Driver/Gunners... NO!

[Sledgecrushr]

Originally Posted by Retaliation

Making drivers be forced to have gunners to fight would be you telling everyone else what is "fun". Fortunately the devs have found a solution to that conundrum by giving both the driver and gunner guns. That people get caught up on the idea that a secondary gunner must have a gun weaker than or equal to the primary gun isn't the devs fault. I can think of so many ways to make a secondary gunner preferable to simply taking another tank (without factoring resources mind you).

Thing is a secondary gun will probably round out the tanks offensive firepower. A tank is pretty helpless against air and infantry in most situations. This is where the secondary weapon will really shine. Mounted with an aa secondary weapon the tank will probably prove to be equal against agile fighters. With ai secondary infantry will be mowed down wherever they are found. The secondary weapon allows the tank to be more versatile, hence its overall power grows significantly. A tank with only a driver/gunner is a sitting duck against its air or infantry counters.

[fod]

Originally Posted by Retaliation

Making drivers be forced to have gunners to fight would be you telling everyone else what is "fun". Fortunately the devs have found a solution to that conundrum by giving both the driver and gunner guns. That people get caught up on the idea that a secondary gunner must have a gun weaker than or equal to the primary gun isn't the devs fault. I can think of so many ways to make a secondary gunner preferable to simply taking another tank (without factoring resources mind you).

i dont want to force anything on anyone
i say have it BOTH ways

if you want to drive and gun thats fine - i want to have separate so there should be an OPTIONAL cert that lets me do this

i dont understand why people are against having it BOTH ways

[Sledgecrushr]

Originally Posted by fod

i dont want to force anything on anyone
i say have it BOTH ways

if you want to drive and gun thats fine - i want to have separate so there should be an OPTIONAL cert that lets me do this

i dont understand why people are against having it BOTH ways

The issue for me mostly stems with the magrider being a floating turret already and how is this going to translate into a third person.

[Littleman]

Originally Posted by fod

i dont want to force anything on anyone
i say have it BOTH ways

if you want to drive and gun thats fine - i want to have separate so there should be an OPTIONAL cert that lets me do this

i dont understand why people are against having it BOTH ways

I haven't actually seen anyone say they want MBT's to be strictly to be driver=gunner, but there are those that believe anything less than driver+gunner is broken in terms of balance, encouraging "teamwork," etc.

The solo driver=gunners really don't have a problem with people wanting others to dedicate to a single role, they just have a problem with being forced into a single, dedicated role because someone else thinks that's how it should be. The back and forth just obscures that point underneath all the venom until someone mentions the best case scenario like it's a novel idea in this thread.

[Retaliation]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Thing is a secondary gun will probably round out the tanks offensive firepower. A tank is pretty helpless against air and infantry in most situations. This is where the secondary weapon will really shine. Mounted with an aa secondary weapon the tank will probably prove to be equal against agile fighters. With ai secondary infantry will be mowed down wherever they are found. The secondary weapon allows the tank to be more versatile, hence its overall power grows significantly. A tank with only a driver/gunner is a sitting duck against its air or infantry counters.

It doesn't even need to be an AA or Anti infantry gun. A tank with a guided rocket launcher as a secondary gun would be awesome. You could give it longer range and higher up front damage. I'm just trying to argue against the notion that it's an inherently flawed system and that everyone will go for 2 tanks. If that is the result it's the devs that have the problem not the system.

@fod: Sorry I didn't get that from your post. I think the problem is that there is no perfect solution to give both sides what they want. As a result you have people arguing for their solution so their fun isn't compromised.

[Sledgecrushr]

Originally Posted by Retaliation

It doesn't even need to be an AA or Anti infantry gun. A tank with a guided rocket launcher as a secondary gun would be awesome. You could give it longer range and higher up front damage. I'm just trying to argue against the notion that it's an inherently flawed system and that everyone will go for 2 tanks. If that is the result it's the devs that have the problem not the system.

@fod: Sorry I didn't get that from your post. I think the problem is that there is no perfect solution to give both sides what they want. As a result you have people arguing for their solution so their fun isn't compromised.

I see your two one manned MBTs and raise you one air2ground reaver. I see I have you in checkmate.

[Klockan]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I see your two one manned MBTs and raise you one air2ground reaver. I see I have you in checkmate.

Not really, the 2 one manned mbt's just switch to aa mode and annihilate the reaver.

[Sledgecrushr]

Originally Posted by Klockan

Not really, the 2 one manned mbt's just switch to aa mode and annihilate the reaver.

As you are driving focused on your path, I would certainly be able to kill one tank before you know what hit you. If I could escape the aa guns from the second tank then that second tank is either immobilized waiting for me to come back or its going to be dead meat when it does move off. You have limited yourself being in a two manned vehicle and you deserve to die under the guns of my reaver.

[RodenyC]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I see your two one manned MBTs and raise you one air2ground reaver. I see I have you in checkmate.

I see your air2ground reaver with the AA lighting following behind.Who wins now?

[Flaropri]

Originally Posted by RodenyC

I see your air2ground reaver with the AA lighting following behind.Who wins now?

The one with the Orbital Strike. (Most likely a TR infiltrator hiding behind a rock enjoying watching the NC and VS blow each other to smithereens.)

[Littleman]

Originally Posted by RodenyC

I see your air2ground reaver with the AA lighting following behind.Who wins now?

Originally Posted by Flaropri

The one with the Orbital Strike. (Most likely a TR infiltrator hiding behind a rock enjoying watching the NC and VS blow each other to smithereens.)

I would have said the one in the MBT smart enough to take out the lightning first. It'd be quick if their aim is good.

Though I'd wonder why that lightning gunner isn't in one of the MBT's...

[Sledgecrushr]

LOL this whole series of events would have been different if only the MBT would have had a second gunner manning the AA turret.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

LOL this whole series of events would have been different if only the MBT would have had a second gunner manning the AA turret.

*sad trombone*

[Sephirex]

Every time I come back and check on this thread I see the exact same posts, being made ad infinitum.

[Azren]

A suggestion in the Idea Vault on this topic: http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=45169

Show your support there if in favour, might just get it through to the devs