Vote on Crewed MBT

[Livefire]

Higby mentioned this site and it looks like we have a chance to get this important issue majorly noticed. I know a lot of us PS1 vets want to see this feature back in the game along with many other things (that PS2 is currently lacking).
http://planetside-tracker.com/sugges...ing-a-purpose/

[Gugabalog]

Voted! Was a wonderful post

[maradine]

I voted against it. I don't think it's the correct decision for the long-term viability of the game in today's market. Coincidentally, I also like gunning my own ride. At risk of repeating myself, I'd also say I'm fine with both options being on the table, and even split gunning being the un-certed default.

[Sledgecrushr]

I like how its setup now. If you want to solo a mbt then more power to you. If you want to go with a secondary gunner then you are only creating an advantage for yourself. I dont want to be forced to look for a gunner so I can have a tank. And I can give a shit about the liberator argument.

[VaderShake]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I like how its setup now. If you want to solo a mbt then more power to you. If you want to go with a secondary gunner then you are only creating an advantage for yourself. I dont want to be forced to look for a gunner so I can have a tank. And I can give a shit about the liberator argument.

The Liberator argument while a practical example is not comparable because the Liberator Pilot has access to a weapon, even if it is less powerful. Yes, 3 people in a Liberator working together is wonderful...sitting around waiting/hoping for 2 people to get in your tank and stay in your tank to gun is not. Also for the team play argument you will find people who take a tank and will jump seats anyway instead of waiting for a crew.

I think the hope should be let them get PS2 out, then add some really cool crewed vehicles after the population grows, I think more people would be inclined to try crewing after they are hooked on the core game. Also I would love to see a moving seige tower/ Goliath 2142 crewed vehicle for the ground or crewed Battle Walkers and hopefully someday crewed ships either in space or water.

[Timealude]

The one thing i dont like about the article is how they throw the magrider under the bus saying it benefits from the front mounted gun, when actually its a huge nerf from PS1. Infantry can get behind us extremely easy as well as lightnings. If your gonna add the crew requirement to the MBT do it to all of them or dont do it at all.

[Ghost Runner]

I see it come up often enough about dedicated gunners in tanks while I personally like the current set up I am also fond of the Idea as well I liked it in Op Flash point and JO good times using a tank crew.

My solution is make a MK2 MBTs!

Give them better armor and make them hit harder to encourage Team play while leaving the current MBTs like they are for preference, lone wolfs and zerging.

It seems like a winning Idea to me.

[Sledgecrushr]

Originally Posted by Ghost Runner

I see it come up often enough about dedicated gunners in tanks while I personally like the current set up I am also fond of the Idea as well I liked it in Op Flash point and JO good times using a tank crew.

My solution is make a MK2 MBTs!

Give them better armor and make them hit harder to encourage Team play while leaving the current MBTs like they are for preference, lone wolfs and zerging.

It seems like a winning Idea to me.

So youre asking for a buffed tank because it has a driver?

[Ghost Runner]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

So youre asking for a buffed tank because it has a driver?

Well it don't have to be buffed but giving it better hit points would make it worth while to have friends in a tank.

[Yenni]

Originally Posted by Ghost Runner

I see it come up often enough about dedicated gunners in tanks while I personally like the current set up I am also fond of the Idea as well I liked it in Op Flash point and JO good times using a tank crew.

My solution is make a MK2 MBTs!

Give them better armor and make them hit harder to encourage Team play while leaving the current MBTs like they are for preference, lone wolfs and zerging.

It seems like a winning Idea to me.

I'm all in favor of new vehicles. Some sort of heavy tank outside the class of you average main battle tank. Only problem I can see is the possibility of a new "BFR"...*shudder shudder*

Those aren't fear shudders btw.


But I agree, I'd rather have a new, heavier, assault tank then try and mod the current ones to accept multiple gunners.

[Figment]

Considering people can change gunseats on the fly right now... Not sure if you want a heavier tank pull up, switch seats and camp you with two buddies... Already considet that an issue even with the current mbt, if they would be split. Besides, current ap guns kill lightnings in two, three shots depending on where they got hit, how heavy would the gun be?


Hope they make switching seats quite a bit slower btw, say 2-3 seconds, enough time to tape Boomers to the driver's rear if he was solo camping, enough time to make a gunner more important when facing other threats. Consider it the replacement for the vulnerability period of getting out to change seats, still more chance you survive.

[Baneblade]

I'm firmly in the crewed tank category. I do think the driver should have a gun though, just not the 360 turret the gunners have. Rather a forward MG with a 70 degree arc and limited Z axis arc. Sort of like PS1 ATV and the original Lightning weapons.

MBTs should be three person, with the Driver, Main Gunner, and Commander (secondary gunner).

Let the Commander place vehicle only waypoints.

[Vanir]

"Argument: We can just make it a cert or an option so everyone can use the MBT.
Rebuttal: If it were to be a cert that would be actively punishing players for their desire to work together. Those certs could be spent on other things, such as armor, the special ability, performance, or weapon mods. It is unfair to demand players pay up their certs just to be able to work together. Furthermore, if it were an option it would render crewed MBTs at a severe disadvantage. A crewed MBT with driver, gunner, and top gunner would be at a severe disadvantage against three one-man MBTs. As those MBTs would have three times the HP and twice the firepower (assuming the crewed MBT's top gun was AT). As such, taking solo MBTs would always prove to be the more powerful choice, again punishing players who opt for teamwork by giving them a severely weakened state against a numerically even opponent utilizing the same vehicle as them."

You can have certs that cost 0 pt's. Also the devs have said that they could make it so that the cert will also unlock something, that will make the tank more powerfull so that it could match 2 tanks (quad turret for the prowler). This is just one of many things the devs can do to balance out a multi crewed tank vs multi tanks. A cert is the best option to go.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Vanir

You can have certs that cost 0 pt's. Also the devs have said that they could make it so that the cert will also unlock something, that will make the tank more powerfull so that it could match 2 tanks (quad turret for the prowler). This is just one of many things the devs can do to balance out a multi crewed tank vs multi tanks. A cert is the best option to go.

=/

So do you honestly think that reducing the TTK between tanks even further is going to make the Lightning more viable, tank combat more dynamic and fun, or that basically adding superweapons is the sole way of appeasing everyone? You don't think that adding an even stronger gun would upset anyone in the process? Look, I don't mind a heavier tank (akin to a Mammoth tank requiring three-four crew) at some point, but I don't expect that to have a stronger gun, rather I'd expect it to require more dedicated crews.

If an AV MAX or HA cannot deal with one (let alone more than one) camping MBT as is (and a Dual Falcon certainly can't), what makes you think this will result in a better or fairer game for everyone if the TTK is even further reduced?

What makes you think this wouldn't just create MORE imbalances and issues? You're not just balancing solo-MBT against dual-MBT, you're balancing it against everything else!

Would it become more attractive to dual crew a MBT if it has a more powerful weapon than solo-MBTs? OF COURSE IT WOULD. But why would the current solo-MBT be taken as a standard for that? Why not REDUCE the size of the solo-MBT gun or change the purpose and type of the solo MBT gun instead of adding a BIGGER gun? What if the solo MBT becomes a pure tank destroyer with a different frame, a fixed forward gun, far less splash and anti-infantry damage?

No, simply adding a stronger gun for a dedicated gunner isn't the way to go. That's arbitrary patchwork that tries to compromise while screwing up everything else and you know it. There's a saying here that says: "Zachte heelmeesters maken stinkende wonden". The literal translation of that is "gentle healers make stinking wounds". It means: "It is better to treat a problem thoroughly even if the treatment is painful, otherwise it may very likely make the problem worse or leave the issue to rot."

What I want to say with that is, there's simply no room for a compromise where the current solo-MBT is left as is without upsetting every single inter-unit balance. It has to at the very least change the gun available to the driver to be worse than the Lightning's same type guns if it is turreted. Why? Because then the solo driver has to make a choice: high armour, low damage, or low armour, high damage. Why? Because there's simply no choice in Low armour - low damage vs high armour - high damage.


Why am I then suggesting to create Tank Destroyer variants as the solo-MBT versions? For one, because they fire in the direction they drive and pretty much fight as solo MBTs do now, with the exception that they can be flanked. Hence it may have a stronger (anti-vehicular) gun if it is not turreted, but fixed. The Magrider though, being able to strafe, is not vulnerable to that and therefore must have a weaker gun than the other empires since it'll be able to keep its gun on target more easily. You notice this in game right now as well: it's easy to circle strafe a target with and therefore to out angle it.

But honestly, a MBT itself must have a dedicated driver (with at most a tiny AI machinegun) and gunner controlling the most powerful gun and nothing else can come close to balancing out these issues. :/

[Vanir]

Originally Posted by Figment

=/

So do you honestly think that reducing the TTK between tanks even further is going to make the Lightning more viable, tank combat more dynamic and fun, or that basically adding superweapons is the sole way of appeasing everyone? You don't think that adding an even stronger gun would upset anyone in the process? Look, I don't mind a heavier tank (akin to a Mammoth tank requiring three-four crew) at some point, but I don't expect that to have a stronger gun, rather I'd expect it to require more dedicated crews.

If an AV MAX or HA cannot deal with one (let alone more than one) camping MBT as is (and a Dual Falcon certainly can't), what makes you think this will result in a better or fairer game for everyone if the TTK is even further reduced?

What makes you think this wouldn't just create MORE imbalances and issues? You're not just balancing solo-MBT against dual-MBT, you're balancing it against everything else!

Would it become more attractive to dual crew a MBT if it has a more powerful weapon than solo-MBTs? OF COURSE IT WOULD. But why would the current solo-MBT be taken as a standard for that? Why not REDUCE the size of the solo-MBT gun or change the purpose and type of the solo MBT gun instead of adding a BIGGER gun? What if the solo MBT becomes a pure tank destroyer with a different frame, a fixed forward gun, far less splash and anti-infantry damage?

No, simply adding a stronger gun for a dedicated gunner isn't the way to go. That's arbitrary patchwork that tries to compromise while screwing up everything else and you know it. There's a saying here that says: "Zachte heelmeesters maken stinkende wonden". The literal translation of that is "gentle healers make stinking wounds". It means: "It is better to treat a problem thoroughly even if the treatment is painful, otherwise it may very likely make the problem worse or leave the issue to rot."

What I want to say with that is, there's simply no room for a compromise where the current solo-MBT is left as is without upsetting every single inter-unit balance. It has to at the very least change the gun available to the driver to be worse than the Lightning's same type guns if it is turreted. Why? Because then the solo driver has to make a choice: high armour, low damage, or low armour, high damage. Why? Because there's simply no choice in Low armour - low damage vs high armour - high damage.


Why am I then suggesting to create Tank Destroyer variants as the solo-MBT versions? For one, because they fire in the direction they drive and pretty much fight as solo MBTs do now, with the exception that they can be flanked. Hence it may have a stronger (anti-vehicular) gun if it is not turreted, but fixed. The Magrider though, being able to strafe, is not vulnerable to that and therefore must have a weaker gun than the other empires since it'll be able to keep its gun on target more easily. You notice this in game right now as well: it's easy to circle strafe a target with and therefore to out angle it.

But honestly, a MBT itself must have a dedicated driver (with at most a tiny AI machinegun) and gunner controlling the most powerful gun and nothing else can come close to balancing out these issues. :/

I was using a quad gun turret as an example from what the devs have last said about this topic 2 weeks ago. I don't know what the devs will do. Heck maybe they will just increase the armor of a multi-crewed MBT?