Gameplay: Crew Served Weapons - Page 3

Coreldan · 2011-07-16, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

Perhaps letting the assisting crew members use their own weapons, so that the assisting people maybe just have to "use" the machine gun and as long as they stick close enough, they will provide the bonus and will still be able to fire their own weaponry. Also, as long as being an "assistant", they should get a share of the kills/experience the actual machine gunner does.

I love teamwork and I dont really see this much different to a pilot vs. gunner argument in many vehicles in game.

Just need to tweak stuff to make it worth the while for everyone.

To sort of add to myself, I definitely think these weapons should also work solo, but at a diminished rate. But still, the assistant should probably be able to act "freely" within a certain radius and the bonus would be given, so no boring belt feeding minigames.

I currently play a lot as an engineer/support person simply cos I sorta suck at shooting in this game somehow

Could be a nice way to be able to participate in the ground fight somehow. Currently I'm just "stuck" repairing tanks/turrets that other people are using.

Currently to do that I sorta have to get as a gunner to some vehicle or so and I for one sort of prefer the grunt style gameplay.

Forsaken One · 2011-07-17, 01:40 PM

I'm at odds with this. while more teamwork is good not only have they already stated that inventories most likely won't be in the game but that would take away the one thing an engy can do himself.

A assault will be a good fighter do to guns and stuff.

the medic will be a good fighter do to healing himself.

A sniper will be a good fighter do to being a camping ranged (enter insult here.)

An engineer should be a good fighter by building stuff.

Drentz · 2011-07-17, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Tool

Once the novelty of being able to do it wore off, it would be boring I agree. If simply having the need to assemble them with multiple parts carried by two or three people could serve a similar purpose without restraining anyone else to the weapon besides the player firing it. Loading/unloading done automatically while others with the gunner are free to cover him until they choose to break it down and move on.

Possibly still give that feeling of a crew served weapon without bogging 2-3 other players down in gameplay that isn't all that exciting.

A branch of the Engineer class tree for field emplacments I would love to see as well. Like mentioned, sandbags, these crew served weapon systems, small camoflauged nets that fit the enviorment, etc.

I was thinking of something like this for Engineers, but a little bit different. What about an advanced Engineer deployable that simply had the ability to seat an additional gunner or two? Maybe one turret is a machine gun, while the other fires slower loading but more damaging RPG-esque ammo? So instead of leaving one or two people as an "ammo-feeder" or some simple support role, you have two or three full-fledge gunners.

Soothsayer · 2011-07-17, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by Drentz

I was thinking of something like this for Engineers, but a little bit different. What about an advanced Engineer deployable that simply had the ability to seat an additional gunner or two? Maybe one turret is a machine gun, while the other fires slower loading but more damaging RPG-esque ammo? So instead of leaving one or two people as an "ammo-feeder" or some simple support role, you have two or three full-fledge gunners.

While I don't particularly like the idea as originally stated in the OP, I want to contribute to this notion...

Say you have an antitank emplacement that has been deployed by an engineer. If you were to have a secondary gunner, I would give that gunner a primary fire on the second gun that was straight damage (less than the main gun), but also give the secondary gunner something that works together to enhance the primary gunner's damage, directional damage resistance (like a partial shield that can swing 360 degrees) or some sort of useful effect.

Take special note that this effect needs to be reasonable, aim/skill based and something that enhances the higher human cost required to crew the weapon... Greater or equal to the sum of the parts (aka unlike the TR "more people for the same DPS" vehicle design philosophy which I hope to say goodbye to in PS2).

Treerat · 2011-07-19, 11:25 AM

Here is one way to implement them.

Each CSW is dived into 2 or 3 pieces; the weapon itself (machine gun, mortar, etc) the supports (tripod, stand, etc) and ammunition/ feed mechanism (belt, auto-loader, etc). Each piece would be large enough that a single soldier can only carry one piece at a time. To actually deploy the weapon would require that one soldier "deploy" his or her part, creating what amounts to a immobile "vehicle" with 2 "gunner" spots. Someone standing on one of those gunner spots and with part of a CSW that isn't already deployed would then have the option to "use" their piece to add to the weapon. Once they have used their piece, the soldier would be free to move around and act however they wished. When all 3 pieces are deployed the CSW is operational and can be manned and operated at full effect by one soldier but without the ability to be moved unless it was split back into it's component pieces.

This way the weapon remains interesting for those not using it (since they can go off and spot/ snipe, defend with their combat rifle, set up a repair/ medic station, etc) but it remains something that requires initial cooperation and is only at it's best when multiple people cooperate.

And frankly people who are saying "it's not FUN" - you need to stop thinking as if everyone else thinks like you do. I used to set up MAX & vehicle resupply stations around my AMS when we didn't have a base close to whatever we were assaulting. Even though it only really involved the occasional repairs and lots running between vehicles and terminals lugging boxes of ammunition I couldn't use (and having minimal personal weaponry), I had fun because I knew I was having a bigger impact on the battle than all the mossie-dropping HA-spamming kill whores. Now if one person can find something like that fun, why wouldn't there be others? Maybe instead of screaming about an idea with no real effect on you (other than diminishing how big your epeen is compared to others) you should offer up actual suggestions? Nah... that would be too much like having to accept that you are not the center of the universe.

DviddLeff · 2011-07-19, 01:00 PM

Currently working my way through the Pacific series, and the machine guns in it reminded me that I hadn't replied to this thread.

I want to see crew served weapons; simply because its awesome teamwork. Now how to make it useful is a different matter; it needs to be worth two guys working together to be better than two guys with standard weapons, otherwise its pointless.

Now to do that I would have the two players carry different parts of the weapon; one the tripod/mount and one the actual barrel. Once deployed the weapon (be it a machine gun, mortar, missile launcher, etc) would be significantly better than a held weapon.

When the second member of the team is working with the weapon reload times are halved, and any overheating penalties get reduced by 50%.

Traak · 2011-07-19, 01:29 PM

Yeah, I wonder how you can make it exciting for the whole team. Make the ammo guy get more XP than the trigger monkey?

WarChimp130 · 2011-07-19, 01:40 PM

I think while it sounds good it just wouldn't execute well. It's not like in a vehicle where everybody has something to do(driving or gunning something). If you are the one being the ammo guy it would get really boring really fast.

Haro · 2011-07-19, 02:54 PM

I think tree-rat nailed it. Rather than have both soldiers acting directly on a machine gun, one doing the fun part (shooting) and another maybe not doing a fun part, just have parts of the gun carried by different soldiers, and have one player shooting.

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!

soldiers who contribute to the machine gun get a bit of the xp that comes from it's kills. There could also be a proximity award, with players close to the machine gun getting a bit of xp as well, because they may be guarding it or supporting it. Laze pointers can also be used in conjunction with it. But mainly, people will need to stay with the mg, because it should have a limited field of view (maybe 150 degrees) and the gunner will not have much armament other than the mg or whatever heavy weapon it is.

I think the engineers shouldn't place turrets, as those looked rather silly in PS2 and really seems a bit too easy to set up. Engineers, however, could possibly upgrade an mg nest to fortify it. I'd like to see more heavy weapons in this vein.

Treerat · 2011-07-20, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by Haro

I think tree-rat nailed it. Rather than have both soldiers acting directly on a machine gun, one doing the fun part (shooting) and another maybe not doing a fun part, just have parts of the gun carried by different soldiers, and have one player shooting.

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!

soldiers who contribute to the machine gun get a bit of the xp that comes from it's kills. There could also be a proximity award, with players close to the machine gun getting a bit of xp as well, because they may be guarding it or supporting it. Laze pointers can also be used in conjunction with it. But mainly, people will need to stay with the mg, because it should have a limited field of view (maybe 150 degrees) and the gunner will not have much armament other than the mg or whatever heavy weapon it is.

I think the engineers shouldn't place turrets, as those looked rather silly in PS2 and really seems a bit too easy to set up. Engineers, however, could possibly upgrade an mg nest to fortify it. I'd like to see more heavy weapons in this vein.

/bow

Although I can't take all the credit since the idea came from how actual crew-served weapons are handled. Unless the weapon is basically a one-shot-and-reload type (mortar, most missiles, etc) the only person actually involved with the weapon itself is the operator. The rest of the crew is typically spotting for the gunner and/ or keeping watch with their combat rifle at the ready to fight off an attack by enemy infantry until the time to comes to change the ammunition box.

I really like the idea of people in the radius of a CSW getting certain bonuses. It makes the CSW into an anchor or rally point for it's side by encouraging troops to group up. Of course that also makes it a likely target for things like artillery, but that isn't a bad thing either. That would encourage the opposite side to try to actually try to suppress or destroy these unintended strong points instead of the usual mindless wide-front charge until one side or the other is completely dead. And that would make careful positioning and attacking CSWs a factor in planning a defense or offense.

As for the turrets. Maybe not quite as bad idea. Think about this. Crew-served weapons deployed on their own really do need some limit on their firing arc (or at least a longer traverse time outside of that arc) to make them vulnerable to flanking attacks. On top of that, they and the troops around them should be something targeted by things like artillery and vehicles to rifle fire and grenades. Given that their life expectancy could at time be very short. What if engineers could deploy turrets, but instead of already containing weapons, they actually acted as 360-degree reinforced mounts for CSWs? Obviously they couldn't be extremely durable (or at least not without a hefty resource cost), but if they gave the gunner and weapon protection from most small-scale fire and near-misses by vehicle weapons that would stretch their life expectancy more. It would also encourage even more cooperation in setting up them up and planning their deployment since there would likely be only enough combat engineers to fortify some positions while others would be left as "soft" positions.

Sound reasonable?

Traak · 2011-07-20, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by Haro

Engineers, however, could possibly upgrade an mg nest to fortify it. I'd like to see more heavy weapons in this vein.

I think engies would enjoy being able to fortify anything, including wide-open territory.

Brusi · 2011-08-03, 01:45 AM

Originally Posted by Bags

I think it would work better and be more fun for everyone, and be the same amount of teamwork if the gun only required one person to operate and the other guy just watches his back.

I agree, and perhaps the rate of fire of the main weapon is reduced by half if the guy leaves the side of the gunner.

I don't agree that everyone wants the same style of play though. Some people definitely love the fact that they can be just as helpful, if not more so by doing something much less glamourous than being HA pointman.

Feeding ammo to a machine gun is much like holding a healgun up the ass of the guy in front. It may be classed as boring, but sometimes i may not be specced for a specific type of combat or i'm too tired to aim well and love to be able to make a real difference by playing these roles.

Variation in roles you can play is imporatant, i think

Talek Krell · 2011-08-04, 08:32 PM

I concur with the idea of having multiple parts for the gun, rather than giving it a crew requirement. It works well enough for that cloak field/shield generator/equipment terminal thing that they added for advanced engies, and nobody has to play a minigame for half an hour to make sure the ammo belt doesn't jam while the gunner is covering a back door.

Hell, when I flew a lody I would stay in the thing for hours at a time to keep it from getting blown up. I found that interesting and fun, and you still couldn't get me to play loader for an MG.

Clown Phoenix · 2011-08-04, 10:49 PM

I like the idea of being able to place MGs and other items. I think this could work really well in tower defense, especially for outfit owned towers, maybe even something more permanent. A support role I could see is giving these MGs a finite amount of ammo, and giving a class (cert. required) or a general cert. that allows another player to come around to placed MGs and refill their ammo, while a third person acts as a spotter, using the leadership certs. to call out targets for the MGs. In the heat of a large battle keeping these well stocked with ammo as well as operational could be a full time job.

Zaik · 2012-12-06, 12:58 PM

You could probably have Engineer carry the Tripod instead of a turret, Heavy Assault carry the reciever rather than a rocket launcher, perhaps have an infiltrator act in the crew as a spotter. Keeping the engineer or HA around rather than them off doing their own thing could provide a drastic reload speed reduction to justify having two players on one gun, and keeping the infiltrator around spotting could drastically increase the accuracy and allow the gunner to RMB zoom(or zoom in closer). Split the exp straight down the middle.

We have a number of vehicle guns that could stand in as placeholders right now. That AI gun on sunderers with the 100 round mag, the Enforcer/sauron laser cannon/whatever TR gets on MBTs, that low velocity mortar shell on Galaxies and Sunderers, the list goes on. Perhaps make them cost infantry resources to pull so that they feel like they have a use.