Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2 - Page 6

2coolforu · 2011-09-16, 04:46 PM

This is where drivers come in, with a driver its far easier to maneuver properly and find tactical hull-down turret-down positions. In BF:BC2 I *NEVER* see tanks being used properly, they are used either as BFR's are and sit on a hill miles away and act as Ghetto-artillery firing shells down on far away targets (A very bad way to use armor, but made possible due to not having a driver to get bored out of his skull) or they are just rushed into the battle because your secondary gunner jumps out if you aren't in the middle of a street with eighteen infantry for him to pop shots at.

The problem with gunning and driving is that people do dumb stuff, tanks drive into stupid areas because they get target fixation and just drive after one enemy into obvious traps or they panic in extreme situations and are too busy deciding what to shoot so they can't reverse properly. Having a driver that can look around and see where he wants to head is a huge advantage, the gunner has to keep his aim fixed on a target which means he can be driving into an area that is out of his FOV leading to crashes etc.

Another thing is it's fine having a secondary machine gun or mortar/Spigot AT launcher a-la a BMD-1 but Anti-Air? If it's effective enough to engage the interest of a secondary gunner then it'll have to be pretty powerful, isn't this the sort of role-overlap that caused the BFR's to alienate about 90% of Planetside 1's population. The only other option is to have a secondary gun that's only a deterrent and useful en-masse, with this option we have something like the Prowlers 12mm's which sucked so hard that it was a hindrance to have one, that guy could be being 1000% more useful in a skyguard or pulling another tank.

Another huge advantage of the Planetside 1 system was it made you friends, if you by chance got a good gunner or a good driver you would chat and make sure you teamed up again. I mean, if infantry zerging was bad enough in PS-1 what will armor zerging be like in PS-2, I mean this is the reason the 1 man variant of the BFR was taken out wasn't it?

2coolforu · 2011-09-16, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Logit

I don't know how many times I've said this.

The reason things work in Battlefield is because there are 64 people playing. When you have thousands, and you lower the TTK, no matter where you have to shoot the tank if you have 50 people shooting at it, like..ya know..in the original. It's going to die, and quickly.

Balance doesn't mean a damn thing when you're cloning a game that doesn't compare in scale. SOE can't possibly test this until Beta so they, like us, have no idea how it will work.

And once the game is in beta it's going to be too late because you're not going to remake the whole game.

I think a good way would be to make it like real life, tanks have extremely thick front armor, effectively impenetrable turret armor but paper rear armor/top armor and side armor that can defend against most infantry-mobile AT but not other tanks. This would mean armor would have to be used like armor, it would be used in the open where infantry weapons could have zero effect on them as they could keep the front toward enemy.

The real disadvantage of tanks is they fail hard in urban warfare and close combat, there have been like 2 real life battles in which armor hasn't been bent over by the defenders in close combat and that's Basra and Fallujah which was when top-of-the-line US/UK armor was fighting against a force not properly equipped or trained to defeat armor. Every other battle, even assymetrical ones [Chechnya] where armor has been used in close terrain has resulted in failure.

If we throw in mobility kills, so a close range shot to the tracks disables the tank, then we have a solution. Tanks are strong in situations they are made for (Open combat) but as soon as they try and whore a courtyard/city/forest/close terrain they can be easily immobilized and dealt with.

FIREk · 2011-09-16, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Logit

The reason things work in Battlefield is because there are 64 people playing. When you have thousands, and you lower the TTK, no matter where you have to shoot the tank if you have 50 people shooting at it, like..ya know..in the original. It's going to die, and quickly.

I've mentioned on multiple occasions that I realize that the scope of the game influences the balance. But think of what you're saying here.

So I'm in a tank and there's 50 enemies in the general area. Why would they should me? I'm not a megalomaniac, so I won't assume that I'm the most important target in the game.

If there are no friendlies in the area, and I'm indeed the only target for these 50 people, then I'm a moron for going in solo against insane odds, and deserve to get blown to bits.

I think I know why you're referring to 50 people firing at one tank, though - PS1 is your point of reference.
The reason why situations like this happen is that tanks are so skill-less in PS1, that they will indeed plunge deep into enemy lines, where they will be the prime target for 50 guns. They can soak up tons of damage before they need to start worrying, and so they don't care about incoming fire for a long while.

Lower the anti-tank TTK, and tank drivers will finally have to start thinking and won't casually expose their vehicles to 50 barrels and launchers.
As a side bonus, AV players (and it looks like AV will be a class now- I'm getting one!) will be able to kill tanks if they do a good job and out-skill the tank.
In PS1 you would need like a dozen people to kill a full-health tank, before it hid behind a hill for repairs. NC with Phoenixes would succeed here, though, but that's an exception.

Do keep in mind that overall the pacing and TTK in PS2 will be slower than in BFBC2. This will likely translate into anti-tank damage as well, so it might be 3-4 well-placed AV shots, or a dozen to the front armor.

Logit · 2011-09-16, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

I think a good way would be to make it like real life, tanks have extremely thick front armor, effectively impenetrable turret armor but paper rear armor/top armor and side armor that can defend against most infantry-mobile AT but not other tanks. This would mean armor would have to be used like armor, it would be used in the open where infantry weapons could have zero effect on them as they could keep the front toward enemy.

The real disadvantage of tanks is they fail hard in urban warfare and close combat, there have been like 2 real life battles in which armor hasn't been bent over by the defenders in close combat and that's Basra and Fallujah which was when top-of-the-line US/UK armor was fighting against a force not properly equipped or trained to defeat armor. Every other battle, even assymetrical ones [Chechnya] where armor has been used in close terrain has resulted in failure.

If we throw in mobility kills, so a close range shot to the tracks disables the tank, then we have a solution. Tanks are strong in situations they are made for (Open combat) but as soon as they try and whore a courtyard/city/forest/close terrain they can be easily immobilized and dealt with.

Lucky for us, this game takes place in the future, and it's not real life.

Or unlucky for us, depending on how full you think the glass is.

Who wants to be in a tank that can be "dealt with" in 10 seconds?

Sirisian · 2011-09-16, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

I mean, if infantry zerging was bad enough in PS-1 what will armor zerging be like in PS-2, I mean this is the reason the 1 man variant of the BFR was taken out wasn't it?

You mean why the BFR was not included in PS2? I imagine that came down to their chassis style or the refusal to rebalance the vehicle into another role. It can't be zerged if a rocket/tank round can take out vital components. I digress since I went into the rebalancing discussion in massive detail in another thread. (The mech one in my signature to rebalance the mechs into ground based reavers essentially).

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

If we throw in mobility kills, so a close range shot to the tracks disables the tank, then we have a solution. Tanks are strong in situations they are made for (Open combat) but as soon as they try and whore a courtyard/city/forest/close terrain they can be easily immobilized and dealt with.

That's how I view a tank also. A slow firing main cannon really adds to this. Really glad other people are opening up to this gameplay style.

Originally Posted by Logit

Who wants to be in a tank that can be "dealt with" in 10 seconds?

Really depends on the situation. If you've just stormed into a courtyard and 4 AV users lock on to you and fire then you're probably not going to last long. 10 seconds sounds about right. If you're sitting back at like 20-50 meters firing rounds into armor and you have a gunner with AI rockets or something it's a huge difference.

Logit · 2011-09-16, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by FIREk

I've mentioned on multiple occasions that I realize that the scope of the game influences the balance. But think of what you're saying here.

So I'm in a tank and there's 50 enemies in the general area. Why would they should me? I'm not a megalomaniac, so I won't assume that I'm the most important target in the game.

If there are no friendlies in the area, and I'm indeed the only target for these 50 people, then I'm a moron for going in solo against insane odds, and deserve to get blown to bits.

I think I know why you're referring to 50 people firing at one tank, though - PS1 is your point of reference.
The reason why situations like this happen is that tanks are so skill-less in PS1, that they will indeed plunge deep into enemy lines, where they will be the prime target for 50 guns. They can soak up tons of damage before they need to start worrying, and so they don't care about incoming fire for a long while.

Lower the anti-tank TTK, and tank drivers will finally have to start thinking and won't casually expose their vehicles to 50 barrels and launchers.
As a side bonus, AV players (and it looks like AV will be a class now- I'm getting one!) will be able to kill tanks if they do a good job and out-skill the tank.
In PS1 you would need like a dozen people to kill a full-health tank, before it hid behind a hill for repairs. NC with Phoenixes would succeed here, though, but that's an exception.

Do keep in mind that overall the pacing and TTK in PS2 will be slower than in BFBC2. This will likely translate into anti-tank damage as well, so it might be 3-4 well-placed AV shots, or a dozen to the front armor.

No.

The reason I think like this is because our only point of reference is the original. However skill-less you think tanks might be, my point is still valid.

People use Teamspeak, Ventrilo, whatever...single tanks are easily pointed out and fired upon 1 at a time if you have any organization at all.

If tanks have these weak spots and it takes 3 shots to kill them if hit in a certain spot they will get dominated 1 at a time.

Platoons have what..40 people? 3 out of 40 sounds like pretty good odds to me.

Again, you're comparing something that works in a game with 64 people, to a game that will apparently have hundreds per side.

basti · 2011-09-16, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

I think one excellent reason is for the casual player.

It's hard for most of us to put ourselves in that position, but I've been there alot. Say you don't know alot of people in game. Right now, if that's the case, and you want to take part in using a tank, you have to spam and beg for a gunner, or wait around and spam and beg to gun for somebody else. This makes multi-person vehicles very much a hassle to use, and takes away from one of the amazing aspects of Planetside.

Now, with the new system of the driver getting a gun too, it's infinitely more inviting and FUN to the casual player that just wants to jump in, blow stuff up for a little bit, then get on with their busy lives.

I think it's a great idea that a tank can be effective with just the driver, but be far deadlier when filled with a full crew.

For many of us, we are used to running with organized outfits where setting up tank columns is common, but I don't want Planetside 2 to ONLY be for the hardcore, well-organized players. I want scale more than anything.

Err, sorry to burst your bubble, but no matter what they do for the casual, the outfits will still roll them all down. Great, now you got 20 casual tanks. THey wont even leave the CY because they are to damn stupid to drive AND gun.

FIREk · 2011-09-16, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Logit

No.

The reason I think like this is because our only point of reference is the original. However skill-less you think tanks might be, my point is still valid.

People use Teamspeak, Ventrilo, whatever...single tanks are easily pointed out and fired upon 1 at a time if you have any organization at all.

If tanks have these weak spots and it takes 3 shots to kill them if hit in a certain spot they will get dominated 1 at a time.

Platoons have what..40 people? 3 out of 40 sounds like pretty good odds to me.

Again, you're comparing something that works in a game with 64 people, to a game that will apparently have hundreds per side.

If you're using organized squads, or even platoons, to make a point, then why not compare them to an equal number of organized vehicles? :P They pick out a few of those 20 tanks, then they get suppressed, scattered and eventually mowed down.

Most of the time it will be zerg+small squads versus zerg+small squads. Most of the time you will not have a platoon, alive and present in one place, preferably all with AV weapons to make your point valid. :P

Assuming AV is now a class (very likely) you need to also take into account that only some of those 40-50 people will have proper anti-tank gear. Others will be grunts, snipers, medics, engineers, jump infantry, MAXes, whatever.

And again I know that the larger scale of PS2 changes things. I keep repeating that, so it's excruciatingly hard to miss...
Keep in mind, though, that a 32vs32 battle in Battlefield is packed into one map. The amount of contestable territory in PS2 will be quite huge, meaning those hundreds of people will be spread out. The typical engagement will quite possibly not be that much "denser" than a solid fight in Battlefield.
Big numbers aren't the key issue here - the real difference is that there is more freedom in PlanetSide - you've only got up to 3 tanks per map in Battlefield, and after one is blown up, it takes a minute or two for it to respawn. In PS2, you can have a dozen tanks per side, fighting in a single place.
Reality shows that this doesn't actually happen much, though...

Talek Krell · 2011-09-16, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by FIREk

The Battlefield series is very successful because of how vehicles, aircraft and infantry are balanced and work together on the same map. The balance is near-perfect, so it's a good idea to draw inspiration from this series when making a combined arms game.
Whether or not this balance holds water when you remove the let everyone get a tank or plane, that's a different story.

I call bullshit. Battlefield treats it's vehicles like disposable powerups, people snag them when they pop, drive them for a few seconds, and then jump out once they're low on health. The tanks can't survive firefights unless you're jumping out to repair between shots (it's only 4 rockets even from the front armor), the gunner seats are always empty, and people have learned to drive them like either suicidal lemmings or gutless cowards. These are not things that I would refer to as near perfect balance.

Originally Posted by FIREk

Wait up. We know the Lib is a 2-seater now, and I only assumed that the pilot becomes the gunner, essentially making the Liberator a dive-bomber, instead of a high-altitude, hovering, carpet bombing tedium generator.

Due to whatever bug it is I still can't get the actual interview to load, so I'm going off my interpretations of people's interpretations. Sorry if I got that wrong then. Also, if the only thing you're doing with a lib is stationary high altitude carpet bombing then you are flying it wrong. And not just because stationary carpet bombing is an oxymoron.

FIREk · 2011-09-16, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

I call bullshit. Battlefield treats it's vehicles like disposable powerups, people snag them when they pop, drive them for a few seconds, and then jump out once they're low on health. The tanks can't survive firefights unless you're jumping out to repair between shots (it's only 4 rockets even from the front armor), the gunner seats are always empty, and people have learned to drive them like either suicidal lemmings or gutless cowards. These are not things that I would refer to as near perfect balance.

We must have played on different servers, then.

Of course I usually played with at least one friend, so we were able to use the tanks to their full potential, but even when I played with randoms I usually enjoyed having a secondary gunner. There are, of course, n00bs that use tanks as taxis or as a temporary power-up, but we shouldn't base arguments upon workings of mindless fodder, I think.

Tanks are somewhat fragile in BFBC2, but only in specific conditions - when shot by someone with the proper equipment, and who knows what they're doing. If you're reckless and drive it somewhere where its weaknesses can be exploited by the right person, with the right tools, in the right place, then you deserve to be extra-vulnerable. If you don't overtake friendly infantry in urban areas, letting them protect your ass armor

, you will be effectively a lot more durable.
I think that's reasonable - a tank should just be another vehicle, with pros and cons. It shouldn't be able to withstand ridiculous damage from weapons designed to kill it, just because it's big, armored and called a "tank".

At least that's what I believe...

As for my take on balance in the Battlefield series, it pretty much boils down to this:
Vehicles and infantry both have their place on the battlefield - one doesn't make the other useless, nor does one dominate the other.
Vehicles aren't OMFGoverpowered and can be either avoided, or dispatched under the right conditions.
The can also be very powerful in the right hands, which is true for all the infantry classes as well.
OK, maybe buggies are useless, fragile taxis, but let's forget that for a moment.

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

Also, if the only thing you're doing with a lib is stationary high altitude carpet bombing then you are flying it wrong. And not just because stationary carpet bombing is an oxymoron.

I over-simplified, of course, but usually when I see a Liberator, it's at flight ceiling, either hovering above a tower, or slowly circling over a base, raining down death.

As an observer, I always found Libs boring as hell. I'm under the impression that PS2's Liberator will be more like PS1's Vulture, which I personally love to watch in action.

And, indeed, I oxy-moroned myself. :P HOWEVER, if you roll up the carpet and place it vertically, that carpet describes the bombs' trajectory when the Lib is indeed hovering. Right? Right..? :P

BorisBlade · 2011-09-16, 06:45 PM

This is one of the same major reasons we dont like the BFR's. Gives teh pilot too much power and you end up with people goin out rambo style with no secondary gunner, cause it works. Even if its not optimal, its still too much for one person. Plus its just bad for a teamwork oriented game.

I personally hate the idea. I dont want to drive a giant lightning. It emphasizes selfishness and rambo-ism. Pilot-only slots were somethin that PS1 did right unlike BF (which is the game they keep just doin copy/paste with rather than stayin ps or being original). The multiple crew for a vehicle was not only better gameplay but it really emphasizes teamwork and a very important "social" aspect that is very important to gameplay and keeping people playing. For once we need to keep somethin from PS that was done right, with so little left from what made PS1 great (aside from big fights which were only a part of the overall draw), its hard to feel like I'll be playin PS anymore but instead just a boring and lazy BF clone with more players.

I want to be a driver, just a driver. I want to focus on driving skillfully to get my gunners in position. To be able to maneuver around to also avoid enemy fire. And to focus on the best routes to my target. If im just driving a giant lightning, im gonna be a half ass pilot and half ass gunner, its just gonna be half ass crap.

Since they dont have animations, they could cheat it by lettin you spec into a "driver only" spec that let you drive only while opening up another gunner slot for someone to take over your gun.

Dont give me the spec excuse, i spec for things to make the vehicles i drive better. It helps me and my team. People want to gun for my more awesome vehicle. Stop with your selfish ideas of "i specced for it so i should be able to be rambo with it and screw lettin anyone else use it" idea. Its a team based game. If you need to adjust your skill trees, then do it. Stop screwin up the game to fit the trees or so you can just copy BF more. Grow some balls and do somethin original, dont copy BF, do somethin from PS1 or totally new, but somethin thats Planetside.

Goku · 2011-09-16, 06:52 PM

Boris A+ post.

FIREk · 2011-09-16, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by BorisBlade

This is one of the same major reasons we dont like the BFR's. Gives teh pilot too much power and you end up with people goin out rambo style with no secondary gunner, cause it works.

I always thought the problem with BFRs was not that it only required one person to work, but:
1) the ridiculous shield mechanics, requiring a dozen people to kill one BFR,
2) the fact that it could conveniently fly away,
3) the two things above giving it ridiculous amounts of power.

Talek Krell · 2011-09-16, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by FIREk

I usually played with at least one friend, so we were able to use the tanks to their full potential, but even when I played with randoms I usually enjoyed having a secondary gunner. There are, of course, n00bs that use tanks as taxis or as a temporary power-up, but we shouldn't base arguments upon workings of mindless fodder, I think.

Most of the people that have manned my secondary have been squad spawning. And regardless they seem to jump out after a 30 seconds or so. Possibly because it quickly becomes apparent that I can slaughter infantry with the main gun. The only reason to fully crew a tank in Battlefield is because you can't just pull another like you can in Planetside, or because the second guy is jumping out to repair when you find an actual threat.

The "mindless fodder" can be expected to make up large quantities of the player base. They're worth considering.

Originally Posted by FIREk

If you're reckless and drive it somewhere where its weaknesses can be exploited by the right person, with the right tools, in the right place, then you deserve to be extra-vulnerable.

You mean like a fight? There's going to be plenty of people with AV in any given place you go, unless the AV is so poor that no one wants to use it. I mean look at PS1. The AV is terrible but there's no shortage of rocket launchers and lancers in any given battle. To have the same lethality as battlefield is instant death from any angle. Especially if the AV works at long range like in PS1.

Originally Posted by FIREk

As an observer, I always found Libs boring as hell. I'm under the impression that PS2's Liberator will be more like PS1's Vulture, which I personally love to watch in action.

The most effective way to fly the Lib was like an A-10, not a B-52. I found the Vulture to be the inferior version in almost all situations. Including against tanks, which were supposed to be it's specialty.

Originally Posted by FIREk

if you roll up the carpet and place it vertically...

I'ma smack you so hard.

2coolforu · 2011-09-16, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by BorisBlade

This is one of the same major reasons we dont like the BFR's. Gives teh pilot too much power and you end up with people goin out rambo style with no secondary gunner, cause it works. Even if its not optimal, its still too much for one person. Plus its just bad for a teamwork oriented game.

I personally hate the idea. I dont want to drive a giant lightning. It emphasizes selfishness and rambo-ism. Pilot-only slots were somethin that PS1 did right unlike BF (which is the game they keep just doin copy/paste with rather than stayin ps or being original). The multiple crew for a vehicle was not only better gameplay but it really emphasizes teamwork and a very important "social" aspect that is very important to gameplay and keeping people playing. For once we need to keep somethin from PS that was done right, with so little left from what made PS1 great (aside from big fights which were only a part of the overall draw), its hard to feel like I'll be playin PS anymore but instead just a boring and lazy BF clone with more players.

I want to be a driver, just a driver. I want to focus on driving skillfully to get my gunners in position. To be able to maneuver around to also avoid enemy fire. And to focus on the best routes to my target. If im just driving a giant lightning, im gonna be a half ass pilot and half ass gunner, its just gonna be half ass crap.

Since they dont have animations, they could cheat it by lettin you spec into a "driver only" spec that let you drive only while opening up another gunner slot for someone to take over your gun.

Dont give me the spec excuse, i spec for things to make the vehicles i drive better. It helps me and my team. People want to gun for my more awesome vehicle. Stop with your selfish ideas of "i specced for it so i should be able to be rambo with it and screw lettin anyone else use it" idea. Its a team based game. If you need to adjust your skill trees, then do it. Stop screwin up the game to fit the trees or so you can just copy BF more. Grow some balls and do somethin original, dont copy BF, do somethin from PS1 or totally new, but somethin thats Planetside.

In this area there are plenty of people and roles in EVE Online that require years of training and massive amounts of skill that give you no direct bonus. FC skills, leadership, logistics, repping, scramming and jamming etc etc. The battleships cannot work without the logistics keeping them alive and giving them ammo etc etc. I think tanks really require a driver and a gunner, games like BF have single man vehicles because they really are like powerups and in BC2 there are only 32 players or 24 on console - there simply aren't the numbers to have a 2 man MBT; but on Planetside we will have 2000 or so to play with.