking part in it in a constructive manner. Of course I get hostile when people take one argument out of the what, fourty presented and pretend that's all there is to it. These people are acting as absolute trolls and don't deserve your defense.



I don't care when someone's personal opinion differs. What I care about is their attitude towards the debate and towards other people in the debate. Considering they're not taking it serious or are just too preoccupied with their personal interests to be interested in actually disassembling my points but instead go for the easy way out and attack me personally, I can't take them serious as debating partners.

Sorry, but I'm going to continue to call them out on their selfishness and spank them for it as long as they're not constructive and that's all they present in defense of the status quo.



And again, I've not berated Canaris for instance, I just said his ideas don't work. The ones I'm hostile to are very specific people that have shown to have no interest in a normal discussion, nor interest in a good cooperative design. Heck, even deliberately undermining such designs AND THE DEBATE out of private interests. I'm not the only one annoyed with their attitude to this debate, look at the trolling that happened on the first two pages. I mean, come on!

[Sledgecrushr]

It would be nice to give us a new variant on the current MBT. But with a new variation I dont think its armor should be any stronger or its guns more powerful. Just the option to have three guys/gals working together as a tight knit tank team. I totally agree that this option should come to fruition and be available for the players that want this.

[Figment]

Yeah Sledge! Kill three as easily as one guy, with 2/3s the firepower and 1/3 the endurance of three people in their own tanks and get way more exp for it! Woo!

If you think that's going to satisfy people, think again. It's just going to show how stupidly OP solo-mbts are. Will you lot stop proposing ideas that have been shown twenty times over to NOT FUNCTION!? For crying out loud, see what I mean by ignoring other people? Sledge has been in these discussions for an eon and still doesn't understand what he proposes only buffs solo-MBTs by having less opponents without making any trade-off, while the crewed vehicle BOTH makes a trade-off AND faces more opponents comparitively.



Geez, it's not complicated, but if you don't even TRY to do some basic maths, you can only make extremely bad suggestions! This is what puts me off about a lot of people on these forums: just like on the old development forums, they don't work out any ideas, they don't check if it would work, they don't see if there's problems of other issues arising and they just wave away any fact checking because they still get what they want and they ease their conscience by giving someone else a deliberately underpowered placebo compared to them.


Come on! At least TRY! The basic evaluations I provided already dismissed these things as viable options because you can't balance them without extreme differences, which doesn't work in this game!

Stop suggesting nonsense and non-solutions to the problems! The only solution so far adressing EACH problem is removing seat switching and then installing crewed tanks. It fixes every numerical issue, every balance issues and every gameplay variety provision issue. None of the other non-solutions do that.

[Sledgecrushr]

Wow Figment I agreed with you and still caught hell over it. Imho the creation of a new super tank to satisfy your three man fantasy is a no go in my book. Totally scrapping the current mbt setup is a non starter either. The furthest I will go is forcing a solo player to get out of the mbt to switch to a secondary gun. But thats it. Drivers in ps2 should still have the option to remain there own main gunner.

Personally I always look for a secondary gunner to cover my ass in a mbt. Without a second gunner generally you are esf bait.

To summarize;
Same armor for a three man variant
Same guns for a three man variant
I would include no more seat swapping without first exiting the vehicle

[Shogun]

the sad thing is, that ps1 had this and it worked.
the seat selection method was pure genius!
and the balance of lightning and crewed mbt was working as well.
the ps2 systems are a very big step backwards

[Figment]

Wow Figment I agreed with you and still caught hell over it. Imho the creation of a new super tank to satisfy your three man fantasy is a no go in my book. Totally scrapping the current mbt setup is a non starter either. The furthest I will go is forcing a solo player to get out of the mbt to switch to a secondary gun. But thats it. Drivers in ps2 should still have the option to remain there own main gunner.

Personally I always look for a secondary gunner to cover my ass in a mbt. Without a second gunner generally you are esf bait.

To summarize;
Same armor for a three man variant (= 1/3 armour in comparison to three people in their own tank: WAY too low)
Same guns for a three man variant (= 2/3s the firepower of three people in their own tank: 1/3 the firepower of the driver and 1/3 the firepower of the secondaries in their own tank!)
I would include no more seat swapping without first exiting the vehicle

Sledge, you didn't agree with me. You agreed with Canaris and Rbtr. I don't want what you describe. Look above at the maths I quoted. What you suggest is entirely unfair and I had already dismissed that solution three, four times already with a lot of arguments as being a completely crap bandaid.

What you suggest is unacceptable if the solo option remains, it's a huge nerfed crewed vehicle in comparison to the solo option.

There's no such thing as a three crew super tank in my vision. What I have in mind is more like a Vanguard/Prowler from PS1. What they have in mind is a sort of Mammoth tank from C&C. But to have that PS1 tank, you can't have a soloable MBT of the same frame with the same hitpoints, that being the current PS2 MBT. The current design solution HAS TO GO COMPLETELY. It's the only way to move forward.

[Sledgecrushr]

I would like to see a restriction on seat swapping in MBTs.

[Sledgecrushr]

Sledge, you didn't agree with me, at all. You agreed with Canaris and Rbtr. I don't want what you describe. Look above at the maths I quoted. What you suggest is entirely unfair and I had already dismissed that solution three, four times already with a lot of arguments as being a completely crap bandaid.

I know what you want figment. Ive come half way, will you step over and compromise?

[Figment]

I know what you want figment. Ive come half way, will you step over and compromise?

There is no compromise possible, otherwise I'd proposed it already.

Soloable MBTs cannot exist next to the same frame for a crewed vehicle and the current MBT is far too powerful to have a more powerful tank next to it as an option.

The current MBT has to go 100% crewed, there is no alternative. Soloable options cannot and should never exist for the a unit supposedly balanced for three people.

EDIT: At the same time, you can't really nerf the current soloable MBT either, without having to heavily nerf the Lightning as well. Believe me when I say I've considered all options. :/

[TheSaltySeagull]

There is no compromise possible, otherwise I'd proposed it already.

Soloable MBTs cannot exist next to the same frame for a crewed vehicle and the current MBT is far too powerful to have a more powerful tank next to it as an option.

The current MBT has to go 100% crewed, there is no alternative. Soloable options cannot and should never exist for the a unit supposedly balanced for three people.

EDIT: At the same time, you can't really nerf the current soloable MBT either, without having to heavily nerf the Lightning as well. Believe me when I say I've considered all options. :/

I don't really agree with MBTs being too powerful to have another more powerful counterpart. If anything the current MBTs are a joke and moving EXP balloons. We are not talking about the old tank zergs from when the game first launched that had the pre-nerf HE rounds and could steamroll across a cont. The current tanks have to turn tail and run from any mass of infantry due to the abundance of lock-on launchers and the new ESAV. They are still vulnerable to airstrikes from ESF and libs. And now MAX units have viable AV weapons(well at least the NC and TR do). Even with the armor buff they are still rather weak in general in my opinion.

I am not saying adding a new "heavy tank" is the correct option to take but it IS an option worth considering in more depth. A new tank would not have to be exactly twice as strong as the current tanks and even if it was that might be doable given how shitty the current tanks are.

[Shogun]

but figments only solution is also the most simple one. introducing another even bigger tank and balancing it is a much bigger task then keeping the current vehicles and rebalance them for a forced dedicated mbt setup.

[TheSaltySeagull]

but figments only solution is also the most simple one. introducing another even bigger tank and balancing it is a much bigger task then keeping the current vehicles and rebalance them for a forced dedicated mbt setup.

Actually the most simple "solution" is to do exactly what the devs have done...nothing. Just leave the tanks as is and introduce new crewed vehicles like the buggies etc that they already had lined up and be like "these are the crewed vehicles for people who want them and the tanks are solo vehicles" and just leave it at that. I am not saying its the best option but it is the easiest option for the devs and the one they appear to be taking.

[leifnielsen]

Yup, it's math and totally not personal preference.

Your subjective math supports your subjective possition that two-man tanks are better.

One man tanks = more tanks = more fun. Did the math, my side came out on top. Sorry to be arrogant.

One man tanks = more tanks = more money.

Your equation was wrong. I fixed it for you.

The people that want one man tanks CAN have one man tanks. They will just be less powerful. (Lightning)

MBT's will be EVEN MORE powerful with dedicated drivers/gunners due to increased situational awareness.

"More fun" is relative. So give both sides what they want and have one tank that is solo and one tank that requires 2 people.

[Whiteagle]

im for both crewed mbts and crewed heavy tanks. im presenting two options instead of saying "this is the only way and it must be done like this". when you give a number of ideas you have higher chance of one of them implemented.
Except allowing Driver to control the Main Cannon on MBTs IS the problem!
You can't just band-aid AROUND that problem, you have to address it directly.

As for "why not make all vehicles bigger than an ATV crew manned?", you may not have noticed... But all other units except the Lightning and ESF DO require more than one player where the driver cannot drive and gun at the same time:

Galaxy
Harasser
Liberator
Sunderer

The ATV however, has a completely different role, while the Lightning and the MBT have the exact same basic role.

You're not seriously saying you're incapable of seeing this difference? :/ Please tell me you do actually know this?

What people have said is that if you give a single unit more power than other units, that this should be trade-off somehow. Since we man these units with players, players are a form of resource. Units are therefore represented by X amount of players. We call this the manpower that an unit represents. Hence it is imperative that you balance more powerful units in terms of manpower requirements, so that other units with other manpower requirements remain competitive.

The goal after all, is that players are competitive. Thus units should be competitive.

With a crewed MBT (AND WITHOUT THE SOLO MBT, BUT THE LIGHTNING INSTEAD) the game provides the option for people to play as a team using a teamwork vehicle in order to gain access to more firepower and/or endurance, or to use the Lightning or other solo units instead. Nobody is stripping you from the option to play the game solo, you just should never be allowed to play with the heaviest of vehicles in game solo because that's not balanced in relation to that other unit peforming the same role. They should never have allowed solo-mbts for this reason alone or they should never have made the weapons on it this deadly, as it leaves no room for teamwork units that get a bonus as trade-off for using less units.
Indeed, this wouldn't be so bad if a Solo MBT had to sacrifice either Firepower or Mobility so that its at best as good as a Lightning, but a Driver controlled Main Cannon makes the MBT a straight upgrade.

This is also where me and Figment differ on our opinions; he outright doesn't want seat switching where as I would rather re-balance power amongst a Vehicles Operating Seats to make them ALL equally important.

That's actually where I'm compromising with you guys, you could still solo with Main Gunner Seat and Driver Seat with Secondary Weapon Split, but at best you're going to be as effective as a Lightning and just as inferior to fully manned MBT because you can't do BOTH at once.

You say you're not against an option for players to work together, but you really are because you want to have the same power as they do. As long as you want that, you're being nothing more than an immature child who doesn't want to share. Why the hell are you playing a MMO if you can't accept the idea of having to work together to use everything at your disposal?
Exactly, that's why these other options DO NOT WORK!
They do not address the imbalance created by the current Solo-MBTs.
Having an OPTION for a crew just increase the Manpower requirements for no real benefits, while a new Crew-necessary Tank is just going to make the Lightning THAT much more redundant.

Why are you being such a hypocrite that you aren't whining that you can't use the Galaxy's alternate guns as driver? Why aren't you whining that the Sunderer doesn't have a cannon on top for the driver? Why are you being such a damn hypocrite?
Yeah, what makes MBTs so damn Special?
I'll drive a Sunderer or fly a Liberator and Galaxy, but that doesn't entitle me to a powerful Main Gun!
Those need GUNNERS to be effective combat vehicles, not as an optional supplements to reinforce their one-man army.

I would rather MBTs were removed entirely from the game than to remain as they are.

We don't need two Lightnings nor do we need more tanks.
Indeed...

Actually, it is. We've been complaining about this since the beta (sound familiar?) and Smed has been pretty much against any form of dedicated gunners. They won't allow it to be certable, they won't allow it to be part of the game options, nothing. They opted out of a dedicated gunner for the 'more fun' BF style tanks, which is totally just...BAD.
Clearly there is but one true option...
MALORN, DELIVER US THE HEAD OF SMED!!!

exactly. but since this is an mmo and developement will not stop, i still have the hopes that even the overlord realises how bad we want this feature!
we know it is fun because we played it in ps1.
i would like to see it as a certable option or even as a radical mbt overhaul to balance to the lightning. but i have only hope to get at least the option to play this way. forcing the tankbattle lovers to play the casual way was the plain wrong decision. this large group of players deserves some love as well.
if the game only caters to casual players, it will eventually fail, because the game needs dedicated longterm players to unfold to its full potential, and those are scared away with all this downdumping.
the casual players stll have their lightnings to do the lonewulf fight.
the devs need to start catering to more different playergroups quickly.
especially to the ps1 veterans. this may not be the biggest group, but they will have positive impact on gameplay for everybody when they start having as much fun as they had with ps1.
Well that the thing, the MBTs NEED a Complete Overhaul, simply giving us an option for crews isn't going to cut it because the Solo-Drivergunner MBTs will still have the advantage!

As Figment has pointed out time and time again:
Yeah Sledge! Kill three as easily as one guy, with 2/3s the firepower and 1/3 the endurance of three people in their own tanks and get way more exp for it! Woo!

If you think that's going to satisfy people, think again. It's just going to show how stupidly OP solo-mbts are. Will you lot stop proposing ideas that have been shown twenty times over to NOT FUNCTION!? For crying out loud, see what I mean by ignoring other people? Sledge has been in these discussions for an eon and still doesn't understand what he proposes only buffs solo-MBTs by having less opponents without making any trade-off, while the crewed vehicle BOTH makes a trade-off AND faces more opponents comparitively.
...That just does not work...

Totally scrapping the current mbt setup is a non starter either. The furthest I will go is forcing a solo player to get out of the mbt to switch to a secondary gun. But thats it. Drivers in ps2 should still have the option to remain there own main gunner.
...Why?

Why is radically altering the game NOW, less then six months after launch, so unreasonable?
They are already doing this with the Map, Resources... Hell almost all the issues we pointed out in Beta are now being addressed!

Why should the MBTs driver be the Main Gunner when there are now a handful of Vehicles where this isn't the case?
There are only TWO Vehicles in the game that are Single Seaters, the only ones that have an excuse for all their firepower to be linked to one person because they are BALANCED around this fact.

There's no such thing as a three crew super tank in my vision. What I have in mind is more like a Vanguard/Prowler from PS1. What they have in mind is a sort of Mammoth tank from C&C. But to have that PS1 tank, you can't have a soloable MBT of the same frame with the same hitpoints, that being the current PS2 MBT. The current design solution HAS TO GO COMPLETELY. It's the only way to move forward.
Agreed...

...Though my on thoughts on the matter of larger Ground Combat Vehicles are that they aren't suppose to serve as Tank as much as Mobile Fire Bases, hopefully as a prelude to what we will see with Air Carriers and Naval Vessels.

but figments only solution is also the most simple one. introducing another even bigger tank and balancing it is a much bigger task then keeping the current vehicles and rebalance them for a forced dedicated mbt setup.
Actually the most simple "solution" is to do exactly what the devs have done...nothing. Just leave the tanks as is and introduce new crewed vehicles like the buggies etc that they already had lined up and be like "these are the crewed vehicles for people who want them and the tanks are solo vehicles" and just leave it at that. I am not saying its the best option but it is the easiest option for the devs and the one they appear to be taking.
...Yeah, and Suicide is Painless...

[moosepoop]

Except allowing Driver to control the Main Cannon on MBTs IS the problem!
You can't just band-aid AROUND that problem, you have to address it directly.



of course you can. just nerf it.

[Canaris]

Fig buddy I'm really trying hard to understand this and not to be facetious but I just keep seeing the flaws and holes. This isn't just a sum. An MMOFPS is a far bigger beast than just it's maths but I'll try my best to work with that frame (ain't my strong suit) ;)


(Dis)advantages of ONE unit with TWO gunners and dedicated driver over the same, ONE unit with ONE gunner

PER UNIT (dedicated driver, two gunners vs driver=gunner, one unit
Situational awareness per unit: Tripled and a little (gunner not needing to watch road, three sets of eyes)
Variety of potential perspectives per unit: Equal
Number of potential units: Equal
Enemy firepower dispersion: Equal
Hitpoints per unit: Equal
Firepower per unit: Doubled
AA options available: Equal (no need to switch)
Resource cost per unit: Equal
Maneuvrability per unit: Increase in efficiency
Tactical options per unit: Equal
Expected lifespan per unit: Slight increase
Execution of available tactical options: Slight increase in efficiency

This right here is why I call your maths into questions.

3 man MBT vs current 2 man

You say this (and maybe I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here so forgive if I do)

Note that compared to two players, for three players only maneuvring and situational awareness increase. Firepower does not. If it was a dedicated driver with just one gunner, firepower would equal per unit, but HALF per player.
Firepower does not increase, yet then you write

Firepower per unit: Doubled which is it doubled or not and just by knowing how it worked in PS1 I know for a fact that the three man is better 1vs1 only when all three members of the crew are working harmony, which most of the time they DON'T I played TR in PS1, we had to put up with it every darned day.

Tactical options per unit: Equal < This is just straight up incorrect in my eyes. How can you equate tactical options into a maths sum. That's not what tactics is, off the bat I can see plenty of better tactical advantages of the three man vs two man.

BUT and it's a big but hehe :)

Only again when that three man crew work together in harmony. They can be better than the 2 man crewed tank in all ways. So you say it's not balanced well that's true. if the crew is humming they have the advantage.

I belive your maths is flawed, as you don't take into account wht WHOLE picture.

You claim it's your way or the highway, well if that's the case I'll take the highway.

[Figment]

Fig buddy I'm really trying hard to understand this and not to be facetious but I just keep seeing the flaws and holes. This isn't just a sum. An MMOFPS is a far bigger beast than just it's maths but I'll try my best to work with that frame (ain't my strong suit) ;)




This right here is why I call your maths into questions.

3 man MBT vs current 2 man

You say this (and maybe I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here so forgive if I do)


Firepower does not increase, yet then you write

which is it doubled or not and just by knowing how it worked in PS1 I know for a fact that the three man is better 1vs1 only when all three members of the crew are working harmony, which most of the time they DON'T I played TR in PS1, we had to put up with it every darned day.

< This is just straight up incorrect in my eyes. How can you equate tactical options into a maths sum. That's not what tactics is, off the bat I can see plenty of better tactical advantages of the three man vs two man.

BUT and it's a big but hehe :)

Only again when that three man crew work together in harmony. They can be better than the 2 man crewed tank in all ways. So you say it's not balanced well that's true. if the crew is humming they have the advantage.

I belive your maths is flawed, as you don't take into account wht WHOLE picture.

You claim it's your way or the highway, well if that's the case I'll take the highway.

It is doubled compared to a solo mbt manned by a single player. It is a unit vs unit comparison.

The problem lies in the comparison with the alternative when equal manpower is considered. In which case the solo tank has a gun per player (so three for three players, plus three secondaries as option). The single three crew unit only has two guns for three players. So then it is 1/1 vs 2/3 (doubled on an unit basis) and 3/3 vs 2/3 (reduced on a per player basis).

The problem is most pro-solo mbt players never understand manpower requirements.

Tactics between a solo-mbt and a single unit do not differ. Tactics between a single unit compared to multiple units with same manpower (so two or three) allows for more tactical choices for the multiple units (tag team, pincer, etc).

[Canaris]

a unit vs unit comparison is fine when your trying to balance types of a similar nature in for want of a better word a duel but then don't you have to take a look at the bigger picture and include/consider other types of battlefield units.

This isn't just a tank game like WoT, it's a combined arms game that also includes infantry, air and support vehicles.

while also trying to cater for people of various playstyles within that.

A perfect example is me & you, I like the current style while clearly you prefer the classic style of PS1, it really is a balancing act of pretty big proportions and serious consquences.

Take for example Star Wars Galaxies, the CU & NGE. Look at what a major overhaul of the combat systems did to that game, it alienated those people who prefered the game as was to try and cater for a differnt play style and the game population went down faster than cheap hooker, this is a smaller version of the same problem. How do you avoid alienating and frankly pissing off those who play one way.

Remember this is a buisness for SOE and a passion for us.
That's why I want to see the dual system implented so as not to favour one side over the other. As in the end of the day it would hurt SOE and PS2. I felt and saw that happening in SWG and I can see it here again.

[Figment]

a unit vs unit comparison is fine when your trying to balance types of a similar nature in for want of a better word a duel but then don't you have to take a look at the bigger picture and include/consider other types of battlefield units.

This isn't just a tank game like WoT, it's a combined arms game that also includes infantry, air and support vehicles.

Of course it does mean that! But the use of three players should be pretty even alternatives among themselves. See, most this comparison is about how effective the three players are. Teamwork is not incentized when the soloable option results in a higher efficiency. On an unit per unit basis, the three crew is pretty much the best option, BUT, and this is the kicker, when the players instead split up, they get 6 guns (of which they can use three) for the price of equal manpower and on top of that they get more tactical options and three times the endurance and enemy fire is dispersed over three targets instead of concentrated on one (!!!).

So if you start looking at the other things in the context of the game, it just gets worse. A single unit in the plans of most of the silly people in this thread that want to retain solo players, would die equally fast as a solo tank to other threats. That means you get to remove three players OR one at the same TTK and ammo cost as an AV player. That's ridiculous.


You can't just say "you have to look at the other context" as if that is a solution, no, you have to show how the context interacts with it. And what disturbs me with you lot you always use it to wave away any qualms, BUT THEN DON'T EXPLAIN HOW THOSE OTHER UNITS AND SITUATIONS SOLVE THESE UNFAIRNESS ISSUES.


If you look at the impact of air for instance: a single crew tank has the potential of one AA gun which it can switch to in defense. A three crew tank also has the potential of one AA gun which it can use in defense. Three solo tanks have the potential of THREE AA guns which it can switch to in defense!

If you consider infantry, then the three crew unit has only two guns in defense, while three units - also three crew - have six guns in defense of which it uses three at a time. Situational awareness increases with three separate units as well compared to the single unit and it even means they can equip themselves differently: one can have scout radar, another can have smoke screen, etc.



It's very nice that you say "this isn't WoT", but you can't leave it there. That alone isn't an argument. In fact, it makes everything worse for the crewed tank without any compensation! So please, realise that I'm actually the only person making that context comparison! You can say all you want about "this is a combined arms game", but when this context is shown to make it worse (which I have many times over...), you can't just repeat that and once more say "but this is a combined arms game"! That's not an argument if you don't show what effects it would have!


The reason you seem to say it is because you don't really want to think about the consequences, you just hope that somehow this dismisses any argument. Look Canaris, my argumentation is far more complete and far broader than what you or anyone else has ever presented. You're not going to convince me by simply waving away any issues without actually saying why you could do that. Your argument is completely empty right now. :/ It's not that I don't want to listen to you, but when you say nothing, there's nothing to listen to!

while also trying to cater for people of various playstyles within that.

There is no reason to cater to solo players in a MBT. The game as a whole caters to different playstyles by providing other units like the Lightning. This isn't an argument.

There is no reason to have the Galaxy cater to solo players, so why should there be a reason to have the MBT cater to solo players?

A perfect example is me & you, I like the current style while clearly you prefer the classic style of PS1, it really is a balancing act of pretty big proportions and serious consquences.

This isn't about style, this is about gameplay impact. Too much of something can be very bad for the game. It's like having unlimited super-units in Command & Conquer, it would be disastrous for the game! That's why they limit it to ONE per side per map. The MBT is too powerful to be used in huge numbers for the context of PlanetSide 2, where player group differ in size a lot.

You keep speaking of context, but then you NEVER refer to context and you even keep ignoring the context!

Take for example Star Wars Galaxies, the CU & NGE. Look at what a major overhaul of the combat systems did to that game, it alienated those people who prefered the game as was to try and cater for a differnt play style and the game population went down faster than cheap hooker, this is a smaller version of the same problem. How do you avoid alienating and frankly pissing off those who play one way.

I asked in my survey. 95% of the player said they'd continue playing if this change was made. Over 67% even prefered it. And again, that includes the CoD and BF3 players.

The same thing was said regarding the Galaxy AMS vs ground AMS. When players realise it's a good thing for gameplay, they'll keep going.

In this case, it's likely (in fact it is fact) that the current tank balance situation chases off a lot of infantry oriented players due to the sheer amount of spammed HE. Why don't you think of that?

Your argument is akin to having BFRs removed from PS1 and then argueing this MIGHT have decreased the population. Yet we can be pretty sure that people would continue to use the most powerful tank in game, especially if it comes with a little endurance buff, especially if it means infantry face less one hit kill threats.

This is not comparable to the NGE and is a relatively minor change that doesn't affect most players in their core gameplay, especially considering the alternative with the same playstyle (Lightning) remains in game. Very weak argument to be honest.

Remember this is a buisness for SOE and a passion for us.
That's why I want to see the dual system implented so as not to favour one side over. As in the end of the day it would hurt SOE and PS2. I felt and saw that happening in SWG and I can see it here again.

You are favouring one side over the other. You would provide TWO solo tanks and one crewed tank that is significantly weaker than both solo tanks on a per player basis. You would not provide anything of value and you would continue chasing off infantry players en mass by doing nothing to adress heavy vehicle spam.


Sorry Canaris, but your argumentation is exceptionally weak and primarily aimed at catering to solo players that want to abuse heavy equipment. Those are the least interesting demographic of any FPS game and should be the first to ignore.

This has nothing to do with making sure both sides have their playstyle. It's about you preserving the status quo problems on purpose because some whiny children would run to their mommy screaming and stamping the ground throwing a tantrum if their OP toy was still given to them, but with the added condition they share it with friends.

Sorry, those whiny spoiled brats should be spanked, not rewarded.

[Canaris]

well I can see you just don't get my point but that's fair enough, I tried to understand yours and meet it half way but the heels are dug in deep it seems.

Sorry, those whiny spoiled brats should be spanked, not rewarded.

I'm sorry but if that's your opinion on this then it's kinda bullish and asinine. All we can do from this point on in the subject is argue over the same points and I refuse to get into a heated roundabout debate on this subject that's already clearly closed on your side. I've to much respect for your many contributions to the betterment of various other aspects of the game, I just don't feel this is one.

I've said my piece and am done, you by all means continue, it just won't involve me.

[Figment]

well I can see you just don't get my point but that's fair enough, I tried to understand yours and meet it half way but the heels are dug in deep it seems.

You tried to understand it and then didn't.

You got "per unit" and "per player" balance mixed up and that's the only "flaw" you could find. Worse, you tried to dismiss the entire argument based on that one perceived flaw, even though it wasn't a flaw, but an error of interpretation on your part. Come on. You're not being fair here at all.

You mentioned "there's this thing called context" but then you never actually tried to use it to make a point, you just used it to dismiss off hand without explaining why this is relevant in that specific manner.


The heels are indeed dug in deep, very deep, because I've explored many, many, many, MANY options. Many more than you and evaluated them in a lot greater detail than you have. You can't convince me without doing a similar in depth analysis and your superficial remarks and speculation on what players would do without any sort of evidence to back it up, while my evidence suggests otherwise since I did perform an enquiry.

Then no, I can't give credence to it. You're very much set yourself on this idea that the game isn't allowed to change systems.

Which is funny, since I recall me saying in alpha THAT was the moment we had to change it, while people were going "wait for beta" and then "wait for release".

Fuck that. I've had it with people that just stall so they get what they want at the expense of others (like Wasdie) and gentle healers (like you) that simply leave or make stinking wounds.




There's no roundhouse debate, because there's simply no debate. There's only one side argueing, the other side is avoiding debate or trying to satisfy people with a half arsed fix that doesn't actually fix the issues in order to maintain the status quo.

You can't meet me half way if you address not a single one of my concerns. The point is not to simply get a playstyle in, the point is to fix a lot of problems in the game that stem from solo-mbts existing!


You don't seem to understand the problems (many) I have with solo MBTs is far, FAR more fundamental and deeper than what you're trying to solve with your solution!





Your solution doesn't fix:

- HE spam (numerical reduction of tanks needed)
- Tank endurance spam (numerical reduction of tanks needed to reduce overall endurance, especially if stronger tanks are added)
- Leverage for small groups (numerical reduction of tanks needed)
- Increased viability of Lightning (no other tanks as or more viable solo)
- Incentizing teamplay and socialising (your crewed solution is a worse option than splitting up)
- Improving tank gameplay elements (better driving in terms of maneuvring, better use of the main gunner position, for instance by making broadsiding a viable option again and therefore making combat more dynamic)
- Increased situational awareness of tanks (stop driving over friendlies due to being preoccupied with gunning, more aware of environment and threats because there is at least someone who isn't preoccupied with gunning)
- Increased longevity of tanks (soloable tanks can't have more endurance than they have now really)
- Multi-crew balanced units not being abusable solo and/or extra vulnerable when used solo (no instant seat switching possible)
- Fair firepower per player, fair endurance per player (compared to other units, including infantry)



You don't seem to understand you won't ever meet me halfway unless you fix at least half of the issues above. And your solution doesn't fix a single one of the problems. Your solution both retains the problems and makes some worse, so how could you possibly expect me to agree with it on any level?


PS: you do realise the Prowler was designed with speed due to the devs having broadsiding in mind as its primary dogfighting strength? You do realise solo-mbt players cannot perform this well (certainly not in semi-enclosed environments like Indar canyons) and therefore just sit still in front of strafing Magriders? The entire Prowler MBT Empire Specific trade-off concept doesn't work with soloable MBT tanks! It is one of the main reasons the Prowlers had to be buffed!

[Tom Peters]

So I just read that huge... retort... and though I can't tell what specifics were being discussed, it's clear this man hates solo MBTs just as much as I do.

There's tons of mathematical reasons why it makes more sense, but I like to look at it from a different, more simple perspective. By having full control over the movement and aiming of a tank, there's very little challenge in all areas. It's so simple to maneuver your tank to coincide with where you're aiming, even over rough terrain, because you know exactly what movements you will make.

If your buddy is driving, you might have an idea of where the tank's going to move, but you can't be sure. Unexpected turns and bumpy terrain becomes more unpredictable, causing you to miss much more often while in motion.

This is needed because without it, infantry stand almost no chance up close, even if they outplay the solo guy in the tank.

[Deadeye]

What is sounds like to me is that Figment and others want some sort of "Land Liberator", the mechanics of which would require a complete overhaul of the entire land battlefield.

The thing would have to be a monster. Like a vanguard on steroids. The idea would be instead of pulling 10 tanks to advance the front, this thing could do it with 3 to 4 (and would require a good 10 people to do it).

Anything smaller than it (like lightnings because they're 'inferior' because they're not "team players"- nevermind Lightnings have their own virtues) would be annihilated, reduced to just XP boxes for these things; punished for not being taxi drivers for their own hulking behemoths. Don't want to die? Get a Teamspeak Server for you and your closest friends so you can all pwn together.

If we were to compare it to the infantry fight, These things would be Maxes, sunderers would be engineers/Medics and Lightnings would be light assaults and why should a Max care about what the light assaults are doing other than throwing themselves at him to feed him XP?:groovy:

You would steamroll the opposition with just a few of these things but it would somehow be better because you're "using teamwork" to man it and thus all single players are just fodder for your guns until the enemy pulls their behemoths and engage in some kind of epic battle for control of the continent. And Look, less "tank spam" because you have 4 of these crazy things instead of 12 of the current tanks! :rofl:

It would be like something out of a warhammer 40K book where the titans slug it out and everyone else just stands in awe at the spectacle (pick up the iron warriors omnibus, I'm reading it now it's so epic). And to the victor, goes the spoils: All those crunchy XP boxes that don't stand a chance because those lightning drivers are stupid idiots who should learn to team play in an MMO and Sunderers are like juicy crabs, crack them open and you get sweet, sweet meat (aka XP). :domotwak:

The only other way to stop these things would be to throw scores of men and aircraft at them or "learn to team play" and bring your own.

I think that's what these guys want. How do I feel about it? Damn, I dunno. Might be cool to watch that one big battle, but I'll be damned if they wouldn't be annoying to kill (like libs when you forget to be 2-3 skyguards) and that'll be justified "because there's 3 people inside, dude! You gots to make it OP or it's not worth it!":groovy:

yeah.....right....:rolleyes:

[Tom Peters]

What is sounds like to me is that Figment and others want some sort of "Land Liberator", the mechanics of which would require a complete overhaul of the entire land battlefield.

The thing would have to be a monster. Like a vanguard on steroids. The idea would be instead of pulling 10 tanks to advance the front, this thing could do it with 3 to 4 (and would require a good 10 people to do it).

Anything smaller than it (like lightnings because they're 'inferior' because they're not "team players"- nevermind Lightnings have their own virtues) would be annihilated, reduced to just XP boxes for these things; punished for not being taxi drivers for their own hulking behemoths. Don't want to die? Get a Teamspeak Server for you and your closest friends so you can all pwn together.

If we were to compare it to the infantry fight, These things would be Maxes, sunderers would be engineers/Medics and Lightnings would be light assaults and why should a Max care about what the light assaults are doing other than throwing themselves at him to feed him XP?:groovy:

You would steamroll the opposition with just a few of these things but it would somehow be better because you're "using teamwork" to man it and thus all single players are just fodder for your guns until the enemy pulls their behemoths and engage in some kind of epic battle for control of the continent. And Look, less "tank spam" because you have 4 of these crazy things instead of 12 of the current tanks! :rofl:

It would be like something out of a warhammer 40K book where the titans slug it out and everyone else just stands in awe at the spectacle (pick up the iron warriors omnibus, I'm reading it now it's so epic). And to the victor, goes the spoils: All those crunchy XP boxes that don't stand a chance because those lightning drivers are stupid idiots who should learn to team play in an MMO and Sunderers are like juicy crabs, crack them open and you get sweet, sweet meat (aka XP). :domotwak:

The only other way to stop these things would be to throw scores of men and aircraft at them or "learn to team play" and bring your own.

I think that's what these guys want. How do I feel about it? Damn, I dunno. Might be cool to watch that one big battle, but I'll be damned if they wouldn't be annoying to kill (like libs when you forget to be 2-3 skyguards) and that'll be justified "because there's 3 people inside, dude! You gots to make it OP or it's not worth it!":groovy:

yeah.....right....:rolleyes:

Reductio ad absurdum.

[Deadeye]

Reductio ad absurdum.

BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT! The thing has to be better than if everyone pulled a lightning which means the main gun has to blow lightnings to bits and the secondary gun has be decent at providing either AA, extra AV or great AI in order to justify not needing a lightning escort.

It has to be OP for the same reason people want secondaries to be good on current MBTs: why bring 1 tank with multiple bodies when you can bring multiple, slightly weaker tanks?

[NewSith]

What is sounds like to me is that Figment and others want some sort of "Land Liberator", the mechanics of which would require a complete overhaul of the entire land battlefield.

The thing would have to be a monster. Like a vanguard on steroids. The idea would be instead of pulling 10 tanks to advance the front, this thing could do it with 3 to 4 (and would require a good 10 people to do it).

What solo MBT camp wants is the ability to match 4 infantrymen against 2 MBTs instead of 4v4 to increase the value of infantry fights outside the Biolabs.

With Solo MBTs in 1v1 with 2 equal players situation Tank will always win. That just means that there's no point in using infantry to kill tanks, but instead you are forced to pull a tank yourself. Many people don't understand that, but changing the rules of RPS making it so only rock can fight rock makes the game quite unpleasant for scissors and, most definitely, paper.

[Baneblade]

BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT! The thing has to be better than if everyone pulled a lightning which means the main gun has to blow lightnings to bits and the secondary gun has be decent at providing either AA, extra AV or great AI in order to justify not needing a lightning escort.

It has to be OP for the same reason people want secondaries to be good on current MBTs: why bring 1 tank with multiple bodies when you can bring multiple, slightly weaker tanks?

Nobody said anything about increasing the damage of MBT mains guns or secondary guns. So whatever drugs you are taking, share em.

[Figment]

Told you he wasn't reading nor understanding anything we've said and making absurd strawmen. :/



And then people wonder why I get upset when people do that. Go figure. Deadeye, I really want to yell some degrading things at you right now cause I'm really angry with you. And I mean, really, really angry for distorting any and all suggestions into some sort of worse monstrosity than a BFR! FFS, learn to read!


Btw, I've set up the beginnings for a new survey. Anyone who wants to ensure questions to be fair should visit this thread:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=918675#post918675

If you don't make use of this as opposition, I will presume you're okay with them. As far as I'm concerned, the intention is to represent all sides, but primarily find out if people want changes, or if they're okay with it.

[Root Hade]

Wut. I thought the Liberator was always/already a case for this.

Its just as relevant, not like the Harasser handles remotely close to a tank. If solo driving is boring then give them the secondary turret, its not like waiting around in the gunner seat without a target would be more boring that actually doing the driving.

Also lol @ "super heavy tanks". Just change MBT to mean Medium Battle Tanks. Lightning would be Light. Just makes more sense.

[Deadeye]

Told you he wasn't reading nor understanding anything we've said and making absurd strawmen. :/



And then people wonder why I get upset when people do that. Go figure. Deadeye, I really want to yell some degrading things at you right now cause I'm really angry with you. And I mean, really, really angry for distorting any and all suggestions into some sort of worse monstrosity than a BFR! FFS, learn to read!


Btw, I've set up the beginnings for a new survey. Anyone who wants to ensure questions to be fair should visit this thread:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=918675#post918675

If you don't make use of this as opposition, I will presume you're okay with them. As far as I'm concerned, the intention is to represent all sides, but primarily find out if people want changes, or if they're okay with it.

Learn to read what, Figment? I went back and reread the entire thread and the only real argument I've seen is all that math you did on page 8. Well even that says that a crewed tank has to be exponentially better than a solo tank but your math had a fundemental flaw. You compared a solo tank vs a crewed tank of the same class.

If they were to remove the ability to solo an MBT, the competition for drivers would be between Lightnings and MBTs, not Solo MBT vs crew MBT (though you can and did present that hypothetical). In that situation, the new tank would have to be at a bare minimum worth 2 times as much on the battlefield as a lightning (in terms of killing power and survivability rather than resources) to justify pulling it (dedicated driver + 1 gunner ). And that's using just one main gun, the killing power could then go up again depending on whether you equip a secondary gun and what kind it is (AA, AV, AI).

That secondary gun adds a problem. If there's seat swapping or the gun is tied to the driver, it can and should have less power to avoid too much power creep. If there is no seat swapping or the driver doesn't get the gun (as some have suggested) then the loss of that third lightning needs to be compensated for and we end up with a mechanized monster.

So what do you exactly want? There's really only two ways you can have your multi-crew tank.

1) Make the current tanks require a driver and just be done with it. Maybe give him the secondary gun so he can do a bit more than be taxi driver for someone else's fun.

2) Get all complicated and try to justify losing an extra tank that guy could be driving by buffing the tank and making it multi-crew. If you put in a third seat, it has to be even more powerful. The thing then becomes an armored monster that terrorizes all the plebeians who don't pull one for themselves.

So pick your poison Figment or spell out your design for a game with multi-crew tanks.

The problem I think you and most people who are pushing for the crew-manned tanks is that you think they'll be just like the planetside 1 tanks were. They won't be, because Planetside 1 was completely unrealistic with regards to armored vehicles.

In PS1 tanks weren't slow, they were pretty fast and maneuverable. Terrain was much more open than here (especially with regards to the canyons of Indar and the mountains on Amerish). And most importantly, they didn't have armor facings so you could drive-by shoot all day until you finally got hit enough to run away and their armor was pretty thick to boot.

That worked in planetside 1 back in 2003 but its not going to work today, the times have changed. The technology has changed. Gameplay mechanics have changed. The playerbase has changed. Whether you agree with those changes or not, they have changed. You can't just shoehorn in something like this is tell people to buzz off if they don't like it. You have to come up with a reason people should want to drive rather than wait around for a driver or pull another vehicle. Either they have to be forced to pull it (by say their outfit leader wanting bigger tanks than lightnings) or it has to be powerful enough to get them, while driving, lots of driver XP points because their gunner is able to kill lots of people (something Lib pilots could probably tell you about).

The topic was about the harasser and this goes back to that vehicle. It's a fun vehicle to drive. Hell, I personally have a blast driving it despite having no gun for myself. There's something about small, fast vehicles I love driving (hellcat being my favorite vehicle in World of Tanks despite its lack of armor) but there's a huge difference between driving a small fast dune buggy and a huge, lumbering tank. The tanks in PS2, being a bit more realistic than in 1 can't do what they did back in PS1.

So what incentive is there to go along with this idea? We get to drive mechanized monsters? As much as I'd like to see walkers (which could be the platform you're looking for) they'd have to be virtual gundams to justify pulling them out based on just the math.

P.S.

I'd wish people would stop putting down the lightning. It's a good tank. It could use a more terrain friendly design because it tends to get stuck in ditches but otherwise it's a good tank. In world of tanks, people drive medium tanks for good reason: while they have less firepower, they are much faster, more maneuverable and in the right hands can run rings around heavy tanks (i've done it myself in this very game). While some of you may not see the worth of the lightning, it is a good vehicle and the MBT is NOT just a bigger Lightning.

[Figment]

Deadeye, you are a horrendous reader you know that?


And you do realise that I do not make that fundemental flaw, but people that just want "an option" do so?

No no no no no you're too busy putting words in my mouth.



And for the record, the tanks in PS2 can reach up to 55kph and there's ample maneuvring space on Amerish, Indar and especially Esamir to play them just like in PS1. 55kph is almost just as fast as your Hellcat FFS (72)! It's as fast as many of the medium tanks in WoT and more than sufficient for dogfighting!

And ffs man, if you honestly read everything, you would have come across the definition of a properly designed tank a long time ago!:

- Stronger than the current MBT in terms of hitpoints (1.5x to 2x, but compensated by having 2x to 3x less tanks by default and a third less guns)
- Two or three crew (gunner switching between weapons or two gunners)
- No gun controls for driver (at most forward mounted light anti infantry gun)
- No internal seat switching

So sod off with your "this is what you want" monstrosity of doom! You have no @#&^$*#$ clue what you're talking about.



PS: And no, this topic is NOT about the harasser. Again with your reading problems...

PS2: Unlike PS1, we don't have natural numbers limitations currently (manpower and certs) which means the tank population is way out of whack.

[Baneblade]

Why do the detractors keep making it sound like less tanks are a bad thing?

I get so annoyed with the amount of tanks, sometimes I kill friendly tanks just to get them off the field.

[moosepoop]

Why do the detractors keep making it sound like less tanks are a bad thing?

I get so annoyed with the amount of tanks, sometimes I kill friendly tanks just to get them off the field.

most detractors sound like they dont really care, while supporters for dedicated drivers are immensely passionate.

the detractors are arguing because of selfish desires for op solo vehicle, the supporters argue out of genuine love for the game and desire to improve the game.


endless action leads to boredom. in any MMO, its the teamwork and comradery and friendship that keeps players staying for a long time. more team work is better.

[Deadeye]

Why do the detractors keep making it sound like less tanks are a bad thing?

I get so annoyed with the amount of tanks, sometimes I kill friendly tanks just to get them off the field.

the problem isn't simply Less tanks = better game. The problem is do those fewer tanks make up for having less tanks or is it ok to just nerf all the tanks? And what keeps people from picking the alternatives to that tank unless that tank is OP enough to make it a no brainer to pull? And if the thing is OP enough, why would there be fewer ones? Maybe more people will pull the now more powerful tanks.

The problem is, the crewed manned MBT would need to be buffed, even figment thinks it should get up to 2X health. But what would that do to those who don't have a ready to go gunner or a squad with them to attack something with that much health? Are they SOL? What about lightnings and other vehicles? Do they just become food for MBTs even more so than they already are?

If the alternatives are a tank that'll be even harder to kill than currently (where they got a pretty good buff) or keep things like this, I'd rather not have to deal with the mechanized monster.

[moosepoop]

the problem isn't simply Less tanks = better game.

less tanks = PLAYABLE game

the situation now is on full pop locked continents. we cant have proper fights because people insist on spamming vehicles, and the other half insist on avoiding them and ghost capping. the alerts on prime time make it even worse.


when lattice comes and players are forced to finally confront each other in major battles we will see the full power of tank spam.

introducing dedicated driver can decrease tank population by 50%.

[Whiteagle]

There is no reason to cater to solo players in a MBT. The game as a whole caters to different playstyles by providing other units like the Lightning. This isn't an argument.

There is no reason to have the Galaxy cater to solo players, so why should there be a reason to have the MBT cater to solo players?
Indeed, I ask you in the Solo-MBT camp once again, WHAT IS THE LIGHTNING FOR?!?!

Your solution doesn't fix:

- HE spam (numerical reduction of tanks needed)
- Tank endurance spam (numerical reduction of tanks needed to reduce overall endurance, especially if stronger tanks are added)
- Leverage for small groups (numerical reduction of tanks needed)
- Increased viability of Lightning (no other tanks as or more viable solo)
- Incentizing teamplay and socialising (your crewed solution is a worse option than splitting up)
- Improving tank gameplay elements (better driving in terms of maneuvring, better use of the main gunner position, for instance by making broadsiding a viable option again and therefore making combat more dynamic)
- Increased situational awareness of tanks (stop driving over friendlies due to being preoccupied with gunning, more aware of environment and threats because there is at least someone who isn't preoccupied with gunning)
- Increased longevity of tanks (soloable tanks can't have more endurance than they have now really)
- Multi-crew balanced units not being abusable solo and/or extra vulnerable when used solo (no instant seat switching possible)
- Fair firepower per player, fair endurance per player (compared to other units, including infantry)

The underlined is the only issue I contest, if only to appease those selfish brats that whine, "BUT I WANNA DO IT!"
I'm perfectly fine with letting you Drive with control of a Secondary, then switch seats to fire the Main Cannon because doing so is going to leave you a sitting duck.
Yeah they'll have heavier armor, but my AP Lightning running circles around a still target will level that quickly enough.

If you ARE skilled enough to keep your MBT alive while doing the work of two people, more props to you, but I'd hate to see how effective such a person would be in a craft designed for single operator...

What is sounds like to me is that Figment and others want some sort of "Land Liberator", the mechanics of which would require a complete overhaul of the entire land battlefield.
Well YES, but it wouldn't require a complete overhaul because the MBTs were designed as the ground equivalent of Liberators IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

Hell, probably the only reason Smed let Liberators go in the way they are is because he himself wasn't able to pull off flying and gunning one at the same time!

BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT! The thing has to be better than if everyone pulled a lightning which means the main gun has to blow lightnings to bits and the secondary gun has be decent at providing either AA, extra AV or great AI in order to justify not needing a lightning escort.
No, it just has to be ON PAR with two Lightnings, where PLAYER SKILL determines whether the Lightning Team or the Tank Crew wins the encounter.
Thus one Good Lightning could take down one Average MBT, and one God-like Lightning could solo a Poor MBT.

most detractors sound like they dont really care, while supporters for dedicated drivers are immensely passionate.

the detractors are arguing because of selfish desires for op solo vehicle, the supporters argue out of genuine love for the game and desire to improve the game.


endless action leads to boredom. in any MMO, its the teamwork and comradery and friendship that keeps players staying for a long time. more team work is better.
Yeah, and you wonder why people like Figment and I sound so irritable about this...

[TheSaltySeagull]

As I said in a previous post (which went ignored) I see no reason why it is even necessary to try and reduce tank numbers at this point. Tanks are weak as hell now and easy prey for virtually any other type of unit. Any mass of infantry will shit on tanks right now due to the massive amount of AV they have. And this will get worse when lattice comes around and infantry zergs are more common.

The argument of advocating crewed tanks as a means of reducing tank spam was a relevant argument back when the game first launched and armor columns dominated game play. But that is not the case anymore. As somebody who plays mostly infantry I don't see how my game play is improved by less tanks on the field. If anything I would be sad because there will be less EXP balloons for me to pop with my striker. Currently tanks are only useful in smaller engagements. In larger fights they simply do not have the endurance to be effective vs the massive amount of AV that is currently on the field. And with the nerf of HE and rise of flak armor usage their firepower is not as scary as it was before.

I mean I am seriously dumbfounded when I read some of the comments people make about current tank spam. Its like I feel I am playing a different game because I have not been afraid of tanks in this game for some time now.

[moosepoop]

I mean I am seriously dumbfounded when I read some of the comments people make about current tank spam. Its like I feel I am playing a different game because I have not been afraid of tanks in this game for some time now.

currently a mbt is a disposable powerup i get every 5 min that will give me guarenteed kills.

[TheSaltySeagull]

currently a mbt is a disposable powerup i get every 5 min that will give me guarenteed kills.

So is an ESF, lightning, MAX, etc so what is your point? Fact is tank spam is not the problem it was before and thus arguing we need crew tanks to reduce tank numbers is not that relevant anymore. If anything tanks are still a bit on the underpowered side even with the recent armor buff. If you are going to make them crewed then you have to buff them as well.

[moosepoop]

So is an ESF, lightning, MAX, etc so what is your point?
esf and libs were spammed and got nerfed to hell.

Fact is tank spam is not the problem it was before and thus arguing we need crew tanks to reduce tank numbers is not that relevant anymore.

you think tanks are weak, but dont see spam as a problem.

NEWSFLASH: as long as you can mass spam tanks, they will stay weak. paper tanks only fun for a short while.

If you are going to make them crewed then you have to buff them as well.


crewed tanks decrease number of tanks by half. that means crewed mbts can be twice as powerful. yes, you will give up the cock of duty kiddie killstreak experience, but you wont be scared of being instakilled out of nowhere.

[TheSaltySeagull]

esf and libs were spammed and got nerfed to hell.



you think tanks are weak, but dont see spam as a problem.

NEWSFLASH: as long as you can mass spam tanks, they will stay weak. paper tanks only fun for a short while.




crewed tanks decrease number of tanks by half. that means crewed mbts can be twice as powerful. yes, you will give up the cock of duty kiddie killstreak experience, but you wont be scared of being instakilled out of nowhere.

10 tanks vs 5 tanks that are twice as strong have approx the same tactical effectiveness so tanks would still be relatively weak as a whole. Plus spam is not reduced that much since driver and gunner can rotate upon death to keep a steady stream of tanks coming at you. You have changed very little of how tanks work.

Simply doubling the tanks power and separating driver and gunner would not be enough to make a crewed tank viable. They must be totally overhauled and reworked. The prowlers special must be redone, the mags hull must be redone, and stats and resource cost must be rebalanced across the board to keep the tanks balanced not only vs infantry and air but vs other vehicles. The reason the harasser works is because it was designed from the ground up to be a crewed vehicle. The current MBTs are not. This means it would take a lot of reworking of how they function to make this viable.

As I said I am not against crewed tanks. Its not my cup of tea but I mostly play infantry so if tanks become crewed its not a major hindrance to me(tho I think the driver having the secondary gun and the gunner the main one is the most ideal set up). I just disagree with some of the arguments the pro crewed crowd uses. Arguments like "reducing spam" or "promote teamwork" are false arguments to me. Tank spam is no longer an issue at current. I dont care if they have 20 tanks or 10 tanks with 2 men in them that are twice as strong. In the end its the same and they will be dead shortly once the AV comes out just like they are now. And the teamwork argument is false because if I have 5 guys working together it does not matter if they are in one vehicle or 5 vehicles they are still working together and coordinating. These are simply fabricated arguments meant to further one side.

You should focus on real arguments in favor of crewed tanks like increased situational awareness increasing effectiveness of each unit or how about because some people fine crewed tanks just plain fun? The harasser is not the most effective combat vehicle nor the most efficient use of manpower. But people still pull them because they are fun as hell and that is enough incentive for many.

[moosepoop]

You should focus on real arguments in favor of crewed tanks like increased situational awareness increasing effectiveness of each unit or how about because some people fine crewed tanks just plain fun? The harasser is not the most effective combat vehicle nor the most efficient use of manpower. But people still pull them because they are fun as hell and that is enough incentive for many.

thats what i said on page 1.

im trying to give reasons that shows dedicated driver tanks are better not only for me, but for the game and everybody in general.


Simply doubling the tanks power and separating driver and gunner would not be enough to make a crewed tank viable. They must be totally overhauled and reworked.




http://i.imgur.com/LL54QInh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ENt3IcYh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/7Ub1bRk.jpg

[Whiteagle]

As I said I am not against crewed tanks. Its not my cup of tea but I mostly play infantry so if tanks become crewed its not a major hindrance to me(tho I think the driver having the secondary gun and the gunner the main one is the most ideal set up). I just disagree with some of the arguments the pro crewed crowd uses. Arguments like "reducing spam" or "promote teamwork" are false arguments to me.

...

You should focus on real arguments in favor of crewed tanks like increased situational awareness increasing effectiveness of each unit or how about because some people fine crewed tanks just plain fun? The harasser is not the most effective combat vehicle nor the most efficient use of manpower. But people still pull them because they are fun as hell and that is enough incentive for many.
Personally I argue on behalf the Lightning, because there isn't much you can do in a Lightning that you can't do with an MBT...

This makes both the Lightning redundent and forces the MBT to be balanced as a One-person vehicle, mostly through their armor and hit points.

[Emperor Newt]

10 tanks vs 5 tanks that are twice as strong have approx the same tactical effectiveness
Less tanks on the field means that enemy infantry and vehicles have more room to operate. Room as in: "room which is not shelled from afar with HEAT rounds".

[TheSaltySeagull]

Less tanks on the field means that enemy infantry and vehicles have more room to operate. Room as in: "room which is not shelled from afar with HEAT rounds".

I dont think infantry really need any more wiggle room vs tanks considering just how many ways there are for infantry to engage tanks. The current tank vs infantry balance already favors infantry.

Besides crewed tanks will not really dissuade people from shelling targets from range. PS1 had crewed tanks and they found it easy enough to still spam a considerable amount. It would be reduced by crewed tanks but it would still occur enough to be an annoyance just like it was in PS1.

[Figment]

You don't quite get that this actually is meant to favour both small groups and tanks at the same time, do you? :/

[moosepoop]

It would be reduced by crewed tanks

yes. spam can never be eliminated, but it can be reduced if you increase man power per vehicle.

[dsi]

MBTs need to make a comeback so badly, multi-man Harasser is fantastic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NYcSiCJBqY), MBTs are as lifeless and boring as Lightnings without working with someone to achieve things.

[TheSaltySeagull]

yes. spam can never be eliminated, but it can be reduced if you increase man power per vehicle.

I was speaking of "spam" as in volume of fire on a given point not the volume or frequency of tanks on the field. Which as I said is something I do not think really needs to be decreased to begin with.

The vehicle and air vs infantry balance usually plays out in one of two ways in this game. The infantry either have sufficient numbers that they can field enough AV and AA to completely zone out vehicles and make them a non-factor on the fight which is what happens in larger engagements. Or they do not in which case then get overpowered by vehicles which is what normally happens in smaller engagements. There is no intermediate in which vehicles and air are a threat to infantry but not overpowering.

Mandating crewed tanks in order to reduce their numbers by half will not create this intermediate. You will be able to field less tanks in larger engagements making them easier to zone out because AV can focus fire more easily. Even if you double their endurance they will still be zoned because they will attract more fire as there are fewer targets. And they will become more effective in smaller engagements due to increased efficiency and power of each individual unit. This is the exact opposite of what needs to be done.

Keep in mind this is not a reason to NOT have crewed vehicles either. Whether tanks are crewed or not will not address the scaling issues of infantry based AV and AA vs vehicles and air. I am not saying this as an argument against having crewed vehicles I am just saying reducing tank numbers by making them crewed will not impact current infantry vs vehicles balance. What will is more changes like the recent armor buff to increase tank endurance vs infantry based AV weaponry while leaving vehicle based AV the same. And these are attribute changes that are separate from crew mechanics.

[moosepoop]

I am not saying this as an argument against having crewed vehicles I am just saying reducing tank numbers by making them crewed will not impact current infantry vs vehicles balance.

reducing tank numbers will make infantry vs vehicle more balanced. it will justify the armor and deadliness of the tank.

[TheSaltySeagull]

you write a 500 word essay on how i am wrong, then say you are not against my idea.

I am not against the idea(which is not yours BTW) of having crewed tanks. I am simply pointing out your logic is flawed. As I said before you are using fabricated arguments. There is no balance reason as to why tank numbers need to be reduced. Current tanks zergs are not dominating large scale combat and are still underpowered vs large infantry forces. There is no reason to attempt to actively reduce their numbers further.

less tanks means they can also tone down the infantry av damage.

Or the devs could do what they just did. Buff endurance vs infantry AV weaponry. This change has so far made tanks a lot more viable. They still need a bit more endurance but could be achieved via a similar buff as the last one. There is no reason to alter crew mechanics to reduce numbers then rebalance infantry AV weaponry to compensate for the reduced numbers which in turn could throw off infantry AV TTK vs none MBT vehicles.

[moosepoop]

I am not against the idea(which is not yours BTW) of having crewed tanks. I am simply pointing out your logic is flawed. As I said before you are using fabricated arguments. There is no balance reason as to why tank numbers need to be reduced. Current tanks zergs are not dominating large scale combat and are still underpowered vs large infantry forces. There is no reason to attempt to actively reduce their numbers further.



Or the devs could do what they just did. Buff endurance vs infantry AV weaponry. This change has so far made tanks a lot more viable. They still need a bit more endurance but could be achieved via a similar buff as the last one. There is no reason to alter crew mechanics to reduce numbers then rebalance infantry AV weaponry to compensate for the reduced numbers which in turn could throw off infantry AV TTK vs none MBT vehicles.

i got 10 years proof. planetside 1.

tanks kill infantry instantly. to counter this they are instantly killed by invisible, infinite ammo, infinite range av turrets. this isnt balance. this is a fuckin joke.

battlefield 3 has solo tanks. tons of bf3 vets were jumping ship to ps2, so planetside 2 must have solo tanks. it ends up feeling like a cheap knockoff.

SOE needs to stop assuming casual players are morons.

[TheSaltySeagull]

i got 10 years proof. planetside 1.

tanks kill infantry instantly and is only countered by invisible infinite range av turrets. this isnt balance. this is a fuckin joke.

battlefield 3 has solo tanks. tons of bf3 vets were jumping ship to ps2, so planetside 2 must have solo tanks. so far this is not working.

Tanks vs mass infantry was lackluster in ps1 as well. It was a bit better because tanks were more durable in comparison to ps2 ones. It had nothing to do with crew mechanics. Besides outdoor combat in ps1 was very much air side with the reaver dominating pretty much anything on the ground.

BF3 was a successful game so maybe there is something to the solo tank style :P

In any case I think I am derailing here a bit. I am talking more about infantry vs tank balance than I am the pros and cons of crewed tanks. I will just leave it as saying I don't think we need to reduce the number of tanks on the field for any balance reasons. Personally I enjoy large armor columns as it is an impressive sight and one of the things that helps showcase the scale of the game. So long as these zergs do not dominate outdoor combat as they did in the past. Whether those tanks be crewed or solo I suppose is not really that important to me as a grunt.

[moosepoop]

Tanks vs mass infantry was lackluster in ps1 as well. It was a bit better

as long as its an improvement, implement it.

players take the path of least resistance. solo mbt is the path of least resistance, maximizing indivisual firepower.

[TheSaltySeagull]

as long as its an improvement, implement it.

They did...

[moosepoop]

They did...

lots more improvements to go.

[Ghodere]

With a crewed MBT (AND WITHOUT THE SOLO MBT, BUT THE LIGHTNING INSTEAD) the game provides the option for people to play as a team using a teamwork vehicle in order to gain access to more firepower and/or endurance, or to use the Lightning or other solo units instead. Nobody is stripping you from the option to play the game solo, you just should never be allowed to play with the heaviest of vehicles in game solo because that's not balanced in relation to that other unit peforming the same role. They should never have allowed solo-mbts for this reason alone or they should never have made the weapons on it this deadly, as it leaves no room for teamwork units that get a bonus as trade-off for using less units.

Unfortunately, as I have come to expect, Figment is right. Two-man MBTs alongside three-man and Lightning tanks would be fine, if they were balanced to have x2-3 the crewed firepower of a Lightning, with a 3-man tank having 4-5x the durability and firepower of a Lightning.

With the current game, though, that's not possible without creating ridiculously powerful weapons; and if you were to balance the crewed tank's weapons and armor first, then scale down the Lightning and MBT to match, you probably wouldn't have any reason at all to ever pull them due to the miniscule infantry TTK making it more effective to shoot at enemies with a gun than the Lightning's cannon. At the very least you would have to nerf the Lightning and MBT to such an extent that they really wouldn't be the same vehicles anymore, and you might as well have just taken out the MBT altogether.

The dev team is honestly making much greater strides towards good game design than I thought they ever would, but fixing core design flaws like this, which require redesigns rather than additions, strains against the essence of the f2p microtransaction model.

To be frank, the bar was set so low for TTK from the outset that power creep already has nowhere to go without breaking the game.

[Figment]

Or the devs could do what they just did. Buff endurance vs infantry AV weaponry. This change has so far made tanks a lot more viable. They still need a bit more endurance but could be achieved via a similar buff as the last one. There is no reason to alter crew mechanics to reduce numbers then rebalance infantry AV weaponry to compensate for the reduced numbers which in turn could throw off infantry AV TTK vs none MBT vehicles.

Your logic is flawed here. Both are the same thing implemented differently and you yourself neglect that increasing MBT armour changes the TTK of other units (including infantry) on MBT, so that rebalancing would have to happen anyway, just with a different category of (AV) weapons, in this case, vehicle mounted weapons, if they were to remain the same with respect to MBTs.

What we object to however, is that all that endurance AND firepower is given to a single player when it is relative to multiple other players and as such to be shared by more than one player to make having that power available to you fair.

[Figment]

It sounds more complex than it is, btw.

And Ghodere is right, power creep to incentize multi-crew units is pretty much impossible. Just look at the options of buffing specifications:


1. Firepower
AI: You can already instakill infantry, how the hell are you going to make more deadly weapons?
AV: Any MBT tank shell instantly kills an ESF. You can two shot enemy tanks from behind already. From other angles, even when they have armour on it, you only need a few shots more.
AA: There's already AA options that rival pure AA.

2. Accuracy and recoil
It's already pretty pinpoint accurate. The only reason you're not hitting every shot is because you have to compensate for height and distance yourself (unlike in say World of Tanks). Cone of fire has next to no influence on the accuracy.
Recoil does impact later shots, but there's little reason to reduce recoil much further because that inaccuracy is required to avoid spam, especially long distance HE spam.

3. Rate of fire:
Higher rate of fire? Please, it's spammy enough as is: one hit kill, one hit kill, miss, one hit kill, close call, one hit kill... That order doesn't need an upgrade. Other gameplay shouldn't suffer from this.

4. Other turrets
With what? Faster turret rotation? Please... have you actually seen how fast a PS2 turret turns? You can't outcircle an enemy due to that. World of Tanks actually put limits on the speed of turning your turret and it has a big impact on balance between light and heavy units, but the turret rotation speed in PS2 is simply too fast. You can almost instantly rotate 180 degrees and target a unit behind you.
Other turrets with more guns? See rate of fire and firepower. Other turrets with a different configuration? We don't have a world of tanks penetration system, so sounds pretty pointless.

4. Endurance
Sure, you can increase the hitpoints, but it'll just mean that people will start seatswitching while playing alone. So then you actually continue to miss the point of having crewed vehicles: work together to allow that firepower and endurance to be wielded. So that wouldn't really reduce the numbers and it would just mean that people camp with less concern for personal risk, but still would be alone in a tank and in large tank numbers.



All in all, the incredibly short TTK forces tanks to have incredibly short TTKs themselves and it forces other weapons to have incredibly short TTKs as well.



Where is our time to play the game when most of it is respawning, walking/driving a bit back to the fight, die before you can react, rince and repeat? THAT is the kind of gameplay that needs to be improved.


Given the combination of systems, there aren't many viable options to explore. Most people that think some sort of middle ground might be reached that satisfies all, completely ignore the existance and interaction of these other systems and design elements that render such things problematic and don't actually problem solve anything. :/

I'm not saying they don't mean well, I'm just saying they don't see the bigger picture and in some cases, ignore it (the selfish ones that only suggest a middleground add-on to safeguard their own option, not to make it viable or improve gameplay for all).

[Obstruction]

this whole thread is full of shit because people solo liberator and change seats to fire from position 2 while freefalling.

[Figment]

this whole thread is full of shit because people solo liberator and change seats to fire from position 2 while freefalling.

That's why seat switching has actually been under attack in this thread (and actually since pre-alpha, by me and a few others anyway). Duh. :rolleyes:

ESPECIALLY in relation to a unit that doesn't immediately go into a free fall that might end as an explosion.

[moosepoop]

It sounds more complex than it is, btw.

And Ghodere is right, power creep to incentize multi-crew units is pretty much impossible. Just look at the options of buffing specifications:



power creep is very doable, the main buff being armor hitpoints. seat switching can be disabled.

[sylphaen]

a 2-man vehicle ? With dedicated driver ?!?

I realize it's only the harasser but... Devs have to be extremely careful. They are getting dangerously close to a PS1 design !

And if population drops, PS1 ideas will be said to make games fail.

[moosepoop]

a 2-man vehicle ? With dedicated driver ?!?

I realize it's only the harasser but... Devs have to be extremely careful. They are getting dangerously close to a PS1 design ! And if population drops, PS1 ideas will be said to make games fail.

so thats why they introduced the sunderer and the lattice system. to destroy planetside 2!

also, you on other thread


Part of the reason why I did not like PS2 is because tank combat felt boring and not dynamic at all.



LOL

[sylphaen]

so thats why they introduced the sunderer and the lattice system.

aso, you on other thread

LOL

If you could spare a little effort with my post history and go back slightly more than a year ago, you will realize I've never hidden my opinion on this topic. And also that I have a little penchant for trolling.
;)

And since your post complements mine so lovingly, let me just add a word of warning:
Watch out -- After the S-AMS, the lattice and dedicated drivers, BFRs and caves are next !
:scared:

[Whiteagle]

That's why seat switching has actually been under attack in this thread (and actually since pre-alpha, by me and a few others anyway). Duh. :rolleyes:

ESPECIALLY in relation to a unit that doesn't immediately go into a free fall that might end as an explosion.
Well didn't they play with seat swapping delays in Beta?
I don't want it removed entirely because then the Do-everything-on-their-lonesome crowd will cause a shit storm over not being able to operate every vehicle by themselves, which the game might not be able to weather...


...Letting them have seat switching but putting switch delays on it give them their Solo-MBT, but makes it far less viable then a Crew or a Lightning.

[Figment]

Well didn't they play with seat swapping delays in Beta?

No. :/

I don't want it removed entirely because then the Do-everything-on-their-lonesome crowd will cause a shit storm over not being able to operate every vehicle by themselves, which the game might not be able to weather...

There's not be that many complaining and they would adjust with ease to other solo units. I rather get the people back that left because of tank spam.

...Letting them have seat switching but putting switch delays on it give them their Solo-MBT, but makes it far less viable then a Crew or a Lightning.

Yes, but even that has never been done.

[Whiteagle]

No. :/
...
Yes, but even that has never been done.
You sure?
I could have sworn I saw a Seat Switching Cert tree in Beta...

[TheSaltySeagull]

Your logic is flawed here. Both are the same thing implemented differently and you yourself neglect that increasing MBT armour changes the TTK of other units (including infantry) on MBT, so that rebalancing would have to happen anyway, just with a different category of (AV) weapons, in this case, vehicle mounted weapons, if they were to remain the same with respect to MBTs.

What we object to however, is that all that endurance AND firepower is given to a single player when it is relative to multiple other players and as such to be shared by more than one player to make having that power available to you fair.

The recent armor buff does not effect vehicle vs vehicle TTK because specific weapons such as certain lib guns and tank ap rounds have resistances built in that bypass this increase making their TTK unchanged. Tank endurance was only increased vs Infantry and ESF rocketpods which is what was needed and in turn infantry TTK against none MBT targets is unchaged. So no TTK is not thrown off. And also one solution is far easier to implement than the other. Its easier to change attributes in a spreadsheet than it is to go back and execute a redesign of tanks to facilitate a crewed model.

Also the force multiplier effect of tanks is not currently sufficient enough to mandate crewed vehicles. The increase in individual firepower and survivability is insignificant when compared to the scaling effect of infantry based AV weaponry in numbers. The larger the engagement size the more diminished the force multiplier effect of tanks until they begin to become a hindrance more than an asset. Mandating crewed tanks further diminishes their force multiplier effect even further as more manpower must be diverted to each unit.

This goes back to a point that has been made many times over. Making crewed tanks viable requires tremendous amounts of tweaking. They must be reworked from the ground up to accommodate a crewed model. Its a lot of work for little gain which is why the devs have been hesitant to proceed with it.

[Figment]

The recent armor buff does not effect vehicle vs vehicle TTK because specific weapons such as certain lib guns and tank ap rounds have resistances built in that bypass this increase making their TTK unchanged. Tank endurance was only increased vs Infantry and ESF rocketpods which is what was needed and in turn infantry TTK against none MBT targets is unchaged. So no TTK is not thrown off. And also one solution is far easier to implement than the other.

"So they did the exact same thing implemented in another way."

:rolleyes:

Its easier to change attributes in a spreadsheet than it is to go back and execute a redesign of tanks to facilitate a crewed model.

100% wrong.

A redesign primarily requires a change in control input (which is very easy since the control input code already exists) AND a "spreadsheet change" (or whatever other method) to increase endurance. Disabling seat switching is simply removing an input element and implementing a delay into seat switching is simply adding something akin to a reload time to the action of seat switching.

You make it sound terribly complicated while it's pretty basic programming.

Also the force multiplier effect of tanks is not currently sufficient enough to mandate crewed vehicles. The increase in individual firepower and survivability is insignificant when compared to the scaling effect of infantry based AV weaponry in numbers. The larger the engagement size the more diminished the force multiplier effect of tanks until they begin to become a hindrance more than an asset. Mandating crewed tanks further diminishes their force multiplier effect even further as more manpower must be diverted to each unit.

You know why we have this? Tank spam: AV HAS to be incredibly dangerous right now to cope with it and in response to tank spam they added a whole lot of new AV options, the one even more powerful than the next. Your inside a circular reasoning here and we are outside of it and don't bloody care for it.

Instead of simply solving the numerical problem by restricting access, they kept the spam problem, but to combat it they created new spam problems through AV. Now players become afraid to take risks with their tanks and in doing so the tank, which already was a glass cannon before, now becomes even worse at being a tank.

The new amount of lethal AV options make it even less appealing to work together in a single unit.

This goes back to a point that has been made many times over. Making crewed tanks viable requires tremendous amounts of tweaking. They must be reworked from the ground up to accommodate a crewed model. Its a lot of work for little gain which is why the devs have been hesitant to proceed with it.

Not at all. They've taken the wrong path and are just creating worse gameplay by being so stubborn. In the end they'll end up having to fix much more.

But you know what this really goes back to? Unrestricted certification points.

[sylphaen]

But you know what this really goes back to? Unrestricted certification points.

Figgy, I love it when you tackle core issues. Many problems start from very basic fundamentals. I'd spend more time explaining how/why I agree with you but I do not have the energy anymore... however I'm glad you do !

I'll just say that use of time, cost of time and right time are just as important as damage/armor/health/etc...

Ultra-low TTKs negate a lot of time-value in player actions.

[Tom Peters]

a 2-man vehicle ? With dedicated driver ?!?

I realize it's only the harasser but... Devs have to be extremely careful. They are getting dangerously close to a PS1 design !

And if population drops, PS1 ideas will be said to make games fail.

Planetside 1 did everything right, short of BFRs. They should be making the game more like Planetside 1...

I don't know what you had against the caves either. I loved them.

[Shogun]

yep.

the main problems with ps2 that are responsible for a lot more problems are those:

too fast TTK across the board
instant seat switching
too limited gameplay options compared to ps1 (real combat engineer, anyone?)

with the low TTK the devs wanted to speed up the game and take advice from successful games like bf3 or cod. but fast ttk isn´t a problem in a "in your face" deathmatch based game with small maps. in an mmo it sucks! and it doesn´t speed up the game at all! now we are always respawning or trying to get to the battlearea just to be killed in the second we arrive.

the instant seat switching is another thing borrowed from casual deathmatch games. it has been discussed enough why this is crappy design.

the gameplay styles are so limited because the devs wanted a class system but every class should be centered around shooting someones face. that´s again a restrictive decision i consider terribly wrong. there is no way to effectively play a funrole as dedicated supporter. as an engineer you are restricted to repairing vehicles and throwing ammo packs (or doing the rambo like all other classes) oh and you could lay one or two mines with disco lights on them, yeah huuray!
in ps1, playing a dedicated engineer could mean loading up your whole backpacks with ACEs and mining all entrances of a base, then load up even more aces and put up 10 autofiring turrets (or even more and different types when fully certed), and put up a network of movement detecting sensors. also you could upgrade wallturrets to anti air or anti vehicle specials. and all of this in addition to the repairing of vehicles and stuff.
oh even more: you could put up a cloaking shield with an ammo dispenser in the field!
you could have loads of fun without even carrying a gun, and you never felt useless or just like a slave that is only good for repairing.

[Sifer2]

I was against the one man tanks though honestly at this point i'm also too used to it to want to give it up. Especially since i'm a Prowler driver. And the way Anchor mode works pretty much ruins any advantage that could be gained by having someone gun for me. If my ass is parked in place I might as well shoot the gun myself.

They could however introduce a new Heavy Tank to the game. Maybe instead of a rotating main gun it just has more than one gun on different sides. Kind of like the Galaxy.

[Figment]

Sideguns don't work on ground vehicles. Nobody manned the ball joint of the Sunderer and even less got kills with it in PS1, even despite of the insane dark light range it provided (80m instead of the common 25).

[Rolfski]

everyone is loving the harraser. no one is complaining about not being able to solo gun in it. i think based on this feedback, dedicated driver seat for the mbts will be welcomed.

the current armor buff means lightning is a much better solo vehicle now. i think the game is ready for crewed mbts.
It's that old, beaten-to-the-death discussion again and so far the Harasser has proved nothing to provide a new light on it.

People love the Harasser because it's a new toy and incredibly fun to use. The jury is still out on real tactical value (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=54703) of it though.

That doesn't mean crew mbt's aren't welcome. They really are as long as it is entirely optional: Want to upgrade to that monstrous big fat ass gun on your Prowler? Cert into a gunner seat for it.

[Figment]

That doesn't mean crew mbt's aren't welcome. They really are as long as it is entirely optional: Want to upgrade to that monstrous big fat ass gun on your Prowler? Cert into a gunner seat for it.

Uhm... you can't upgrade a Prowler because it ALREADY DISPENSES INSTANT DEATH. YOU CAN NOT DO BETTER THAN THAT.


Why is it so hard to see that? How can you hit harder than instantly killing? What? Increase area of impact or rate of fire and degenerate the gameplay of other players more?


STOP SUGGESTING MORE POWER CREEP. FFS! BOTH THE MBTS AND LIGHTNING AND ESFS ALREADY ARE AT A LEVEL OF FIREPOWER THAT IS ONLY WARRANTED FOR TEAM VEHICLES DUE TO THE EXTREME POWER ITS WEAPONSYSTEMS HAVE. DON'T HAND OUT EVEN MORE FIREPOWER IF THAT IS AT ALL POSSIBLE. EVERYTHING SHOULD BE TONED DOWN, NOT ESCALATED FURTHER TO DEAL WITH THE EXISTING ESCALATED SITUATION AND CREATE A DISASTER ZONE OF UNSEEN SCALE AND DESOLATION.


Gah.

[Qwan]

I guess this long ass thread is about whether the harasser's dedicated driver mode is better than the MBT driver gunner mode. Here is a little somthing I saw happen saturday.
I was in sniper mode, sitting on top of a hill south of still water watch, I saw a vanguard moving along the frozen water bed, went back into cloaker mode, not soft enough I thought. Then I saw two VS harrasers with AT turrets. The Vanguard initially got off two shots, as the Harrasers approached it, but was either to short or over shot. As the Harrasers closed in there AT guns started popping the hell out of it. It was funny because it was like watching vultures circle in for the kill. The Vanguard got off about 4 more shots but the Harrasers kept tearing into it. Even with a direct hit from the tank the smoking harraser was still going around the tank dodging its shots, the tank ran into trouble when it hit some ruff ground, missed its last shot, by this time it was smoking bad, I started laughing my ass off. The harrasers popped off there last volley and the vanguard went up in smoke.

Got another one as well, this place Indar. It was a TR lightning against two of my clan mates in a Harraser, with a AT gun on top. This one harraser practically drove circles around this thing, and the only way for the lightning gunner to even get a shot close to them he had to practically stop. This was bad though because the harraser would just get behind him and pop his G spot, when it was over the Lighting was a gone and the Harraser was still there.

I dont know much guys but dedicated drivers and gunners seems to have the advantage. I mean on open terrain, like esimar and flat surfaces yea its not a bad Idea, but in with maps like amerish and Indar, were staying on the road is crucial, to a steady platform, the advantage goes to the Harrasor with the AT gun.

[Figment]

@Qwan: your example illustrates perfectly what we have always said: more dynamic, efficient driving is more effective and more fun. We have always said the current tank combat is static and boring and a danger to allies and themselves due to not minding the road while gunning. We've also said that having multiple units trumps a single unit, which is shown in your example as well as they circled the target making it incapable of dealing with it.

Solo MBTs are a very sad thing to have and there's really not a single benefit to having them.

[Qwan]

@Qwan: your example illustrates perfectly what we have always said: more dynamic, efficient driving is more effective and more fun. We have always said the current tank combat is static and boring and a danger to allies and themselves due to not minding the road while gunning. We've also said that having multiple units trumps a single unit, which is shown in your example as well as they circled the target making it incapable of dealing with it.

Solo MBTs are a very sad thing to have and there's really not a single benefit to having them.

I see it everytime I log into PS2, were fighting a tank battle and the gunners are so worried about manuvering and firing, they run over the engi trying to repair them, or there moving down the road and trying to shoot and dont notice the quad runner and boom, he just smashed his buddy. Im prior military, I was a gunner for the BFV, (Bradley fighting vehicle) I couldnt imagine driving and shooting at the same time during engagements. Not to metion, a key thing to shooting while moving is a steady plateform, if im driving while trying to shoot, I dont see cliff, I fall off, doesnt end well at all. and if your in the middle of a engagement and bullets flying on PS2 you dont wanna sit still, I guarantee you every heavy with a rocket will fire on your ass. Its funny because the other day, I was in my mag, I had to stop because my daughter had crawled under my computer, so I reached down and moved her (she is 8 months). When I looked back up I pulled my mag back and just as I did, about 12 rockets zipped by the front of me from every direction, at the position I was sitting. I looked away for about 3 seconds. It was funny as hell. This all stems from the BF and CoD crowed, they wanted them to play PS2 so bad, well here you go. But to give you guys a heads up, I will be buffing up my harrasor and I will be hunting tanks and lightnings.

[Figment]

This all stems from the BF and CoD crowed, they wanted them to play PS2 so bad, well here you go.

The sad thing is, it's not even what the BF3 crowd wanted. :/

Just because they had it in BF, doesn't mean they wanted it here. Different context, different needs.

I still can't comprehend how people that say BF3 players wanted that can't see the difference between a context with next to no tanks and one where everyone has them.

[Dougnifico]

Once again, I'm going to support the heavy tank idea with an option to have a crewed MBT. Everyone should be at least mildly happy with that. The great compromise my friends.

[Figment]

Once again, I'm going to support the heavy tank idea with an option to have a crewed MBT. Everyone should be at least mildly happy with that. The great compromise my friends.

Once again, I'm going to remind you that option does not exist and cannot exist because it cannot be balanced fairly.

Please stop suggesting crap. You either have a crewed MBT or you have a solo tank, you cannot have an option.




Mildly happy? Try infuriated.

PS: It's not a compromise AT ALL, BECAUSE THE SOLO MBT SIDE DOES NOT COMPROMISE ON ANYTHING: THEY GET TO KEEP TOO MUCH POWER/PLAYER! THIS IS NOT A COMPROMISE, IT'S A TOKEN SOLUTION THAT ENSURES THE CREWED MBTS ARE WEAKER THAN SOLO MBTS.

Just admit that the only reason you suggest this is that you get to keep soloable MBTs, which means that the only people compromising are the people who want a dedicated driver, but you're not compromising towards ANY OTHER GROUP OF PLAYERS that also feel solo heavy tanks should go away to improve the gameplay in other areas, like numerically reducing the amount of tanks. THIS DOESN'T SOLVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH SOLO MBTS. SO IT IS NOT A SOLUTION, IT IS NOT A COMPROMISE, IT IS JUST CRAP.

[Shogun]

The sad thing is, it's not even what the BF3 crowd wanted. :/

Just because they had it in BF, doesn't mean they wanted it here. Different context, different needs.

I still can't comprehend how people that say BF3 players wanted that can't see the difference between a context with next to no tanks and one where everyone has them.

BUT the devs thought this way!
they thought bf and cod players would want their solotank and so they put it into ps2.
and now some players just want it to stay that way because it makes them powerful.
they don´t realise that the old ps1 system would change almost nothing for them! they can still solo a tank, just not the mbt, but the lightning, which then would not be so redundant anymore.

[Qwan]

The sad thing is, it's not even what the BF3 crowd wanted. :/

Just because they had it in BF, doesn't mean they wanted it here. Different context, different needs.

I still can't comprehend how people that say BF3 players wanted that can't see the difference between a context with next to no tanks and one where everyone has them.

Well maybe I worded it wrong, its not what the BF and CoD players wanted, but kind of what they expected to see. OK take the guys who played PS1 they expected there tanks to require if not 2 to 3 players, one to drive one to gun, like in PS1. Well developers knew that the next gen of FPS players were used to driving and gunning there own tanks. So to attract newer FPS players they addapted the gunner driver concept, Hence what we have today. The problem was the game isnt as linear as a map on BF or CoD, there really are no roads, there is just hills, bumps, saddles, valleys and mountains. The closest thing I can see to a open field that compliments a good tank battle is Esimir, and norther Indar, Amerish is a tanks nightmare. SOE wanted to keep the faithful, so the concept of PS1 was kept, three factions constantly fighting for control over territory, the weapons, and gear as well as the vehicles. But they wanted to attract the newer FPS players so they designed the mechanics around capturing points, and influence. The cookie cutter classes, awards, and so on. But I think they miscalculated when they did the solo tank thing. My prediction is that a group of Harrasers with a driver and a gunner will own most tankers because to drive and gun a tank you take your eye off the target to look at the mini to see were he is on the radar, then by the time you turn to shoot he's moving, his AT rounds are going in your rear doing massive damage (that didnt sound right). Ill be certing armor and speed upgrades, as far as my AT weapon it will be ammo capasity, and reload speed. I forsee a pack of 4 of these things will desimate a tank column, they will get nerfed Ill put 50 bucks on that, anybody wanna take that bet.

[Rolfski]

Uhm... you can't upgrade a Prowler because it ALREADY DISPENSES INSTANT DEATH. YOU CAN NOT DO BETTER THAN THAT.


Why is it so hard to see that? How can you hit harder than instantly killing? What? Increase area of impact or rate of fire and degenerate the gameplay of other players more?


STOP SUGGESTING MORE POWER CREEP. FFS! BOTH THE MBTS AND LIGHTNING AND ESFS ALREADY ARE AT A LEVEL OF FIREPOWER THAT IS ONLY WARRANTED FOR TEAM VEHICLES DUE TO THE EXTREME POWER ITS WEAPONSYSTEMS HAVE. DON'T HAND OUT EVEN MORE FIREPOWER IF THAT IS AT ALL POSSIBLE. EVERYTHING SHOULD BE TONED DOWN, NOT ESCALATED FURTHER TO DEAL WITH THE EXISTING ESCALATED SITUATION AND CREATE A DISASTER ZONE OF UNSEEN SCALE AND DESOLATION.


Keep it civilized please. No need to use capitals.
Current mbt's are not instant death to many things.
If 2 single manned mbt's have the same ttk as a single crewd mbt, there's hardly any power creep.
The idea of every damage being limited to the power of 1 mbt would be overly rigid for game design.
"Power creep" can be balanced in a zillion ways

[Figment]

Keep it civilized please. No need to use capitals.


Sorry, I get tired of repeating the same point over and over.

Current mbt's are not instant death to many things.

Let's see what it does instakill shall we?

- All infantry units
- ESF
- ATVs

It has the potential to two shot all combat vehicles from behind with basic ammo (not to mention AP ammo):

- Lightning
- MBT
- Harasser

Two-three shot Liberators and Galaxies take what, 6-8? That means it instakills the most relevant weak units and has a tremendous amount of power with regards to other units, where two solo MBTs can already instakill other units if they get up from behind.

And if it's really having to work for it, it need 4-6 shots to kill another vehicle.

Lower than that is not wanted. Hell, if anything that's too fast already and the TTK should be higher. Especially for a soloable unit. I don't know what you think is enjoyable, but someone pulling a vehicle will feel cheated already by the sheer amount of units that kill them super fast, so why you think they'd be happy and not upset by being killed even faster is beyond me.


You should have taken some lessons from the BFR introduction on what kind of reasons players had to get upset about. Not being able to play being one of the main complaints. So you're going to kill other units even faster. Great, they'll be very happy to hear that to please one group of players "in theory", others get shafted.


No thanks.


That's why I said MBTs already have the firepower that warrants a multi-crew vehicle. The TTKs are so fast, you can barely do something about it. Putting a multi-crew unit in a situation where they get killed that fast is just going to make the entire group feel cheated and therefore not interested in manning it (if they can avoid it). In which case the design failed to deliver.

If 2 single manned mbt's have the same ttk as a single crewd mbt, there's hardly any power creep.

And absolutely no reason to put three men in a MBT, is there?



The idea of every damage being limited to the power of 1 mbt would be overly rigid for game design.
"Power creep" can be balanced in a zillion ways


No it can't, power creep is per definition not balanced because it is adding unbalanced units in game. Perhaps you should look up the definition of power creep: the continuous adding of stronger and more powerful weapons to make it look awesome with respect to existing weapons and in many cases slowly obsoleting older equipment. The current MBTs are already at the far end of such power creep in terms of firepower, as they kill a lot of units instantaneously and only the special counters that reduce explosion damage stand in their way.

Creating more powerful weapons would obsolete these certifications and therefore CANNOT BE DONE because it would be selling the people that invested in it out. The same goes for the armour up/sidegrades.

[JesNC]

Let's see what it does instakill shall we?

- All infantry units not MAXes or shielded HA
- ESF that's a Vanguard only trait
- ATVs Honestly? Everything oneshots ATVs

It has the potential to two shot all combat vehicles from behind with basic ammo (not to mention AP ammo):

- Lightning false
- MBT false
- Harasser No idea tbh, but an upgraded Harasser takes at least 3 shots from the default HA launcher, which does 1700 explosive AV damage (same dmg type as HEAT)



You really need to get your ingame knowledge up to speed, figgy ;)

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/results-of-the-armor-re-balance.121976/

[Figment]

Let's see what it does instakill shall we?

- All infantry units not MAXes or shielded HA MAXes aren't infantry, but mechanized infantry, I did not list them. And I mentioned shields in a way: they are an armour upgrade to catch a single shot, arn't they? Read the text where it mentions such things as flak armour and armour upgrades: bypass those with more firepower and you cheat the players who use them - thus it's already at the far end of the powercreep option. Without shield, HA dies instantly now.
- ESF that's a Vanguard only trait Could be, I play Vannies only and shoot ESF now and then. So in that case, how would the NC benefit from more firepower and why would they need it?
- ATVs Honestly? Everything oneshots ATVs And mines kill the driver even if they don't kill the ATV... :p But it means you can't do that better, so what's the point of adding more firepower?

It has the potential to two shot all combat vehicles from behind with basic ammo (not to mention AP ammo):

- Lightning false 3 standard ammo actually
- MBT false 4 standard actually
- Harasser No idea tbh, but an upgraded Harasser takes at least 3 shots from the default HA launcher, which does 1700 explosive AV damage (same dmg type as HEAT) Checked, 3 shots of standard ammo.

You really need to get your ingame knowledge up to speed, figgy ;)

Fine, Lightnings, Prowlers and Magriders can be killed in two shots from the rear with AP.


The point remains: you can't viably lower the TTK and say that's worth an extra player in a tank compared to the soloable MBT, because that already has the power to. Should have checked though, was indeed AP shells.

(MAXes are two shots with standard ammo btw)

[ShadoViper]

Well Figment, I'm with you on this issue.

This thread is pretty... Interesting. So keep up the good fight!

[JesNC]

The point remains: you can't viably lower the TTK and say that's worth an extra player in a tank compared to the soloable MBT.


You're right, there's no need to lower the TTK or increase firepower or even health on crewed tanks. The survivability buff in GU08 was sufficient, having a dedicated gunner is a buff in itself and all it takes to make them 'better' or 'more viable' than solo MBTs are some quality-of-life changes like turret stabilization or a coaxial MG for the gunner.

[Figment]

Tank resists were modified, AP is now the only weapon system able to 2-shot tanks into their rear armor, Vanguard or not.

Edited above post as you got me doubting it so I went to test. :) I stand corrected.


I don't agree with you that no other buff is needed (endurance). Units that carry more players per definition should have a default specifications edge over units that do not per definition. However, I'm highly opposed to stronger units if we're going to keep allowing everyone to grab one and instantly switch seats.

I'd rather they keep these stats and remove the soloing option. At the very least they should add a significant delay to seat switching, if not disable it completely.

[moosepoop]

You're right, there's no need to lower the TTK or increase firepower or even health on crewed tanks. The survivability buff in GU08 was sufficient, having a dedicated gunner is a buff in itself and all it takes to make them 'better' or 'more viable' than solo MBTs are some quality-of-life changes like turret stabilization or a coaxial MG for the gunner.

my original point was to convince SOE that crewed tanks can make money, by nerfing solo mbt and introducing it in an op state, just like all new content they have released so far.

my point was to present something that will benefit the devs. this is basics of negotiation.

[Dougnifico]

Once again, I'm going to remind you that option does not exist and cannot exist because it cannot be balanced fairly.

Please stop suggesting crap. You either have a crewed MBT or you have a solo tank, you cannot have an option.




Mildly happy? Try infuriated.

PS: It's not a compromise AT ALL, BECAUSE THE SOLO MBT SIDE DOES NOT COMPROMISE ON ANYTHING: THEY GET TO KEEP TOO MUCH POWER/PLAYER! THIS IS NOT A COMPROMISE, IT'S A TOKEN SOLUTION THAT ENSURES THE CREWED MBTS ARE WEAKER THAN SOLO MBTS.

Just admit that the only reason you suggest this is that you get to keep soloable MBTs, which means that the only people compromising are the people who want a dedicated driver, but you're not compromising towards ANY OTHER GROUP OF PLAYERS that also feel solo heavy tanks should go away to improve the gameplay in other areas, like numerically reducing the amount of tanks. THIS DOESN'T SOLVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH SOLO MBTS. SO IT IS NOT A SOLUTION, IT IS NOT A COMPROMISE, IT IS JUST CRAP.

Sir. You are a dick, AND DOING THIS JUST MAKES IT WORSE. But I will elaborate on my point since my wording was easy to misinterpret.

I said to have to have the option for a crewed MBT. Yes, it would give 2 people the power of a single person and would be unfair, but it is for the sake of having options. In addition to this, there would be a new tank introduced that would be crewed, have more firepower, and have more armor, than an MBT. That is easy to balance.

Another problem is that many people have invested in their prowlers as solo MBTs. This means SOE has much more to lose by taking capability away than adding content. Then again, you probably have no problem with that so long as you get your way.

As a PS1 vet, I will be the first to say Planetside 1 is dead. Its time to move on and accept that some parts of it are gone.

NOTE: It seems that over time this community gets more hostile to anyone not agreeing with how things were done in PS1. That is sad. Not everyone, but there is more middle fingers and e-yelling than there once was.

[Baneblade]

There would be the option you speak of... either an MBT with 2/3 or 3/3 or the Lightning 1/1. There, options.

[JesNC]

my original point was to convince SOE that crewed tanks can make money, by nerfing solo mbt and introducing it in an op state, just like all new content they have released so far.

my point was to present something that will benefit the devs. this is basics of negotiation.

Too bad they do not listen to that kind of sarcasm.

[Dougnifico]

There would be the option you speak of... either an MBT with 2/3 or 3/3 or the Lightning 1/1. There, options.

See, I understand that entirely. I want crew tanks, but changing MBT's would piss a lot of customers off who've already invested. If you made MBT's 2 man, you would buff them. Just create a new tank for each empire. You have the crew tank we all would like that is a really buffed up MBT and all those people who invested aren't disenfranchised. Really, everyone wins and gets what they want. Plus you have the option to take a crewed version of the MBT out if you have a cooldown or resource issue.

The only thing that people would be upset about is that solo players would have MBT access. I personally don't see that as a bad thing. They pop pretty quick now days and I think they have been well balanced.

Plus, who doesn't want more content? lol

[Tom Peters]

See, I understand that entirely. I want crew tanks, but changing MBT's would piss a lot of customers off who've already invested. If you made MBT's 2 man, you would buff them. Just create a new tank for each empire. You have the crew tank we all would like that is a really buffed up MBT and all those people who invested aren't disenfranchised. Really, everyone wins and gets what they want. Plus you have the option to take a crewed version of the MBT out if you have a cooldown or resource issue.

The only thing that people would be upset about is that solo players would have MBT access. I personally don't see that as a bad thing. They pop pretty quick now days and I think they have been well balanced.

I'm not getting what I want out of that.

A solo MBT will still be impossible to beat by yourself as a heavy, which is wrong. If a heavy does the right moves and avoids the tank properly, he should win. But by allowing control over the driving and the gun, that will never be the case.

It's just too easy-mode, requires no teamwork or tactical sense. Just drive around the rock and shoot the infantry, he can't do shit.

[Figment]

Sir. You are a dick, AND DOING THIS JUST MAKES IT WORSE.

I don't care what you think of me, I'm tired of having to repeat myself and others because YOU are so disrespectful to completely ignore that what you're suggesting has and always will be a non-solution and not even a compromise to us after that has been repeated for five threads on virtually every page by someone.

This has been made very clear, so to continue to propose it and suggest everybody would be happy with it is IMO just trolling and just a display of how little you respect the other people in the debate.

As far as I'm concerned, you're the dick.

But I will elaborate on my point since my wording was easy to misinterpret.

I said to have to have the option for a crewed MBT. Yes, it would give 2 people the power of a single person and would be unfair, but it is for the sake of having options. In addition to this, there would be a new tank introduced that would be crewed, have more firepower, and have more armor, than an MBT. That is easy to balance.

How did I misinterpret this?

"It's unfair, but wait, there's more: let's introduce more power creep!"

Look like I didn't misinterpreted it at all!

Another problem is that many people have invested in their prowlers as solo MBTs. This means SOE has much more to lose by taking capability away than adding content. Then again, you probably have no problem with that so long as you get your way.

I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that. Content is subject to change. Every unit gets balance passes and the content they unlocked is still available to their units. If it's really a big deal to them, simply reset all certs invested in Vanguard certs, any weaponry purchased is returned in the form of station cash and they can see how they want to reuse the certs.

Considering they'd get it in the form of SC and certs, they could not complain about their investment, since they've been compensated in full and can move all their certs and investments to the Lightning or other units if they so desire to do so.

Removing content isn't someting you should avoid at all times. The amount of players PS1 would have lost over the removal of the BFR for instance would be maybe one in 100 players, while they'd have gotten around 80 players back for every one that would leave.

I'm sorry, but I don't think speculative fear is a very good argument, especially considering the amount of people that have left in part over issues like tank spam.

As a PS1 vet, I will be the first to say Planetside 1 is dead. Its time to move on and accept that some parts of it are gone.

NOTE: It seems that over time this community gets more hostile to anyone not agreeing with how things were done in PS1. That is sad. Not everyone, but there is more middle fingers and e-yelling than there once was.

And how is this relevant exactly? Where exactly have I brought up PS1 as a reason of "this is how it was, therefore it should be like this?", opposed to "the concept worked in PS1 because it ensured A, B, C, D and the consequences to gameplay in the PS2 context would be E, F and G and therefore it is the better option"? I'm not argueing out of nostalgia sake, you've seen the extend of my arguments doesn't even require that.

Asinine comments like this that are just made to piss people of and discard their argument just because somewhere PS1 is referenced are what makes people hate your kind of posters. Why don't you go and quit if you'd get stripped from solo-mbts? I'm quite sure we both know that wouldn't be a reason to quit over for pretty much anyone. Would some miss it? Sure. So what? It's not like that playstyle is lost completely, it just means they have to use a slightly weaker frame with more options for the main gun.


I also find it hypocritical to suggest that it's not okay to piss people off that MIGHT be sad over losing something, but that it's okay to piss people off that already left over that same thing or annoy themselves about it every time they play the game as these things cause frustration in a lot of areas of play. That includes tankers who hate being a glass cannon, tankers that get outnumbered all the time, tankers that think static gameplay is boring, infantry and other ground vehicles that get spammed by tanks and therefore shells and small groups vs large groups.

And most of those people will continue to be aggravated even if an "option" is introduced, if not more annoyed because they'll know it's a deliberately unfair balance to literally entertain me-me-me attitudes.

[Dodgy Commando]

See, I understand that entirely. I want crew tanks, but changing MBT's would piss a lot of customers off who've already invested. If you made MBT's 2 man, you would buff them. Just create a new tank for each empire. You have the crew tank we all would like that is a really buffed up MBT and all those people who invested aren't disenfranchised. Really, everyone wins and gets what they want. Plus you have the option to take a crewed version of the MBT out if you have a cooldown or resource issue.

The only thing that people would be upset about is that solo players would have MBT access. I personally don't see that as a bad thing. They pop pretty quick now days and I think they have been well balanced.

Plus, who doesn't want more content? lol

How exactly would you buff a bigger tank when the current MBT is already quite powerful? Make it a bullet soak (an actual TANK)? There remains only one issue with all this (apart from having to balance a new tank within the vehicular ecosystem): the manpower issue Figment raises.
Why would I bother with a tank that can't be much more powerful than the current MBT's, and would probably cost more resource-wise, when me and my buddies can pull three MBT's instead?

Or you indeed make it the most powerful tank, stronger than the current MBTs. You can forget about the Lightning. Neither are interesting options for the game in the long run.

I'm all for more content. I really like the idea of the NS Thunder. However I'm with Figment on this one after reading a bit more and finally catching a glimpse of the bigger picture. The problems are much deeper than simply crewed vs solo tanks.


For me, the core of the game clashes with its intended nature as a F2P game, the latter implying a game which can catch as broad an audience as possible and thus the implementation of highly accessible gameplay.


Just an example among many, solo tanks. Great fun and you get to feel awesome. You enter a vehicle instantly and you're off. The gameplay is highly accessible. And it truly is a lot of fun. I actually stopped my current cert plans to up my Vanguard since spending more time with it recently. I play BF3, and I love tanks in the game. But the scale is not the same; the amount of tanks on the battlefield is highly limited. In PS2, everyone and there mother can pull a Tank.

I'm not arguing there is too much tank spam or whatnot per se, however having such power easily accessible degrades the game for everyone (except the tanker - at first). As a result, infantry can now counter armour quite efficiently thanks to the latest attempt to balance, which in turn affects the tankers' experience of the game (resulting in another balancing pass to increase MBT survivability).

So are the devs going to eventually reach a sweetspot with all the balancing? I still play the game and enjoy it. However I see whats at stake and truly feel the game would benefit from changes such as crewed-only tanks. However, this is a pretty big change to the game (and arguably a lot more needs changing). Too big a change, I fear. At the end of the day, SOE is here to make money, not the best MMOFPS to date. So they are going to use 'cheap thrills' that make the game accessible to the greatest amount of people at the expense of depth.

Of course these are just my opinion and feelings (which probably lack a lot of fact!). Like I said, I still enjoy the game quite a lot. It really isn't about coming back to PS1 as many seem to feel (at least not for me). However there are things that were done right in the game and which attracted players and kept them to the bitter end.

Maybe the game has to change to live longer and healthier than its predecessor. Maybe we have to sacrifice depth at the altar of accessibility for a game of such scope as Planetside to survive. I certainly don't think so, though. If a game is good, people will stick with it.

[Canaris]

How exactly would you buff a bigger tank when the current MBT is already quite powerful? Make it a bullet soak (an actual TANK)? There remains only one issue with all this (apart from having to balance a new tank within the vehicular ecosystem): the manpower issue Figment raises.
Why would I bother with a tank that can't be much more powerful than the current MBT's, and would probably cost more resource-wise, when me and my buddies can pull three MBT's instead?

Or you indeed make it the most powerful tank, stronger than the current MBTs. You can forget about the Lightning. Neither are interesting options for the game in the long run.

I'm all for more content. I really like the idea of the NS Thunder. However I'm with Figment on this one after reading a bit more and finally catching a glimpse of the bigger picture. The problems are much deeper than simply crewed vs solo tanks.


For me, the core of the game clashes with its intended nature as a F2P game, the latter implying a game which can catch as broad an audience as possible and thus the implementation of highly accessible gameplay.


Just an example among many, solo tanks. Great fun and you get to feel awesome. You enter a vehicle instantly and you're off. The gameplay is highly accessible. And it truly is a lot of fun. I actually stopped my current cert plans to up my Vanguard since spending more time with it recently. I play BF3, and I love tanks in the game. But the scale is not the same; the amount of tanks on the battlefield is highly limited. In PS2, everyone and there mother can pull a Tank.

I'm not arguing there is too much tank spam or whatnot per se, however having such power easily accessible degrades the game for everyone (except the tanker - at first). As a result, infantry can now counter armour quite efficiently thanks to the latest attempt to balance, which in turn affects the tankers' experience of the game (resulting in another balancing pass to increase MBT survivability).

So are the devs going to eventually reach a sweetspot with all the balancing? I still play the game and enjoy it. However I see whats at stake and truly feel the game would benefit from changes such as crewed-only tanks. However, this is a pretty big change to the game (and arguably a lot more needs changing). Too big a change, I fear. At the end of the day, SOE is here to make money, not the best MMOFPS to date. So they are going to use 'cheap thrills' that make the game accessible to the greatest amount of people at the expense of depth.

Of course these are just my opinion and feelings (which probably lack a lot of fact!). Like I said, I still enjoy the game quite a lot. It really isn't about coming back to PS1 as many seem to feel (at least not for me). However there are things that were done right in the game and which attracted players and kept them to the bitter end.

Maybe the game has to change to live longer and healthier than its predecessor. Maybe we have to sacrifice depth at the altar of accessibility for a game of such scope as Planetside to survive. I certainly don't think so, though. If a game is good, people will stick with it.

well they did just create that new damage resistance for AV weaopon types, it could have something similar with it's own AV damage type on it's tank round or a slightly better version to do with the armour in the form of a new alloy even both, cost a few more vehicle rescources but have the benefit from it.

[Dodgy Commando]

So a dedicated tank killer, correct?

I haven't had a chance to play around much since the new armour changes, but they are supposed to alleviate tankers' woes when facing infantry AV if I've understood correctly. I suppose balancing a new tank similarly to the recent changes as you suggest could work out, should said changes achieve their intended goal.

But again, why roll with this bad boy when you and your teamates can each roll their own tank? You can bring sufficient damage while splitting the target you create, diminishing risks. Whereas if the only tank you can roll is a multi-crewed one, you justify its power and existence compared to solo options.

[Landtank]

Personally, I would be really disappointed if they didn't allow me to drive and gun my Vanguard anymore. I have no problem moving and shooting, it's not that hard.

As for teamwork: if they want to add in a cert option that either A: allows you to drive solo, or B: allows you to have a separate driver and gunner I wouldn't be against it, just leave the option! How they would go about balancing it, I'm not sure, maybe make it exactly the same? Maybe the advantages of having a separate driver/gunner will be so extreme they won't need to balance it at all.

I understand the demand for driver/gunner, but I don't see the need. Sure teamwork is fun, I agree, the Harasser is a great example. But I don't want to have to have a gunner for my tank, I enjoy being able to do both.

IMO, the devs jumped in headfirst with the solo MBT, and now they are stuck with it. Honestly, put it on test and let me see how it is, I didn't mind it in PS1, but I love being able to use a tank solo in PS2, so I guess I would have to see how I feel about it.

[Dodgy Commando]

The best of both worlds, except that the compromise wouldn't solve anything. The exact same tank in a crewed variant, fielded next to its solo counterparts would prove very bad for the game.

Players get more XP from the crewed tanks, so it is safe to say they would become prime targets.

You get no viable benefit apart from situational awareness. Is this a sufficient advantage? No, you can gain more of an advantage by each player grabbing their own tank.

All this much to the despair of those wanting to play in crewed tanks. Solo and crewed tanks cannot exist together in the exact same vehicle class. There is just no point to the crewed variant in these circumstances. There has to be some concrete benefit to rolling a crewed vehicle compared to a solo variant, otherwise you are not making efficient use of your manpower.


People should try and really spend some time reading what Figment has to say. He may come off a bit spikey, but just try to objectively read what he has to say without just thinking about how your gameplay experience would change, but instead that of everyone playing in this huge game.

[moosepoop]

I want crew tanks, but changing MBT's would piss a lot of customers off who've already invested. If you made MBT's 2 man, you would buff them. Just create a new tank for each empire.

yep, this is also my opinion. i didnt make this thread to daydream. but to make it happen.

i think empire specific/NS super heavy tanks with dedicated drivers would be the most realistic way to implement this.

benefits to SOE

- lure solo mbt users on power creep
- bring in new sales
- fills new content quota
- fills role of bfr without raising outrage
- increases fan happiness, prolonging game longevity
- since spam is decreased, able to introduce non glass cannon vehicle

[Figment]

You know what WOULD be a compromise? I'll give you one.

1. Role: Light support tank
Configuration: Lightning
Manpower: 1
Armaments: Driver operated turreted gun
Driver: HE/HEAT/AP
Armour levels: Light sides and rear, Medium forward armour
Hitpoint category: Low
Speed: ~70-80 kph
Handling: Good

2. Role: Tank Destroyer / siege tank (NEW VEHICLE CLASS!)
Configuration: Magrider
Manpower: 2 (Min: 1)
Weapon systems: fixed forward mounted driver operated main gun, gunner operated defensive gun
Driver: AV (strong AP) or AI (Machine gun / Flamethrower)
Gunner: Turreted machine guns (AI/all purpose)
Armour levels: Medium armour for regular TDs, light for strafe capable TDs (hover/other system?), heavy forward armour
Hitpoint category: Medium
Speed: ~35-40kph
Handling: Poor

3. Role: Main Battle Tank
Configuration: Vanguard, Prowler
Manpower: 3 (min: 2)
Armaments: gunner operated turreted main gun, gunner operated defensive gun
Turret gunner weaponry: HE/HEAT/AP
Secondary gunner weaponry: AI/AV/AA
Armour levels: medium sides and rear, strong forward armour
Hitpoint category: High
Speed: ~55-60 kph
Handing: Decent

EDIT: Just posted it here: http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/lightning-td-mbt-fixing-tank-gameplay-for-crews-and-solo-players.123900/

Includes additional notes, most important dev actions required and of course gameplay goals of the change.

[moosepoop]

You know what WOULD be a compromise? I'll give you one.


your compromise involves remove solo mode from mbt, and introducing a weaker solo version, forcing soloers to spend cash and start certing all over again. its gonna cause outrage. thats even worse than nerfing solo mbts.

there is no way in hell your ideas will be implemented, and you are going to decrease the chance the devs will listen.

just nerf solo mbt back to pre gu8 glass cannon version with 2 hit kill to the rear, and introduce crewed cert/ new heavy tank. its a lot less complicated.


heavy tank is the most likely outcome. because it wont require devs reworking the magrider.

[Dodgy Commando]

Not weaker, more specialised.

All the other compromises come at the detriment of those wanting crewed variants, to such a point that it is not even worth implementing such a compromise. Yet we seem to be berrated for speaking strongly against said compromises.

When the Solo MBT is compromised, funny how people don't want to accept that either...

Yet the pro-crewed are seen in a worse light for reacting in a similar fashion, it seems to me.

[Figment]

your compromise involves remove solo mode from mbt, and introducing a weaker solo version, forcing soloers to spend cash and start certing all over again. its gonna cause outrage. thats even worse than nerfing solo mbts.

Solo mbt has to be removed. I'm not removing solo vehicle play. In fact, even the Magrider remains as was, it's just nerfed in armour, hit points and possibly a slight reduction in speed (doesn't mean speed boost is gone!).

I also already said that nobody would lose certs over it because you can just refund bought weaponry in station cash and refund certs in... certpoints by just resetting the cert points invested in the vehicle at that point in time.

Investments made can NEVER be an argument to piss people off if you're compensated. In fact, if you give the people that invested in this a bonus of 10% station cash or a free camo or decal of choice for every 1000 points invested, people would even invest en mass in it prior to the removal to get a little more profit out of it.

Look at how World of Tanks compensated players for the replacement of certain tanks and look at player response to it:

http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/?showtopic=46057&st=-20&p=703034

just nerf solo mbt back to pre gu8 glass cannon version with 2 hit kill to the rear, and introduce crewed cert/ new heavy tank. its a lot less complicated.

Doesn't work because it'd remain a direct Lightning competitor without adding anything to the game.



A compromise involves both sides giving and taking. Since the entire problem is created by having solo mbts in the first place, you can't do anything but remove solo mbts to solve the problem. Otherwise you're just adding void content. None of the other compromises try to tackle the serious problems that have arisen, none of the other compromises truly enrich the game by adding more playstyles and rewarding social play, none of the other compromises address tank spam at all, none of the other compromises address the Magrider issue, none of the other compromises address the Lightning-MBT competition issue.

I'm sorry, but as compromises go, mine is fastly superior... >_>

[Shogun]

some people just don´t get it, figment. you are talking to a wall here.

seems like the egoistic mbt solo users don´t want to understand your point because it would affect their playstyle. and every reasoning is in vain because of that.

no matter how often and good you try to proove your point, you are going to be trolled hard for it again and again.
that´s very sad!

[Kerrec]

some people just don´t get it, fidgment. you are talking to a wall here.

seems like the egoistic mbt solo users don´t want to understand your point because it would affect their playstyle. and every reasoning is in vain because of that.

no matter how often and good you try to proove your point, you are going to be trolled hard for it again and again.
that´s very sad!

First off, let me state very clearly: I AGREE with the majority of Figment's points on this issue.

However, Figment can never let his arguments stand on their own. There is always a barb, a flame or a not so subtle jab that just trolls people to continue arguing out of retaliation.

Has nothing to do with the actual issue anymore.

[Canaris]

So a dedicated tank killer, correct?

I haven't had a chance to play around much since the new armour changes, but they are supposed to alleviate tankers' woes when facing infantry AV if I've understood correctly. I suppose balancing a new tank similarly to the recent changes as you suggest could work out, should said changes achieve their intended goal.

But again, why roll with this bad boy when you and your teamates can each roll their own tank? You can bring sufficient damage while splitting the target you create, diminishing risks. Whereas if the only tank you can roll is a multi-crewed one, you justify its power and existence compared to solo options.

not just a Tank killer/destroyer like the other MBT's you could configure to suit yourself as driver choice/preference but if they choose a TD or more of a vehicle killer VK setup it could excel at that role.

[Figment]

The classes I described above provide three very distinguishable vehicle roles and gameplay.

If you imagine these units without seat switching, you get even better defined roles for players to make decisions between. The various chassis (racer, etc) could play out very well for fine tuning these roles to your own wishes. There is much to say for a fast relocation TD or TD played as storm ram or a TD that can rotate better, or in case of the Mag (which would have to be a bit lighter) a TD that can strafe (better).

I'm sure that given the new options, the removal of basically the Heavy Lightning would be neglible if you compensate players as one should (and not in such a crappy way as they did with the account wide purchase thing >.<; What a terrible implemented compensation that was!).

[moosepoop]

some people just don´t get it, figment. you are talking to a wall here.

seems like the egoistic mbt solo users don´t want to understand your point because it would affect their playstyle. and every reasoning is in vain because of that.

no matter how often and good you try to proove your point, you are going to be trolled hard for it again and again.
that´s very sad!

you are a moron. i started this thread to support dedicated drivers.

i dont support interfering with other players and FORCE my playstyle on them.


after harrasser, most player opinions on dedicated driving has changed dramatically. this thread has almost nobody against it, with overwhelming positive response. even people who used to be against crewed mbt are now ok with it. but if you ask for removing solo mbts, thats giving an inch and taking a mile.

i respect figments opinion because it shows the diverse range of views on this matter.

[Shogun]

i am all for dedicated driver as well, but figment made a valid point, that his solution would solve more problems than just gibing an additional option or adding another uber tank.

he is right, that adding the option to fix problems that were only introduced by the solo mbt would always be worse than simply go back to the ps1 system that worked for everyone.

the few that complained about being limited to the lightning in ps1 as a solo player now have a customisable lightning that can be equipped with a range of weapons. just like the mbt. it is even almost as powerful as the mbt, so they could think over and may have fewer problems in adepting to this system.

[moosepoop]

i am all for dedicated driver as well, but figment made a valid point, that his solution would solve more problems than just gibing an additional option or adding another uber tank.


instead of daydreaming about the good old days, i have thought deeply about how to convince SOE to actually agree to do it. my arguments calls for compromise and negotiation, and i appeal to SOEs need for profit. and i try to fit crewed tanks into their design plan.

and most of figments argument about "coexisting is impossible" is moot, because devs can just nerf the solo mbt.

[Figment]

Aside from that they can't without just making a Lightning out of it that's slower and has worse firepower for the driver. >.> Which would probably mean you'd have to nerf the Lightning as well (which wouldn't be entirely uncalled for) or reason that it gets a bit more hitpoints for the second gunner, compensated by worse driver guns than the Lightning guns.


The first of which could actually piss everyone who drives solo off, including the Lightning users. :p

[Canaris]

oh and you guys were asking the question as to why someone might choose to go with the 3 crew tank and what advantage it has over the current two man MBTs if you have both available other than the obvious, manoeuvrability & fire power potential, well the third answer is simple. Your tank crew works as a team right or that's the idea? 3 Engineers of course. Gives it far faster repair recovery time and even in the field durability depending on the situation.

[Whiteagle]

None of the other compromises try to tackle the serious problems that have arisen, none of the other compromises truly enrich the game by adding more playstyles and rewarding social play, none of the other compromises address tank spam at all, none of the other compromises address the Magrider issue, none of the other compromises address the Lightning-MBT competition issue.
Well mine did, but then again we don't know if the Magrider having its Secondary on the Nose Mount would work...

[Figment]

Well mine did, but then again we don't know if the Magrider having its Secondary on the Nose Mount would work...

Eh. The other tanks could use the secondary behind it. :/ The Mag's configuration is that of a "strafing TD", the others are turreted tanks. They never really mixed well as a group.

oh and you guys were asking the question as to why someone might choose to go with the 3 crew tank and what advantage it has over the current two man MBTs if you have both available other than the obvious, manoeuvrability & fire power potential, well the third answer is simple. Your tank crew works as a team right or that's the idea? 3 Engineers of course. Gives it far faster repair recovery time and even in the field durability depending on the situation.

Repair times matter in this game? It takes only a few seconds to repair anything, wouldn't influence my choice. :/

(Personally of the opinion glue guns and med apps need "ammo" too, btw).

[Whiteagle]

The Mag's configuration is that of a "strafing TD", the others are turreted tanks. They never really mixed well as a group.
Then what forms of locomotion shall we give the other Tank Destroyers?

Legs would probably work for the NC, but I keep picturing something with articulated balloon tires for the TR...

[Figment]

Then what forms of locomotion shall we give the other Tank Destroyers?

Legs would probably work for the NC, but I keep picturing something with articulated balloon tires for the TR...

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Planetside%20Vehicle%20Concepts/TD_Concepts2.jpg

?

[Canaris]

Repair times matter in this game? It takes only a few seconds to repair anything, wouldn't influence my choice. :/


of course repair times matter, are you trying to say surviability, vehicle endurance, longer engagement times and shorter downtime for the vehicle don't matter? I agree repair times are short overall but so is TTK.

(Personally of the opinion glue guns and med apps need "ammo" too, btw).
that's a whole other can of worms right there :lol:

[JesNC]

Maybe a limited horizontal traverse for the tracked/wheeled TD main guns? Something between 30° or 60° left/right? I'd imagine they would be terribly disadvantaged if the guns were entirely fixed forward.

Really love the wheeled TR concept btw :D

[Figment]

Think ATV fixed forward. :)

[Figment]

Canaris look at those concepts carefully. :p

Balljoints and quad tracks. :P

of course repair times matter, are you trying to say surviability, vehicle endurance, longer engagement times and shorter downtime for the vehicle don't matter? I agree repair times are short overall but so is TTK.

That's the whole problem: they're far too short to be distinguishable reasons. :( They hardly keep a player out of a fight if they have to repair, in fact, the reason it keeps them out is because they only have to repair frequently due to being glass cannons, but not for a continuous long period of time, so you get little time to make real tactical use of that downtime anyway. Which is sad. Besides, I'd rather be long repair times is a bad point for crewed tanks, since then it'd be less soloable and not as camp-prone. ;)

It's like the hacking speed upgrade. 50% hacking speed increase? Who would invest in that if the time gain is a few fractions of a second while it's never vital to have that bit more speed? I mean in PS1 it would, but in PS2, CCs don't need hacking and equipment and vehicle terms give away your presence anyway if you hack them so going back to cloak isn't really a reason either.

that's a whole other can of worms right there :lol:

Indeed it is. Scouting device gets limits too. :/ Why not ammo packs, glue guns, engi turrets, engi glue, medic glue? >.>

Even Captain Kirk runs out of photon torpedoes and inverted tractor beams now and then! D:

[Canaris]

oh and a fixed gun on a non-strafing vehicle in a game like Planetside 2... I can already hear the screams of frustration from here. Not a good idea tbbh < extra b is for brutally.

[Canaris]

Canaris look at those concepts carefully. :p

Balljoints and quad tracks. :P

everyone knows strafing vehicles is Vanu black magic :D

[BlaxicanX]

some people just don´t get it, figment. you are talking to a wall here.

seems like the egoistic mbt solo users don´t want to understand your point because it would affect their playstyle. and every reasoning is in vain because of that.

no matter how often and good you try to proove your point, you are going to be trolled hard for it again and again.
that´s very sad!

Figgy, how does it feel to have your own personal cheerleader?

[Baneblade]

So much selfishness in this thread. Solo MBTs need to go. The Lightning is a fine tank for soloing.

[BlaxicanX]

I think it's interesting that people are so obsessed with poisoning the well (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well) on this forum.

Like, what is it about being a human that makes us want to immediately assume that someone has ulterior motives whenever they disagree with us.

[Landtank]

So much selfishness in this thread. Solo MBTs need to go. The Lightning is a fine tank for soloing.

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

There is nothing wrong with them.

If anything, the people who think that their way is best and that there is no compromise are the selfish people. There is a compromise, this is why you aren't a game designer I guess. Do I know what it should be? Nope, I'm not going to waste my time and pretend to.

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

[Whiteagle]

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Planetside%20Vehicle%20Concepts/TD_Concepts2.jpg

Well here is what I came up with...
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j65/Whiteagle/TerranTankDestroyer_zpsc4cb45f1.png

Tachikoma style leg-wheels.

[AThreatToYou]

If you put a nice, fat AV gun on the Flash and gave it a forward armor plate so you couldn't shoot the driver off or 1HK the vehicle with AV weaponry, you'd have a TD. The rumble-seater would have an important role...

TDs, historically, have not been designed on their own chassis. They are usually conversions from other models and can vary from gigantic to tiny, with the smaller ones being more successful. In the modern era, with lightweight shoulder-mounded anti-vehicular weapons being readily available, a Flash rocket launcher that simply featured that empire's AV with a rapid reload time and increased ammo reserve would be TD enough.