Vertical stabilizer for vehicle turrets?

Azren · 2012-02-13, 05:30 AM

What are your thoughts on vertical stabilizers for vehicle turrets? Do you want them in game or not? Please write an explanation to your answere.

If you are unclear on what I mean; a vertical stabilizer would help the gunner keep aim while the vehicle moves up and down on obsticles. In PS 1 we have this system in most ground vehicles, but only for horizontal movement (for example, when a tank turns, your turret does not turn with it). Unlike in PS1, there would be a maximum speed at which the turret can adopt to the changes, so very rough terrain would still make aiming very hard.
How this would affect gameplay mostly is by enhancing the speed the vehicles can move while still being at their full potential.

Redshift · 2012-02-13, 05:32 AM

I went no, if your driver decides to drive over stupid terrain that's his own fault

DayOne · 2012-02-13, 05:35 AM

No stabilisers makes for realistic and interesting game play that means the driver has some responsibility rather than just getting from point A to point B.

Yes it's annoying over rough terrain so you NEED to slow down to shoot properly.

But if this method is used then turrets need as much movement as possible, 360 degrees if possible.

Edit: I know realism isn't a huge factor in this game but immersion is.

Azren · 2012-02-13, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by DayOne

No stabilisers makes for realistic and interesting game play that means the driver has some responsibility rather than just getting from point A to point B.

Vertical stabilizers are standard for all of today's tanks, this would not change in the future. Check this video for an example:

Traak · 2012-02-13, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by DayOne

No stabilisers makes for realistic and interesting game play that means the driver has some responsibility rather than just getting from point A to point B.

"Realistic" is turrets that actually stay, not just on azimuth, but on target, after you have spotted the target with your targeting system.

The M1A1's gun traverses and moves vertically to maintain it's bearing on a chosen target. Driver can be doing anything in his vehicle up to the bump-stops of the turrets vertical travel, and the gun will stay on target.

That is how it needs to be to be realistic. I think it would be a good addition to the game, too.

Livefire · 2012-02-14, 03:25 AM

Originally Posted by Traak

"Realistic" is turrets that actually stay, not just on azimuth, but on target, after you have spotted the target with your targeting system.

The M1A1's gun traverses and moves vertically to maintain it's bearing on a chosen target. Driver can be doing anything in his vehicle up to the bump-stops of the turrets vertical travel, and the gun will stay on target.

That is how it needs to be to be realistic. I think it would be a good addition to the game, too.

I totally agree realism for the win and being it is futuristic you can even beef things up even more so it is full of non stop action and destruction. A action/scifi/sim/mmofps would rewrite the fps genre and is exactly what planet side 2 should strive for. A game changer to show all these noob clone arcade fps's whats up

Erendil · 2012-02-14, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by Livefire

I totally agree realism for the win and being it is futuristic you can even beef things up even more so it is full of non stop action and destruction. A action/scifi/sim/mmofps would rewrite the fps genre and is exactly what planet side 2 should strive for. A game changer to show all these noob clone arcade fps's whats up

Realism is great up to a point, but it needs to take a back seat to gameplay. Vertical stabilizers reduce the amount of skill needed to be an effective gunner and simplifies it to the point that a lot of the challenge is gone, and gameplay suffers as a result. Remember this is a war game, not a simulator. It's a contest of skills, and all other things being equal, if something greatly diminishes the skill involved it should probably be discarded.

Of course we have little info on the effective and max range of vehicle weapons, of typical engagement distances, nor of how much punishment various vehicles can take. So it's possible that some form of stabilization may be necessary to be at all effective in a combat vehicle. But I highly doubt it.

I think I might be okay with it in some limited form if it exists as an unlock buried deep within a vehicle's cert tree. But I don't think it's something that should be available in a stock vehicle.

VioletZero · 2012-02-14, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Erendil

Realism is great up to a point, but it needs to take a back seat to gameplay. Vertical stabilizers reduce the amount of skill needed to be an effective gunner and simplifies it to the point that a lot of the challenge is gone, and gameplay suffers as a result. Remember this is a war game, not a simulator. It's a contest of skills, and all other things being equal, if something greatly diminishes the skill involved it should probably be discarded.

Of course we have little info on the effective and max range of vehicle weapons, of typical engagement distances, nor of how much punishment various vehicles can take. So it's possible that some form of stabilization may be necessary to be at all effective in a combat vehicle. But I highly doubt it.

I think I might be okay with it in some limited form if it exists as an unlock buried deep within a vehicle's cert tree. But I don't think it's something that should be available in a stock vehicle.

Skill gap is great, but it needs to be the result of DEPTH.

Taking away vertical stabilizers does not increase the game's depth. And if it doesn't increase depth, it at least needs to be more fun.

But it's not fun to have to compensate for your driver going on uneven random terrain. It's a frustration.

Your focus on increasing the importance on skill and teamwork is getting in the way of the facts. Tanks should be something easy to pick up and play. After all, that's why drivers can control the main gun now. It should also be easy to pick up the machine gunner position on someone else's tank without it being a huge frustration.

Being an effective tank driver should come down more to greater tact, not greater skill.

DayOne · 2012-02-13, 05:47 AM

I imagine if this were realistic then they'd have all manner of stabilizers on their vehicles. But that would be boring as hell.

Kaotc · 2012-02-13, 05:52 AM

No, the driver is gunning, so if he wants to shoot properly, he needs to drive properly.

its already to easy in the fact that the driver can gun his own turret, adding in aids for him doing so is a non-starter for me.

ringring · 2012-02-13, 06:07 AM

Well the driver is the gunner. Also, the floating magrider has a softer ride meaning that no stable-izers hurt TR and NC more and possibly TR more than NC since the prowler is to become the fastest tank.

Even so, I voted no.

I suppose many things go together into the 'balance topic', namely how is easy is it to drive, how easy is it to gun, speed, armour, firepower (both in tank vs tank and tank vs other units on the battlefield) - and we won't know that for certain until beta and after a couple of balance passes.

*usual plea to not have self-gunning tanks

Shade Millith · 2012-02-13, 05:59 AM

The driver already guns himself. We don't need to make it any easier than it's already become.

Azren · 2012-02-13, 06:31 AM

This topic should not be limited to tanks. Sunderers and the TBA buggies should also be part of the conversation.

I would like to see a turret stabilizing option as a possible sidegrade. Maybe as a "stabilization / turing speed" sidegrade.

I do agree with the above though. A self driven/gunned vehicle needs no such system, maybe make it exclusive for the guns which require a gunner?

Kaotc · 2012-02-13, 06:51 AM

i dont think secondary gunners are going to be affected any where near as much as the main gun, you hardly need stablisers on dual 15mm chainguns ontop of a tank, they move fast enough to be able to compensate manually.

AncientVanu · 2012-02-13, 07:00 AM

More like limited stabilization would be ok. The gun should not be completely stabilized, as that would make the gunner pretty deadly. On the other hand a complete lack of stabilization is terrible cause when the vehicles is on the move the gunner can't hit anything, you've seen the terrain in PS2, every little bump is going to make you miss big time.
Limited stabilization would mean the gun is stabilized but not dead on, the terrain still affects the aim and would require minor corrections but not as huge as when it has no stabilization at all.

View Poll Results: Vertical stabilizers for ground vehicles, yes or no? Explain below.
Yes	46	52.27%
No	42	47.73%
Voters: 88. You may not vote on this poll