Driver/Gunners... NO!

[Azren]

Originally Posted by Deadeye

Because I, and I'm sure many others, don't want to PAY for a tank that we can only drive. There's a reason just 5 or 6 tanks was a cool site in PS1 but the skies were often filled with aircraft: people prefer solo vehicles. I prefer it too. I only ever cert for Lightning when I play PS1 and want a ground vehicle other than an AMS. However, in PS2, I plan on driving MBTs to some extent because I can now drive and gun it. It was all fun and games when the tanks were free in PS1, but now that we pay, we demand more.

As far as the the excuses against it, the main one seems to be some kind of idea that because one person is driving a tank, they aren't a team player. It's an excuse that has lived far too long. I can be just as much a team player in a one man tank as you can be in a 2. Why? Because I can do the same things as you can like support an infantry attack by providing supporting fire from afar or close in and I can do it while allowing one more infantry man to be in the fight rather than tied up in the tank.

If there is one balance change I would make to the idea it's this: if you only want to pay for half the tank, you can only drive it and the gunner will have to pay the other half. Otherwise, you pay full price and get to drive a full tank.

I'll bet, though, that even if 80% of people said they'd be up for the former option, 90% would choose the latter when ingame.

I do not think that anyone here ever questioned that at least 50% of the population prefers to play solo. The devs are well aware of this and have supported them in a great number of ways. Just in terms of vehicles, they have an option to use very solid vehicles for both air and ground roles.

However you should not question the rest of the population who wants a different experience. An experience only PS was able to provide so far in terms of tank combat. Obviously I am talking about MBT setup PS1 used.

I have to disagree with you on your reasoning as of why much more aircav was used than MBTs. They were used because how benefitial they are; they are the fastest vehicles in game, they give you the greatest freedom, they were very deadly (could take out an MBT easy), they were not dependent on anything, ect. In contrast the MBTs were very dependent on support, starting from aquireing a gunner to constant repairing.

For many players it was frustrating to pull a tank and not get a gunner. However this was only an issue for soloers, anyone with an outfit never had a problem with it. You must also see that the reason people didnt want to gun for them is related to their previous experience where the driver got them killed very fast.

I can respect the soloers way of gaming, however I wish they would do the same towards other people. PS2 already supports a great number of solo roles both as grunts and as vehicle operators, why do you have to be so selfish as to request the only role that was meant to be played by dedicated gunner and driver teams for yourself also?

You argue that the Lightning's role is different than MBT's, but so what? Does it hurt so much not being able to play a single role in an MMOFPS alone?

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Azren

I can respect the soloers way of gaming, however I wish they would do the same towards other people. PS2 already supports a great number of solo roles both as grunts and as vehicle operators, why do you have to be so selfish as to request the only role that was meant to be played by dedicated gunner and driver teams for yourself also?

You argue that the Lightning's role is different than MBT's, but so what? Does it hurt so much not being able to play a single role in an MMOFPS alone?

It's not a matter of being selfish. It's a matter of the PS1 system for MBTs not being able to work in PS2. As we've said, MBT will be more fragile form certain directions. That means it's necessary to have a dedicated secondary gunner to be effective in any battles of decent size. If that gunner is busy using the main cannon against enemy armor, he's not focused on taking out the planes and infantry that may be flanking you.

I forsee the secondary gun is going to play a MUCH larger role in PS2 than it did in PS1. Let the gunner defend the tank and let the driver control the main cannon. That's teamwork and it's no less teamwork than PS1 had. Just because the MBT is able to be used solo does not mean a secondary gunner won't be both important and effective. Besides, it gives your driver something to do.

EDIT: also, I've never seen anything short of an OS take out an MBT "easy". It took a MASSIVE amount of reaver rockets to kill an MBT in PS1 and the only reason they didn't get shot down was because the gunner wasn't able to stop firing the main gun long enough to shoot them.

[fod]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

It's not a matter of being selfish. It's a matter of the PS1 system for MBTs not being able to work in PS2. As we've said, MBT will be more fragile form certain directions. That means it's necessary to have a dedicated secondary gunner to be effective in any battles of decent size. If that gunner is busy using the main cannon against enemy armor, he's not focused on taking out the planes and infantry that may be flanking you.

I forsee the secondary gun is going to play a MUCH larger role in PS2 than it did in PS1. Let the gunner defend the tank and let the driver control the main cannon. That's teamwork and it's no less teamwork than PS1 had. Just because the MBT is able to be used solo does not mean a secondary gunner won't be both important and effective.

EDIT: also, I've never seen anything short of an OS take out an MBT "easy". It took a MASSIVE amount of reaver rockets to kill an MBT in PS1 and the only reason they didn't get shot down was because the gunner wasn't able to stop firing the main gun long enough to shoot things down.

could always have a 3rd person / 2nd gunner (if they implement the ability to let someone else gun the main weapon for us)

[Littleman]

Originally Posted by fod

could always have a 3rd person / 2nd gunner (if they implement the ability to let someone else gun the main weapon for us)

Well... yeah. The best case scenario would be giving drivers the option of controlling the main gun. This thread just gets ugly when people insist it must be one way or the other.

[Azren]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

It's not a matter of being selfish. It's a matter of the PS1 system for MBTs not being able to work in PS2. As we've said, MBT will be more fragile form certain directions. That means it's necessary to have a dedicated secondary gunner to be effective in any battles of decent size. If that gunner is busy using the main cannon against enemy armor, he's not focused on taking out the planes and infantry that may be flanking you.

I forsee the secondary gun is going to play a MUCH larger role in PS2 than it did in PS1. Let the gunner defend the tank and let the driver control the main cannon. That's teamwork and it's no less teamwork than PS1 had. Just because the MBT is able to be used solo does not mean a secondary gunner won't be both important and effective.

EDIT: also, I've never seen anything short of an OS take out an MBT "easy". It took a MASSIVE amount of reaver rockets to kill an MBT in PS1 and the only reason they didn't get shot down was because the gunner wasn't able to stop firing the main gun long enough to shoot things down.

This is not the place for PS1 debate, but just for that comment I have to reply; Reavers where flying tanks in PS1, it took 4 shots from the magrider's main gun to take them out. Hitting them was very hard, so chances are that if you ran into one of them, you were pretty much dead. Of course the pilot's and the gunner's skill matter here, but a good pilot was almost always able to take out a tank with a good gunner. I am speaking of experience I have with magrider, which has the best AA capability in PS1 from all the MBTs.

Back on topic;
I can not share your views on the future of the MBTs. I can only envision a flood of solo tanks rolling all around the map. Tanks do not need AA gunner, we got other people for that. As for AV and AI, the main gun is all we need to cover those areas.

Your argument for being attacked from the rear may sound valid at first, however what kind of secondary gunner will keep looking at your 6, searching for possible flankers, when he knows there are enemies to be shot at 12 O'clock?

The main problem we are facing here is not that the driver gets to shoot a gun, it's that the current setup makes a gunner not nessesary.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by fod

could always have a 3rd person / 2nd gunner (if they implement the ability to let someone else gun the main weapon for us)

You could, technically. It would make it that much harder for someone who doesn't have friends that play to fill his tank, though.

[Azren]

Originally Posted by Littleman

Well... yeah. The best case scenario would be giving drivers the option of controlling the main gun. This thread just gets ugly when people insist it must be one way or the other.

That would be very hard to balance and as such is very unlikeley to happen. The Magrider even adds an extra layer of balance issues to this idea

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Azren

This is not the place for PS1 debate, but just for that comment I have to reply; Reavers where flying tanks in PS1, it took 4 shots from the magrider's main gun to take them out. Hitting them was very hard, so chances are that if you ran into one of them, you were pretty much dead. Of course the pilot's and the gunner's skill matter here, but a good pilot was almost always able to take out a tank with a good gunner. I am speaking of experience I have with magrider, which has the best AA capability in PS1 from all the MBTs.

Did you not say...

I have to disagree with you on your reasoning as of why much more aircav was used than MBTs. They were used because how benefitial they are; they are the fastest vehicles in game, they give you the greatest freedom, they were very deadly (could take out an MBT easy), they were not dependent on anything, ect.

Are you speaking in the past tense about a game neither of us has played yet? I was a reaver pilot in PS1 and I did not stick around when I had magriders shooting at me, because a reaver died fast from ANY MBT shell. Considering you'd have to unload nearly all the rockets you brought to kill a single MBT...We must be talking about different games.

Back on topic;
I can not share your views on the future of the MBTs. I can only envision a flood of solo tanks rolling all around the map. Tanks do not need AA gunner, we got other people for that. As for AV and AI, the main gun is all we need to cover those areas.

Your argument for being attacked from the rear may sound valid at first, however what kind of secondary gunner will keep looking at your 6, searching for possible flankers, when he knows there are enemies to be shot at 12 O'clock?

The main problem we are facing here is not that the driver gets to shoot a gun, it's that the current setup makes a gunner not nessesary.

I don't think you understand how a tank works. The closer the target is to the tank, the less effective the main gun becomes. If you're driving anyplace with nearby cover, you've got infantry to worry about. If you're anywhere on a battlefield at any time, you've got aircraft to worry about. Yes, they can take you out quick and you cannot rely on other people to protect your shiny tank you bought with your own resources. A good secondary gunner is going to be specifically looking out for flanking and planes. I guarantee it.

That brings me to my second point, MBTs have AI and AA capabilities with their second gun, why would someone spend their time protecting a tank when there are more important targets to protect?

If you think a secondary gunner will be unnecessary, you will probably be delightfully surprised when you get in one at just how fast an MBT will die without one. The makings of teamwork and effectiveness is still there, it's just different than what you're used to. No amount of main gun will change the fact that a MBT with a secondary gunner will be massively more effective than a driver going solo.

[fod]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

You could, technically. It would make it that much harder for someone who doesn't have friends that play to fill his tank, though.

if its all optional does it really matter?
as others have said why does it have to be one way or the other - allow us to pick if we want to control the main gun or let someone else

i have 0 troubles filling leviathans/auroras etc etc with gunners so i would like the choice if possible to let others gun

[Littleman]

Originally Posted by Azren

The main problem we are facing here is not that the driver gets to shoot a gun, it's that the current setup makes a gunner not nessesary.

This is the point. No vehicle requires other players to make them work. Having those empty seats filled is just greatly beneficial. Unlike with the multitude of posts constantly asking the point in having a 2 man tank when those two could pull two of their own tanks and then letting simple math parse out the victor without considering dozens of other unpredictable variables, there's more than tanks out there to face off against.

In fact, for a tank, another tank is one of the preferable opponents to fight against. Against swarms of infantry and especially air cav, that big tank barrel ain't looking like the optimal solution, and last I checked Planetside is most definitely a mixed arms game. Not World of Tanks. Optimally, a driver will want someone on the secondary turret. Maybe it might not be better than what the lightning can bring to the fight, but it spares HIM the trouble of driving and gunning a skyguard at the same time. That's right, the concept can work in reverse too!

And no, the secondary gunner won't be checking the tank's six at all times. That's the opportunity infantry have to strike. The weakness doesn't go away just because the secondary gunner is watching the rear regardless. Sure, he COULD pull his own tank, but now we have 2 tanks weak against infantry, air cav, or even arguably tanks if they come up against AV variant tanks. There's also the consideration that one may not like driving at all, just gunning and being a team player.

To this day, I still happily hop into the MG seat of the Prowler and focus solely on lighter vehicles, infantry, and prioritizing aircav. I don't see myself changing that habit in PS2, especially if the weaponry is even stronger this time around by comparison.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by fod

if its all optional does it really matter?
as others have said why does it have to be one way or the other - allow us to pick if we want to control the main gun or let someone else

i have 0 troubles filling leviathans/auroras etc etc with gunners so i would like the choice if possible to let others gun

Those are a bit different. Transport vehicles are assumed to be going to the next big fight. When you gun a tank, you usually expect to be using that tank until it dies.

I'll be honest, I don't like all the complexity that's going into this "let people cert to have 3 slots or whatever". I feel like people may be blowing things out of proportion without trying the game to see how they like it first.

[maradine]

Originally Posted by Azren

Your argument for being attacked from the rear may sound valid at first, however what kind of secondary gunner will keep looking at your 6, searching for possible flankers, when he knows there are enemies to be shot at 12 O'clock?

One that wants a ride in my wheels.

Seriously, that's secondary gunner Job One. You are free, of course, to work out whatever priorities with your crew you see fit based on circumstance and secondary armament.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Littleman

Well... yeah. The best case scenario would be giving drivers the option of controlling the main gun. This thread just gets ugly when people insist it must be one way or the other.

YEAH LET'S GIVE THE FIXED MAGRIDER GUN TO THE THIRD PERSON IN THE TANK!


You thought out that argument well haven't you?

Even if it has been brought up... oh... 70 times by now in various threads...


It's simply not a viable option to give the gun away. That just costs you way too much manpower.

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

You could, technically. It would make it that much harder for someone who doesn't have friends that play to fill his tank, though.

Ehr no... it would make it harder for those who would fill their tanks...


Getting an extra gunner doesn't make your tank stronger. It doesn't gain you more hitpoints. Thus you get killed as a team of two, MUCH faster. The TTK they have right now on MBTs should make any gunner think thrice for getting in. You lot mentioned how fast it goes down, right?

A gunner is not going to help at all. Its hitpoints will remain the same and it's not like it can magically catch the bullets. Instead, if he was in another MBT, he'd have double the hitpoints and when needed, both of you can switch seats to that magical secondary gun you keep refering to.

There's currently NO advantage to being a gunner, let alone letting in two gunner. Mathematically it's extremely unbalanced to do that right now. The MBTs will need an armour buff and split roles, a significant armour buff, because they're now pretty much equal to the Lightning from what Higby said and you can tell that a single grunt can solo a tank with ease. If you think that's inviting for three people to sit in, you're either extremely stupid, or you simply have no gaming experience whatsoever. If you can't tell how players would react to such a given situation, then you haven't been paying attention in any games you've played on why you make unit choice decisions.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Figment

Ehr no... it would make it harder for those who would fill their tanks...


Getting an extra gunner doesn't make your tank stronger. It doesn't gain you more hitpoints. Thus you get killed as a team of two, MUCH faster. The TTK they have right now on MBTs should make any gunner think thrice for getting in. You lot mentioned how fast it goes down, right?

Do you know what the term "suppression" means? A secondary gunner will be able to eliminate threats before they become imminent. those guys who just flanked you from out of cover and are moving in to put boomers on your tank are going to be swiss cheese when your secondary gunner sees them. Planes don't come in for multiple runs when there is actively a gun knocking them out of the sky. At the very least, it's making them think twice before making a second run at you. A secondary gunner keeps the enemy off you while the driver/maingunner does his job. In effect, giving you more hitpoints.

A gunner is not going to help at all. Its hitpoints will remain the same and it's not like it can magically catch the bullets. Instead, if he was in another MBT, he'd have double the hitpoints and when needed, both of you can switch seats to that magical secondary gun you keep refering to.

And that is a mechanic that should be addressed. Most people don't like the fact you can just switch seats or enter/exit vehicles instantly, but I digress...

As a solo, any time you're in one gun, your other gun is not being used (nor can you move while in secondary gun). That's a big drop in performance efficiency of the vehicle. That means you don't have the offensive power or utility you could with a gunner. Not NEARLY the offensive power or utility. I can almost guarantee that anyone who tries to solo an MBT will not be able to take much pressure from any sizable enemy force and will be burned down EASILY. I think it will be such a problem, that people will wait for secondary gunners, because it's an important job and increases the survivability of the tank exponentially.

Two solo-manned MBTs are going to burn down like tissue paper because they do not have the defense capabilities of a single, 2-manned MBT. See above.

There's currently NO advantage to being a gunner, let alone letting in two gunner. Mathematically it's extremely unbalanced to do that right now. The MBTs will need an armour buff and split roles, a significant armour buff, because they're now pretty much equal to the Lightning from what Higby said and you can tell that a single grunt can solo a tank with ease. If you think that's inviting for three people to sit in, you're either extremely stupid, or you simply have no gaming experience whatsoever. If you can't tell how players would react to such a given situation, then you haven't been paying attention in any games you've played on why you make unit choice decisions.

The fact you have access to a free, high-powered weapon is enough for 90% of people to be a gunner. That's a lot of potential kills and a lot of potential XP. I've not seen ANYWHERE where Higby said an MBT was equal in survivability to a lightning OR that a grunt could take out a MBT easily. NOWHERE. If it's out there, lets see it.

As far as this personal attack business, you better learn some respect. You sound like an immature brat who doesn't know anything when you talk like that. If you're going to start insulting people for "not knowing how players will react to a given situation" you better goddamn well learn yourself first. Although, I can't say I expect you to do either, considering you dont even take the time to comprehend the arguments before spouting your mouth off.

[Figment]

First off, you haven't adressed the unfairness of the Magrider with regards to "certing to give away the main gun. Nice ignoring of the argument there.


Yeaaaaah because gunners can suddenly aim at 360 degrees targets AT ONCE. No, gunners get flanked too. Don't pretend they're ideal and awesome at suppressing infantry. They'll be equally screwed as any one man tank if they get flanked by infantry, tanks, aircraft or otherwise.

And don't ever pretend that solo tanks are alone. You know what's even better for suppression angle? Someone who can shoot at targets that are below your gunner's depression angle: someone in another tank.

Instead of a gunner, I'd always bring a Lightning tank. Gunners are crap if you can have two tanks instead of one. Don't ever pretend a gunner is magically as good as or even better than a wingman unless that gun is 3 times as strong as the gun on a Lightning or MBT and we already know it's about equal to a MBT as AV and worse than a Lightning at AA. So it's crap.

Which also means that you're better off with a Lightning AA/AI unit (which happens to exist in PS2) and on TOP OF THAT, you can have TWO people with AA now because the tank driver can switch guns! So no, that secondary gunner would only get in the way as you'd have half the hitpoints, half the AA power, half the vantage points and half the flanking options.

But please, keep ignoring and not ever using your brain on how you use other combinations of units and keep to your one scenario that only exists in your mind but in reality "suiss cheese" is what your tank will be in PS2 (as we've seen happen so far). You don't even acknowledge that that "infantry targeting guy" may not even target infantry at all and you don't acknowledge that you have no idea how easy it will be to actually target and kill infantry. Because from what I've seen, they'll jetpack over your tank, you lose track of them as you're at 180 degrees from them and then they boomer you. But hey, I'm sure they'll all nicely line up and those other infantry, aircraft and tanks will all wait their turn for the gunner to not be distracted... No, I'm sure they'll all make their move the moment the gunner is watching them and that the gunner is at all times pointing in the right direction and never assisting his main gunner against that tank (especially while using an AI or AA gun...).




I agree that seat switching must be adressed. But hey, if you do that, some people will argue the same thing again: "WE DON'T WANT TO RELY ON A GUNNER WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH MOMMMY THE BAD MAN MAKES ME PLAY WITH A FRIEND!" and "BUT PEOPLE FROM BF3 AND HALO ARE USED TO INSTANT SEAT SWITCHING!"...


Yay. (And if it's suddenly more important that seat switching is addressed then that says enough about the viability of the argument that "people are used to something, thus it can't ever change" - which ironically is not at all the line of argumentation used by people refering to PS1 MBT combat, even if that's what some people want you to believe).


Sorry, if I don't give any credence to whining ego-centric babies.


You're also horribly underestimating two solo-MBTs. Horribly underestimating them. I'll have you know that two tanks working together in a random match in World of Tanks can easily rake in 7-12 kills in two teams of 15 (one life per tank). Why? Coordination. If you saw the strength of the main gun in PS2 from the footage sofar, it'll be piss easy to kill infantry with it.



Regarding the strength of the Lightning, go back to I think it was the fourth or fifth interview. It was an AGN broadcast.



As far as your critique on my posting style, I fully comprehend the argument you make, I simply utterly disagree with it as you may have noticed. Your claims are based on nothing but wild assumptions of the strength of a gunner's gun, even though it's been said it's not going to be better than a MBT's main gun and a Lightning's guns will be more powerful, while Lightning armour would be approximately the same to a MBT (only slightly less iirc).

Hence I don't see why you'd get yourself a gunner if you can get yourself a Lightning wingman who can suppress infantry much better and doesn't die when you die.