Driver/Gunners... NO! - Page 32

Raymac · 2012-07-13, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by The Loverator

It's v~eeery good that there are Gunner's in Planetside 2. Takes Players away from the Ego-Trip with the needful Force. :-P

If you don't want to drive in a "Papertank", you will have to be a Teamplayer. And it's nice that People are getting 'forced' to be Teamplayers.

greetings, LV.

Encouragement is a better motivator than forcing something. I mean this is a game we are talking about here. I wouldn't want them to force someone to drive only just as I wouldn't want them to take out the 2nd seat and force someone to only drive alone.

I know it's an MMO and all, but there is a difference between playing along side other people and having to chauffeur them aroudn while they get to shoot.

This is the main ES tank. It shouldn't be limited to only the people that want to be a taxi driver. At the same time, I don't see a problem with giving people the option to drive only (except for the Mag, but they could always just make the seconadry gun much more powerful in that set up)

Gammit10 · 2012-07-13, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

@MrKWalmsey

@RadarX

We know this is the philosophy they've chosen at this time. That's not in dispute. What we're all busily arguing about is whether or not we like the philosophy

RadarX

These forums--I assume--are meant for feedback, or at least communication. We understand the developers have chosen this configuration. Our feedback is that some of us deeply do not like the configuration. Please do not tell us what is obvious: that the developers have chosen this approach. Please tell us you are bringing these thoughts of the community to the developers, even if you cannot promise any changes as a result. Using this method may lower the aura of bs-as-usual from big companies and actually promote trust and open, honest communication with a community manager.

Raymac · 2012-07-13, 01:08 PM

Trust me. The devs read this forum plenty. I'm sure they are well aware of the large number of PS1 players that are not happy about this.

CollinBRTD · 2012-07-13, 01:15 PM

What else can he say?

On one hand people say don´t listen to the community to much because of messing around with the game and so on. On the other hand you are moaning when a choise has been made.

The developers have made a choise. Either you like it or not. This is not planetside 1. The games have been evolved and some standarts have been set. Planetside 2 is going to be a sure step up from the normal FPS, but wants still to attract the normal FPS or tactic shooter players. It wants to take the normal FPS player with it and so i guess some compromises needed to be taken.

Just to make it clear! i quite like the idea of driving and gunning.

Everybody is moaning about the Tank beeing 2 man but not the aircav beeing 2 man/women vehicle.

You want teamwork and firepower take the lib. A FLYING TANK FOR GOD SAKE!

So RadarX stick with it, when some of the comunity don´t want to create a game for the future but want to stay in their little reaverwhoring world of Planetside 1.

maradine · 2012-07-13, 01:26 PM

A lot of people, vets included, like the new direction. Let's not make this a squeaky wheel fight.

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-13, 01:34 PM

I love how you insult everyone's intelligence, Collin, just because they disagree with you.

-edit

It's not "squeaky wheel" anything. We are as equally part of the "community" as anyone else. Would you prefer if everyone just sat on their ass and didn't offer any feedback at all? What are you expecting people to do? Not all the features/revisions/plans for the game generate controversy. Only a few.

EisenKreutzer · 2012-07-13, 01:34 PM

I can only provide my perspective.

As a newcomer, I have never played the original Planetside. I have in fact never played a game where the driver and the gunner are two separate people in a tank. So I might not have any serious understanding or new insights to offer.

What I am, though, is a consumer of games. I am very particular about the kind of games I like, and epsecially the kind of FPS's I enjoy.

I've read large parts of this thread (though I skipped to the end after a while, mainly because the arguments started to go in circles at some point), and honestly, the two sides have compelling arguments.

Separate drivers and gunners adds lots of cool stuff to the game. it adds to immersion, which is a vital factor, it adds new tactical possibilities and it strengthens the role of the MBT. Lets be honest, a two or three-manned tank is going to outperform a one man tank. It's just obvious.

On the flip side, it makes tank play more difficult. Theres more work involved in organising tanks when you need two people to man it. And sure, many people think this is a positive thing. Anything that adds more teamwork is a good thing, right?
Well, not neccessarily. For the large outfits, definately. When you have 300 guys, and you all use voice chat to coordinate your operations, theres no problem.
But there will be lots of people who play and enjoy the game outside of major outfits.

Take more traditional mmo's, like World of Warcraft for example. There are literally thousands of players who don't join guilds as a conscious desition, preferring to trudge along on their own. Many of these players are quite good at the game, while many others simply don't want to involve other people in their enjoyment of the game.

Now, some people might say that these guys are playing the game wrong. And they'd have a point, to an extent. But in the end, can anyone really take someone elses enjoyment and label it wrong? Morally? Does wrongbadfun really exist? I'm not even gonna attempt to answer that. :P

My point is that there are going to be many, many players who go at it solo, or with a small group of friends. These people are going to rely on other randoms they encounter on Auraxis for their teamwork. And two-man tanks will make their lives more difficult.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, because for me, personally, it's a toss up. I could enjoy the game either way.
But it's worth considering.
Who is this game being designed for?

MrBloodworth · 2012-07-13, 01:39 PM

It only takes two people, with VOIP, or in the same room to drive and gun a tank with efficiently.

VOIP is built into PS2.

Originally Posted by CollinBRTD

You want teamwork and firepower take the lib. A FLYING TANK FOR GOD SAKE!

If you want to solo, take the lighting, for gods sake.

maradine · 2012-07-13, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

It's not "squeaky wheel" anything. We are as equally part of the "community" as anyone else. Would you prefer if everyone just sat on their ass and didn't offer any feedback at all? What are you expecting people to do? Not all the features/revisions/plans for the game generate controversy. Only a few.

You are absolutely part of the community, and yes, your feedback is welcome. What I take issue with is representations of "large numbers" of people being happy or unhappy with anything. Pointing out that this issue isn't solvable by bitching in an enthusiast forum that only contains a small percentage of the desired population is a reasonable thing to do.

I enjoyed PS1's armored play, but it was't particularly good. I have a crew for Steel Beasts Professional, but we don't always want to burn 4 hours on a run. Having an accessible experience for casual players can be both rewarding and deep. Hell, I love running three man BF3 tanks - I have two younger brothers practically designed for it.

The spirit and practicality of teamwork isn't going away, but it is different than PS1. For your (and your representative side's) sake, I do hope they allow tankers to spec for a separate gunner. For my sake, I hope they stick to their vision, because I think it is correct for the experience they're trying to create, and the one I want to play in.

edited for multiple grammatical atrocities

KaB · 2012-07-13, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

Having an accessible experience for casual players can be both rewarding and deep.

Why ? (and cool story for your bro bro)

Originally Posted by maradine

"The spirit and practicality of teamwork isn't going away, but it is different than PS1"

Why ?

Sorry you're saying we're bitching, but as you're taking this kind of master behavior comparing everyone, I just wanted to warm you that you're doing the same thing than us : you're saying things you have no idea of their validity as you never played PS2 yet.

Kayos · 2012-07-13, 02:32 PM

I think the vast majority will like being able to drive and shoot. Maybe not the PS1 vets but I bet most that end up playing will like it. I am a PS1 vet and I like the idea of being able to drive and gun myself. Never liked waiting around to try to get a gunner if my friends weren't online.

Azren · 2012-07-13, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Kayos

I think the vast majority will like being able to drive and shoot. Maybe not the PS1 vets but I bet most that end up playing will like it. I am a PS1 vet and I like the idea of being able to drive and gun myself. Never liked waiting around to try to get a gunner if my friends weren't online.

Can anyone explain why you all insist on having two solo tanks? Why not have one where you can drive/gun (lightning) and one where you can only drive? Don't tell me they are for different roles, with the cert system they can be made very similar in most aspects.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-07-13, 03:08 PM

Has the argument changed from having three man tanks to the driver manning the secondary gun with still only two guys in a tank? For me the way the devs have it now is absolutely perfect for what maximum enjoyment without havin to look for 2 extra gunners to completely man a tank. Also having the driver take control of a secondary gun seems kind of silly to me. As important as the secondary gun really is it needs to be manned full time.

Sephirex · 2012-07-13, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Azren

Can anyone explain why you all insist on having two solo tanks? Why not have one where you can drive/gun (lightning) and one where you can only drive? Don't tell me they are for different roles, with the cert system they can be made very similar in most aspects.

Not the argument you wanted, but I'm going with the different roles still.

I personally find them as comparable as a Max and a Light Assault. One can get in and out fast, allowing for scouting, line disruption, and flanking. Also that fast firing explosive cannon seems like an infantry shredder.

The other one is ponderous but hard hitting with multiple gunners, but may be easier to trap and overwhelm if it pushes too far forward, ESPECIALLY if no ones manning the secondary gun.

Of course, we'll see what happens in Beta. If an MBT with a single gunner does turn out to be a overpowered zerg tank, that will need to be addressed.

Ratstomper · 2012-07-13, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Azren

Can anyone explain why you all insist on having two solo tanks? Why not have one where you can drive/gun (lightning) and one where you can only drive? Don't tell me they are for different roles, with the cert system they can be made very similar in most aspects.

"Can be made similar in most aspects" is not the same thing as" has the same role". They're obviously made to do different things.

MBTs aren't solo tanks, they've got offensive spots for two people and will suffer if they don't have that second spot filled.