MBTs - 3-man or 2-man - Discuss! - Page 5

Skitrel · 2012-03-17, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Putting everything on just two platforms is however, extremely dull because it all looks the same and you don't really feel like you're driving something built for a job, it's also about gameplay experience. Just because you CAN stick all roles on one vehicle by adapting it doesn't mean you should.

Worse though, it may just look like a cheap reuse of stock units. If you look at the amount of tanks in WoT and the gameplay differences each tank has, there's a lot to say against using the same two units. Especially because visual recognizability is why they make all these classes look different. It's also for the opposition to know what they're up against at first glance.

No, it gives the choice without creating a paradox of choice, fewer choices means less choice paralysis. More choices means more possibility for choice regret, choice regret occurs when a person has the possibility of regretting said choice later down the line and even when a choice is a good one people still feel choice regret later down the line as there were many options.

The problem with applying the paradox of choice to player behaviour theory is in balance. Too much choice causes choice regret, negative emotions and ultimately a feeling of negativity despite a vast array of choices. It convolutes and confuses.

It works for world of tanks is simply that, tanks. Planetside is not, first you've got your faction choice, a semi permanent choice that's incredibly important, then you've got your class choice, then you've got your options within your class choice, your specs, your side and upgrades, then you've got your further possible choices, what vehicle am I going to drive. It gets deeper and deeper until it all becomes far too much choice and eventually starts having a negative effect, either through choice paralysis, or once choice is made, choice regret.

It is a very delicate line to tread and getting it right is exceptionally difficult. What's necessary, what's not. That is the first and most important thing that should be applied to everything before the game is launched. Everything that's not necessary should be tossed out so as to minimise choice while still allowing what is necessary. This allows getting the balance correct, getting player behaviour and emotion correct, getting the overall psychological feeling correct.

Once you've got it correct, later down the line, you then consider adding to it, carefully, delicately, ensuring you do not upset said balance.

Later down the line, more vehicles, more stuff, more things that might add to the game, yes. Now however, no. Not necessary.

Duddy · 2012-03-17, 09:49 AM

For me, whilst I'm certainly not opposed to the model where a driver has a gun to control, it comes down to how it affects use of other vehicles.

I'm of the opinion that given the choice of an MBT over a Lightning or Flash (with resources out of the equation briefly) most people would always choose the MBT.

It did suck for dedicated tank drivers in PS1 that unless they had a reliable and dedicated gunner their gameplay experience was diminished.

I would lean towards a proposal however whereby dedicated tank drivers (i.e. those investing considerable certs towards it) would receive the ability to gun/choose which gun on their tanks.

To me that means you wouldn't have everyone pulling MBTs due to a weaker gun/no gun and as a result you'd be more likely to see the other vehicles.

This does bring us back to the situation with the Mag however. Short of a redesign, I think you might be able to balance it out by adjusting the power of the driver and gunner weapon respectively (and the unlocked driver choice would then be to adjust that balance in the fixed guns favour).

Murky issue this.

Purple · 2012-03-17, 09:51 AM

if i pull a tank i dont want to look around for a gunner. i have more fun in a lighting then a vangaurd.

Figment · 2012-03-17, 10:09 AM

Hey Skitrel, how about we have just one empire, one class, one weapon (a knife!), no customization, and one big target to select.

No choice, no negative emotions?

Less is more, right?

EDIT: Point in case: your two units is enough line is drawn completely arbitrarily and not based on actually being the better or best choice, but because there's already two units and you may even have been satisfied with one if that was all (at first anyway). So if we have... 8 infantry classes, why is that the exact optimum of choice? If you create a basic outline of roles, you can balance those immediately. Yes, you can slowly built it up and that's fine, but saying here's the limit and no more is needed, mmm, too much. Especially if content starts to bore people over time, you need versatility in gameplay style and experience.

And within PS2 there is the "BR40" philosophy of eventually getting everything anyway. That isn't exactly choice regret sensitive, sadly.

Erendil · 2012-03-17, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by basti

Problem there is the Mag. Its main gun is fixed forward, because it hovers, and controlling a rotating main gun while controlling the tank itself would be rather difficult.
So, two options: leave it as it is: Means no dedicated driver for the Mag, just like in PS1. Dont like this option realy
Or, change the mag. Put the main gun on top to let it rotate. But only if you got a dedicated driver. If the driver controlls the main gun, its simply fixed forward.

IMO writing off a turret for the Mag driver because it's "too complex" isn't a very good reason. Adding in Q and E for strafe L/R in a Mag with a 360 turret is quite manageable. Descent 1/2/3 had the same level of complexity in its control scheme (except with roll L/R instead of turn L/R on the keybd), and back in the day I and several of my college buddies had no issues controlling the Descent ships so I know that people would be able to effectively drive and gun a Mag simultaneously once they got used to the controls.

And for those who find that using all those movement keys is just too complex for them, simply don't strafe. It'd still behave like a conventional treaded tank.

Originally Posted by Figment

Putting everything on just two platforms is however, extremely dull because it all looks the same and you don't really feel like you're driving something built for a job, it's also about gameplay experience. Just because you CAN stick all roles on one vehicle by adapting it doesn't mean you should.

Worse though, it may just look like a cheap reuse of stock units. If you look at the amount of tanks in WoT and the gameplay differences each tank has, there's a lot to say against using the same two units. Especially because visual recognizability is why they make all these infantry classes in PS2 look different. It's also for the opposition to know what they're up against at first glance

You also have to worry about development time vs gameplay rewards. How much more is gameplay enriched by designing entirely new models and adding in the skins, cert trees, vehicle screens, etc for a vehicle whose role could also be filled by a customized MBT, and how much time would it take to add in all of that new code?

A vehicle like the TD would be an interesting vehicle to consider adding in later on down the road, but TBH if they were to add in more vehicles in the short term I'd much rather they fill in the glaring tactical roles that are missing in PS2: Fast multicrew combat vehicle (ES Buggies), multicrew spec ops insertion craft (Phantasm), etc.

Skitrel · 2012-03-17, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Hey Skitrel, how about we have just one empire, one class, one weapon (a knife!), no customization, and one big target to select.

No choice, no negative emotions?

Less is more, right?

EDIT: Point in case: your two units is enough line is drawn completely arbitrarily and not based on actually being the better or best choice, but because there's already two units and you may even have been satisfied with one if that was all (at first anyway). So if we have... 8 infantry classes, why is that the exact optimum of choice? If you create a basic outline of roles, you can balance those immediately. Yes, you can slowly built it up and that's fine, but saying here's the limit and no more is needed, mmm, too much. Especially if content starts to bore people over time, you need versatility in gameplay style and experience.

And within PS2 there is the "BR40" philosophy of eventually getting everything anyway. That isn't exactly choice regret sensitive, sadly.

Slippery slope argument. Logical fallacy.

Figment · 2012-03-17, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Slippery slope argument. Logical fallacy.

Hyperbole of your slippery slope argument, actually.

BlazingSun · 2012-03-17, 10:39 AM

The biggest problem that I see with 1 man MBTs is the increased amount of tanks that we will likely see on the battlefield, which could completely ruin the balance between vehicles and infantry. I hope the Devs keep that in mind.

Do we still have a certification system for vehicles? (I haven't been following so closely ..) If we do, a 1 man tank could/should cost the double amount of certpoints than a tank that requires 2 players to operate.

Coreldan · 2012-03-17, 10:52 AM

But we dont really have such things as "1 man tank" except Lightning. A person pulls a vehicle and by default it has a spot for drivergunner and secondary gunner. You wont just spawn into a tank and be glued to it till you die. You and ur secondary gunner enter and exit as you wish, how would they make a solo mbt cost double the resources? You are right though that we might end up having more solo tanks that could effect balance, however main gun wont be as effective against infantry as they were.

Skitrel · 2012-03-17, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Hyperbole of your slippery slope argument, actually.

I think you don't know what a slippery slope argument is. I argued that offering too much choice would trigger paradox of choice effects. I said nothing of further effects or a compounding factor at all.

You on the other hand took my point and suggested "Well, if you do that you might as well do this, then if you do that you might as well do this" That is the very definition of a slippery slope argument.

"Nuh uh, you" is not a suitable argument. If you're going to attempt to debate stop being a child about it and do so civilly. I suggest you at least read the wikipedia article properly before attempting to accuse someone of a fallacy, let alone a little further reading.

Here I'll help you, the correct response would have been to debate why paradox of choice does not apply, as opposed to sidetracking and spouting utter nonsense in an attempt to detract from the fact that you've offered absolutely zero counter points to mine. Something that in actual debate is classified as implicitly conceding.

basti · 2012-03-17, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Erendil

IMO writing off a turret for the Mag driver because it's "too complex" isn't a very good reason. Adding in Q and E for strafe L/R in a Mag with a 360 turret is quite manageable. Descent 1/2/3 had the same level of complexity in its control scheme (except with roll L/R instead of turn L/R on the keybd), and back in the day I and several of my college buddies had no issues controlling the Descent ships so I know that people would be able to effectively drive and gun a Mag simultaneously once they got used to the controls.

And for those who find that using all those movement keys is just too complex for them, simply don't strafe. It'd still behave like a conventional treaded tank.

Okay, more detail then:

Speed: W and S
Rotating the turret: Mouse
Strafe: A and D

Now, how do you turn the tank? add Q and E to the mix? Bu tthose keys are already used. Even if not, its a rather complex and new thing for the usual gamer these days.

Yes, in descend we managed, because it was us, the old breed. We were used to games being a challenge, to have them tell us something new, to learn from them. But todays gamer? Dont think they would understand, sadly.

Figment · 2012-03-17, 11:08 AM

Yes and I argued that confinement for the sake of confinement is also a slippery slope, because you run the risk of having too little choice. I amplified that part of your argument of "less is more" and the arbitrary line you drew using a hyperbole.

EDIT: And actually, Skitrel, you completely evaded the point I made that your "two tanks is enough" is not actually an argument by detracking to the slippery slope (and may I remind you, you were actually the one who JUST said "slippery slope, fallacy), without pointing out why, nor realising I simply returned the favour). You have to actually support why two is enough and more is not needed. You simply stated it wasn't needed because you can put all in one. I already explained why it's bad to put all in one... But you can ignore that and pretend there's no argument made...

Vanir · 2012-03-17, 11:12 AM

Please keep the trolling out? I think it would be great to have tanks where the drivers are just drivers. It would free up the turrents so that the turrets can focus on killing and the driver can focus on driving and keeping the tank alive.

Skitrel · 2012-03-17, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Yes and I argued that confinement for the sake of confinement is also a slippery slope, because you run the risk of having too little choice. I amplified that part of your argument of "less is more" and the arbitrary line you drew using a hyperbole.

EDIT: And actually, Skitrel, you completely evaded the point I made that your "two tanks is enough" is not actually an argument by detracking to the slippery slope (and may I remind you, you were actually the one who JUST said "slippery slope, fallacy), without pointing out why, nor realising I simply returned the favour). You have to actually support why two is enough and more is not needed. You simply stated it wasn't needed because you can put all in one. I already explained why it's bad to put all in one... But you can ignore that and pretend there's no argument made...

Stop calling it a slippery slope. It is not.

Stay on point instead of trying to make this a personal deal. You seem far more concerned with who's making a fallacy than the actual topic. This is not about who wins or loses, this is not a forum to vent your insecurities by attempting to deem yourself superior to others having won in an argument. Get back on topic. When you do so, I'll re-participate. Until then I'm deeming this thread a deserved lost cause. Every good point has clearly been made already for either side, hence the lack of any notable useful argument any more.

Peace

2coolforu · 2012-03-17, 11:51 AM

3 man tanks, no driver/gunners.

Giving one person the main DPS and control of the tank is just a recipe for infantry death. Making a tank require a big input of teamwork is a far better idea, this gives infantry a fighting chance as it requires a large amount of communication to get a truly effective tank.

As a side bonus you can also seriously buff the DPS/Armour of the MBT's so they perform their roles better. The MBT is meant to be the spearhead so it needs to take a lot of punishment, with a one man tank they will really have to be pretty weak to prevent the zerg just hopping into tanks rather than mixing into combined arms.

At least in Battlefield there are at max three or four tanks for people to hop into, Planetside won't have such restrictions so there needs to be another form of barrier.