My one 'dislike' of PS2 (Main Battle Tanks) - Page 7

ArmedZealot · 2012-05-26, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Rhapsody

And something that requires 2 people to 'fully' use should die faster, and do less damage to specific targets, than something that takes only 1? :P

An enforcer died faster than a lightning and could do less damage to aircraft in PS1. No complaining there.

Rhapsody · 2012-05-26, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

An enforcer died faster than a lightning and could do less damage to aircraft in PS1. No complaining there.

Your also comparing a buggy which was designed as AI/AV to a 'tank'. Its going to be easier to kill than the tank by the simple fact that its a buggy.

roguy · 2012-05-26, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Rhapsody

Thats what the Lightning was for. For the people who wanted to run-n-gun on their own in their own tank. And PS2 still has the lighting, so those that want to be a driver and a gunner already have a tank to use, and this time around its likely even more usefull than the MBT's as it's given the 'AA' gun from the skyguards.

Why 'dumb-down' the MBT's to a single-crew vehicle, to cater to the CoD crowd, when you already have one?

1-) I never said i disagreed with you aside to what I believe to be the devs reason for doing this.
2-) The gal and lib havn't been "dumbed down" in this way, so not only can you use those instead, but there must be another reason as to why the MBTs got "dumbed down".
3-) MBT driving in PS1 was indeed boring, and ALOT of players voiced their concerns back in the day, long before development started on Modern Warfare. Admittedly the solution proposed was to give all MBT drivers a gun like the MagRider, wich is what I'm still advocating.
4-) COD doesn't have vehicles.

Pyreal · 2012-05-26, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Rhapsody

The first part is a misconception. In most 'multi-player' games with tanks in them, such as PS, Aces High 2, WWII online. Tanks required mutli-crews in order to be fully effective. In PS1, this was handled by needing a 'gunner' to use the main gun. In Aces High 2, 1 person could operate the tank AND gun by themselves, but they had to jump from position to position (change from driver to gunner and back again), I think there was a way to set the tank in a sort of 'cruise' mode and make small adjustments right or left while also in the gunner seat but you didnt have 'full' control of the tank while in the gunner position. And WWII Online had a similar system to Aces High 2.

The key difference in these vs games such as CoD, and such, is that they were 'multi-player' focused games. CoD, BF, MW,... they are 'single player focused' games. Which is why you have the feeling of not wanting to rely on a 'stranger' to play the game as 'you' like to play it. Thats why all of their vehicals are 'driver is gunner' with the 2nd seat being an 'option'. Their designed for a single player experience with the multi-player being an option.

PS1 and PS2 (as well as Aces High 2, and WWII Online) are designed as 'multiplayer' games from the ground up, which implies team-work. Even the BFR's when they first came out required 2 people to use fully, and the 'single-seater' variant was the 'unlock', not the Default.

Well spoken. I understand where you're coming from.

Is PS2 a multi-player game in the same vein as PS1? Or is it a single player focused game?

If certing allowed both styles, how would they be balanced?
Rewarding teamwork (multi-player emphasis) with a base increase in power or mobility would render the other objectively weaker and basically seal its fate.

roguy · 2012-05-26, 11:42 AM

Oh and Rhapsody,

Read this before blaming the COD crowd:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...driving+boring

It's from before SOE announced "Planetside" Next afaik.

Rhapsody · 2012-05-26, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by roguy

1-) I never said i disagreed with you aside to what I believe to be the devs reason for doing this.

Not 'arguing' with you either

just discussing.

3-) MBT driving in PS1 was indeed boring, and ALOT of players voiced their concerns back in the day, long before development started on Modern Warfare. Admittedly the solution proposed was to give all MBT drivers a gun like the MagRider, wich is what I'm still advocating.

I think i mentioned in my original post that they could have simply given the driver some sort of AI weapon mounted on the front part of the tank with a 120deg or so firing 'arc'. Though, personally, i loved being the 'driver'.. Especially as most of the time i was playing with my Outfit and on VOIP with them + the gunner.

4-) COD doesn't have vehicles.

The single player missions (if i remember correctly) at times had you take control of some vehicles, in which case you were driver and gunner.

Reapter · 2012-05-26, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Rhapsody

I think i mentioned in my original post that they could have simply given the driver some sort of AI weapon mounted on the front part of the tank with a 120deg or so firing 'arc'.

The single player missions (if i remember correctly) at times had you take control of some vehicles, in which case you were driver and gunner.

The problem with that is now the driver will be doing the same as being the driver/gunner in the first place so you just solved absolutely nothing other then made a lot of players not want to cert tanks since they don't gain the main benefit. Driving around only isn't as fun as many of you are making this out to be.

Also were talking about multiplayer focused game and your using a singleplayer aspect in a game most probably played online without any vehicles as an example of it being CoDs fault.

ArmedZealot · 2012-05-26, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Rhapsody

Your also comparing a buggy which was designed as AI/AV to a 'tank'. Its going to be easier to kill than the tank by the simple fact that its a buggy.

And you are comparing the lightning a 'light tank' designed as AA exclusively or AI exclusively or AV exclusively to a tank (AV without a gunner, with it is AV/(AA+AI). Which will be easier to kill by the simple fact that its a 'light tank'.

They have different roles. Which is why people would sometimes choose the lightning over the MBT or the MBT over the lightning. The choice of a gunner gives even more flexibility to the MBT.

While someone who chooses an AA lightning is boned no matter what if an MBT or infantry come along.

No one in their right mind would always choose a lightning over a MBT.

Immigrant · 2012-05-26, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Pyreal

The Main Gun damn well better do the most DPS!
I'm focusing on being a Tanker in PS2 to blow stuff up, not to be a chauffeur!

Really, how can you even suggest such a thing? Did you forget the one pulling the vehicle customized the weapons it has, its speed, its armor? The one pulling the vehicle has to cert all those things, not the passenger!
Why would all that personal effort not benefit the driver, rather than whoever (unless your working with an Outfit) happened to hop in the passenger seat?

Who said that the driver has to be the one pulling out an vehicle? If you pair up with someone (gunner or driver or even you can change roles if you wish) you can alternate in pulling the vehicle out. And that's only the first thing you got wrong. Next gunner shouldn't be just little more than passenger like you suggested, he should be vital to tank's performance imo. If you wanna play single-man tankist grab a Lightning since that is the vehicle designed for such playstyle, MBTs should require teamwork.

Edit: I think we have a misunderstanding since by DPS i mean "damage per second" and you probably thought I meant "damage per shot". If that's the case then I agree that main cannon should have highest "damage per shot" but secondary AV gun should have higher "damage per second" value than main gun.

Gandhi · 2012-05-26, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by roguy

Oh and Rhapsody,

Read this before blaming the COD crowd:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...driving+boring

It's from before SOE announced "Planetside" Next afaik.

What's this supposed to show? I only saw one person mention the word "boring" and his suggestion was to give the driver the ability to call targets for the gunner, which would be great, and to say giving the driver the main gun would be a bad idea.

I would LOVE to see more tools available to drivers to call targets and direct their gunners. And the addition of Vivox will make communicating with random passengers so much easier. If you absolutely have to then give the driver a machine gun or something to play with, but not the main gun for gods sake.

Rhapsody · 2012-05-26, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

And you are comparing the lightning a 'light tank' designed as AA exclusively or AI exclusively or AV exclusively to a tank (AV without a gunner, with it is AV/(AA+AI). Which will be easier to kill by the simple fact that its a 'light tank'.

They have different roles. Which is why people would sometimes choose the lightning over the MBT or the MBT over the lightning. The choice of a gunner gives even more flexibility to the MBT.

While someone who chooses an AA lightning is boned no matter what if an MBT or infantry come along.

No one in their right mind would always choose a lightning over a MBT.

Single seat Lighting = single player, smaller vehical, less lethal, easier to kill.

Two seater Tank = 2 people, larger vehicle, more lethal when fully crewed, harder to kill.

That balances out. If it was the other way around, and the Lighting was more lethal, did more damage, and was harder to kill than the 2 seater tank, that would be a problem.

*quick edit*

And as for AA lighting being boned if a MBT comes along, or an Infantry toating a rocket launcher. He's no more boned than if a MBT with no AA support had a liberator or Reaver show up, or even that same exact trooper with the rocket launcher.

ArmedZealot · 2012-05-26, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Rhapsody

Single seat Lighting = single player, smaller vehical, less lethal, easier to kill.

Two seater Tank = 2 people, larger vehicle, more lethal when fully crewed, harder to kill.

That balances out. If it was the other way around, and the Lighting was more lethal, did more damage, and was harder to kill than the 2 seater tank, that would be a problem.

As far as I know all of this true when PS2 is concerned with MBT's and the Lightnings. Except for aircraft which would have an easier time hitting a MBT than a lightning and if the MBT has a gunner he can fend off aircraft as well.

Reapter · 2012-05-26, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Immigrant

Who said that the driver has to be the one pulling out an vehicle? If you pair up with someone (gunner or driver or even you can change roles if you wish) you can alternate in pulling the vehicle out. And that's only the first thing you got wrong. Next gunner shouldn't be just little more than passenger like you suggested, he should be vital to tank's performance imo. If you wanna play single-man tankist grab a Lightning since that is the vehicle designed for such playstyle, MBTs should require teamwork.

In order for that to work that requires a reliable teammate who is fine with doing that. You have to remember there are a lot of solo players out there. Also a gunner will always have a benefit as long as it can literally do anything at all. Team focused players will stick around in vehicles and rack up kills at what there specialized in. It shouldn't be required to have a teammate or else you lose out on using some things all together.

Stardouser · 2012-05-26, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Rhapsody

Single seat Lighting = single player, smaller vehical, less lethal, easier to kill.

Two seater Tank = 2 people, larger vehicle, more lethal when fully crewed, harder to kill.

That balances out. If it was the other way around, and the Lighting was more lethal, did more damage, and was harder to kill than the 2 seater tank, that would be a problem.

I assume you mean it will only be harder to kill and more lethal when fully crewed because of the extra gunner's ability to pay full attention to shooting; the addition of the extra crew member should not make shots do more damage or give the tank more hit points.

Rhapsody · 2012-05-26, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

As far as I know all of this true when PS2 is concerned with MBT's and the Lightnings. Except for aircraft which would have an easier time hitting a MBT than a lightning and if the MBT has a gunner he can fend off aircraft as well.

Its true, to a point.

Only now, you have:

Lighting = single crew, lethal on his own, easier to kill.

MBT = single crew, more lethal than Lithing, Harder to kill.

Whats the point in ever useing/having the lighting if you can solo-drive something thats more lethal, and harder to kill? By youself, just like you could/can the Lighting?

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I assume you mean it will only be harder to kill and more lethal when fully crewed because of the extra gunner's ability to pay full attention to shooting; the addition of the extra crew member should not make shots do more damage or give the tank more hit points.

Yea, thats what i was implying, he could focus solely on doing damage, while the driver focuses solely on keeping the tank in one piece.