MBTs - 3-man or 2-man - Discuss! - Page 7

DDSHADE · 2012-03-17, 03:24 PM

I think 2 man would be okay for the Prowler, giving the driver a machine gun to use instead of the main cannon.

However, if the 3 man - dedicated driver ends up being in PS2, I think the driver should have some sort of other ability they could unlock through certification in prowlers. Like a "Mine-Laying" weapon, if they have Combat Engineering as well, they could put a point into that and drop a certain number of mines (say, 2-3) at a cost for ammo capacity, acceleration or max speed.

This could add a level of utility to the role other than just driving. I like the idea that TR can match the other MBT's of other empires without a secondary gunner, and if one is present the DPS can outmatch the other empires if they have that third spot filled.

Perhaps the two guns could be linked to just one gunner, or split in functionality between 2 if another gets in, with a boost to machine gun performance.

ThGlump · 2012-03-17, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by basti

and why do you assume that more people should mean more power? Quite the opposite, there should be absolutly no difference between a 3 manned tank and a 2 manned tank. Why? Because thats the entire point! Thats the very reason why we should have the option to have dedicated drivers. Because the thing that buffs a 3 man tank IS THE DRIVER!

There is no difference between 3manned and 2 manned tank if both have dedicated driver. But if driver/gunner will be in, then 3manned tank will be against 3 1manned tanks.

Figment · 2012-03-17, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by ThGlump

There is no difference between 3manned and 2 manned tank if both have dedicated driver. But if driver/gunner will be in, then 3manned tank will be against 3 1manned tanks.

The only thing that should be considered is that a three man tnank won't always have three crew (often just two - in particular the most "useful" weapon) and should be balanced accordingly.

Having a 3 crew tank would mean two of these tanks would have to be on par with three 2-crew tanks, damage output vs endurance wise. (Doesn't mean they have to be the same damage in each category). Only have to watch out that you don't skew it such that a three crew tank is better with just two crew (Prowler), or requires too much manpower for the damage/endurance (Raider).

**Malorn** · 2012-03-17, 04:02 PM

Higby tweeted something earlier about 3-man tank vs 3 1-man tanks:

https://twitter.com/#!/mhigby/status/181061417573679104

@davidrlloyd from a resource spend and vehicle timer perspective 3 players in 1 tank is better. Maybe unique gunner weapons req. driver.

ThGlump · 2012-03-17, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

The only thing that should be considered is that a three man tnank won't always have three crew (often just two - in particular the most "useful" weapon) and should be balanced accordingly.

Having a 3 crew tank would mean two of these tanks would have to be on par with three 2-crew tanks, damage output vs endurance wise. (Doesn't mean they have to be the same damage in each category). Only have to watch out that you don't skew it such that a three crew tank is better with just two crew (Prowler), or requires too much manpower for the damage/endurance (Raider).

Thats what i wrote before. Balancing 3seat tank, to be on par in 2manned or 3 manned is much easier than balance 2seat driver/gunner tank for 1man and 2man variant. If everyone fear that 3rd seat wont be used in dedicated driver version, they should fear more that 2nd seat wont be used in driver/gunner version as thats more probable.

NewSith · 2012-03-17, 04:20 PM

I'm all for the optional prowler-like system for TR and NC. Maggy = Uber-MAX unit, so no need to give VS this ability.

Alternatively, give them (VS) AV weaponry equal in sterngth for both gunner and driver, so if you want to go old PS style you can just take 2 AVs.

Hamma · 2012-03-17, 04:28 PM

I prefer 3 man tanks to be honest. My main concern is just that if its 3 man, it's 3 man for all and not just one.

NewSith · 2012-03-17, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Hamma

I prefer 3 man tanks to be honest. My main concern is just that if its 3 man, it's 3 man for all and not just one.

I say VS are fine with 2 people max. Due to their XY movement field, on contra to X movement of the standard tanks.

Figment · 2012-03-17, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by NewSith

I say VS are fine with 2 people max. Due to their XY movement field, on contra to X movement of the standard tanks.

Believe he means that it'd be only fair that all empires have the same type of manpower resource requirements.

Which means that if VS get a 2-crew tank, TR and NC should as well. If TR get a 3-crew tank, VS and NC should also get one - and IMO that means a heavier variant.

basti · 2012-03-17, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by ThGlump

There is no difference between 3manned and 2 manned tank if both have dedicated driver. But if driver/gunner will be in, then 3manned tank will be against 3 1manned tanks.

This is true. If Planetside 2 has room for exactly 6 people, and has 2 tanks as their only weapons...

But if you take the actual game to base your "balance concerns", then your theory breaks right away.

A single 3 manned Tank wont stand against 3 one manned tanks. A single 3 manned tanks would actually stand against a few dozen of other tanks, Maxes, Air units, INfantary and what the hell else.

Coreldan · 2012-03-17, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by basti

This is true. If Planetside 2 has room for exactly 6 people, and has 2 tanks as their only weapons...

But if you take the actual game to base your "balance concerns", then your theory breaks right away.

A single 3 manned Tank wont stand against 3 one manned tanks. A single 3 manned tanks would actually stand against a few dozen of other tanks, Maxes, Air units, INfantary and what the hell else.

Yes, but that is really not how you can balance things.

The situations where two players/tanks/whatever are firing at each other at exactly the same time with the same accuracy happen just about never, yet you still can't balance fe. weapons around some random variables such as "ok, lets balance this weapon so that every second encounter the enemy misses more".

SgtMAD · 2012-03-17, 06:23 PM

I like the idea of having the option to cert up to a three man crewed tank so the BF types can run around solo getting farmed and let the others decide which layout is one they prefer,it will help promote building large outfits.

A three man tank sounds like alot of fun

Monkey · 2012-03-17, 06:37 PM

I think SOE is just trolling us with this, they will revert back to PS1 and make all tanks two man, there was nothing wrong with it and was one of the things in-game I felt was properly balanced (even with the 3 man prowler).

Warhound · 2012-03-17, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by basti

A single 3 manned tanks would actually stand against a few dozen of other tanks, Maxes, Air units, INfantary and what the hell else.

I highly doubt one multicrewed tank could stand against a "a few dozen of other tanks, Maxes, Air units, INfantary and what the hell else." If I go by what you're saying it would surely seem that your version of tanks would be highly overpowered. I mean after all you said yourself that this one tank could stand against dozens of other destructive assets.

*opens can of worms and runs away*

Figment · 2012-03-17, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by Warhound

I highly doubt one multicrewed tank could stand against a "a few dozen of other tanks, Maxes, Air units, INfantary and what the hell else." If I go by what you're saying it would surely seem that your version of tanks would be highly overpowered. I mean after all you said yourself that these one tank could stand against dozens of other destructive assets.

Not sure if he means all of those at once, more on an individual basis. At least that's what I presume he means.