Driver/Gunners... NO! - Page 46

Sledgecrushr · 2012-07-16, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

That's a questionable claim if you get more of an advantage by not filling them. Which IMO very unfortunately, the current system seems to do.

Meaning if you can run with all your tanks gunnerless and be better for it, you will. The perks of having them gun needs to outweigh the perks of not having them gun. Currently, they do not seem to.

Whatever happens, I'm going to assume that like any gamer, you'll go with whatever makes your group the most effective and exploit the game's systems in a legit manner to the utmost efficiency.

On another thread they mentioned a cert that reduces the bailout timer. I bet this would also go with switching seats. When we get into beta I dont really think that switching seats is going to be instantaneous. I think its going to be kinda hard to solo a MBT and run that vehicle as an optimal unit. Like I said in an earlier post tanks are pretty susceptible to non armor threats when the second gunner position isnt filled.

Azren · 2012-07-16, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I think its a given that the new magrider is an incredily agile tank as it is now. The video footage I have seen bears this out. Adding a turret to this configuration would make the magrider the quickest vehicle to acquire targets and be the most nimble vehicle. I say the mag would be quickest to acquire targets because it can rotate on its z axis while moving in any direction and also pivot its turret at the same time, while moving..at full speed...this just seems like a humongous advantage against the other MBT s. Other than this little wrinkle I think an optional cert for a three man setup would be cool.

If the magrider gets a turret, it works just like the other MBTs apart from strafing. Strafing in itself is not OP since it's speed is far lower than normal movement speed. It's just an issue of balancing firepower armor and speed.

fod · 2012-07-16, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I think its a given that the new magrider is an incredily agile tank as it is now. The video footage I have seen bears this out. Adding a turret to this configuration would make the magrider the quickest vehicle to acquire targets and be the most nimble vehicle. I say the mag would be quickest to acquire targets because it can rotate on its z axis while moving in any direction and also pivot its turret at the same time, while moving..at full speed...this just seems like a humongous advantage against the other MBT s. Other than this little wrinkle I think an optional cert for a three man setup would be cool.

its not at OP as you think
they balanced this ability in PS1 just fine (where it can do exactly what we are asking for)

Littleman · 2012-07-16, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

On another thread they mentioned a cert that reduces the bailout timer. I bet this would also go with switching seats. When we get into beta I dont really think that switching seats is going to be instantaneous. I think its going to be kinda hard to solo a MBT and run that vehicle as an optimal unit. Like I said in an earlier post tanks are pretty susceptible to non armor threats when the second gunner position isnt filled.

You have no idea how many times I've mentioned this and it still goes way over his head, probably because it's another point that weakens his argument, which is horribly biased and gets even more trollish with every response. CAPSLOCK!

He's obsessed with what goes on within the tank as the only point of teamwork or balance, seems to think he can actually compare how tanking works in WoT with how it will work in Planetside 2 (which is laughably hilarious due to mixed arms and massive player counts in PS2) and for some reason is only capable of fabricating tiny scenarios where it's his own sorry ass and a **** buddy are engaging opponents in a setup that gives them the advantage, and he's going in without any back up what-so-ever as a justification why 1 man tanks need to go. Like he can't find 2 other guys to fill a second tank and whoop their ass with the combined might of two FULL tanks, or a squad of foot soldiers that can flank around, or aircraft support...

A tank that fights alone, dies alone. It doesn't matter how many people are in it.

If this is your enemy comprised of infantry, tanks, and aircraft or any mix of the three:

[]****[]T
**T*[]**

[]
^
If you are here

And you're allies are back there V

***T***[]****T*****[]
***[]***T******[]***
[]***T*[]****[]**T**[]

You are doing it wrong!

Figment · 2012-07-16, 08:43 AM

Nice way of illustrating how far you miss the point Littleman. As usual.

I am the one that stresses use in numbers, where I regularly indicated that where we use 3 units now, we'd use 9 in the new scenario of solo use (!). Really? I would be the one talking about isolationist use and limited scenarios? Wow.

YOU are the one who stresses isolationist use. I simply indicate that having a multi-crew vehicle halfs the numbers of units you can bring to a fight and this makes you both alone or in a group easier to flank and concentrate firepower on.

But that's lost on you, isn't it?

Please indicate how come I always speak about group use and your pro-solo side always speaks about how a single solo vehicle is going to get its arse kicked?

Troll? Here's a mirror.

Littleman · 2012-07-16, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Nice way of illustrating how far you miss the point Littleman. As usual.

I am the one that stresses use in numbers, where I regularly indicated that where we use 3 units now, we'd use 9 in the new scenario of solo use (!). Really? I would be the one talking about isolationist use and limited scenarios? Wow.

YOU are the one who stresses isolationist use. I simply indicate that having a multi-crew vehicle halfs the numbers of units you can bring to a fight and this makes you both alone or in a group easier to flank and concentrate firepower on.

But that's lost on you, isn't it?

Please indicate how come I always speak about group use and your pro-solo side always speaks about how a single solo vehicle is going to get its arse kicked?

Troll? Here's a mirror.

We're advocating filling the damn tanks up and not going along JUST as driver/gunners. I'm also aware that there will be MORE on the field than other tanks. While those one manned tanks might be bigger in number, they're fodder for just about everything else. You're crying about imbalances over the number of tanks available on the field. I'm telling you even less aircraft will run rough shot over them if those tanks don't have AA support. Since you honestly thought seat switching was instantaneous despite there being certifications that indicate otherwise, I have little doubt you, in fact, have no ****ing clue what you're talking about.

Read up on the game some and come back when you realize there's more in Planetside for an MBT driver to worry about than MBT's.

Marinealver · 2012-07-16, 09:14 AM

Even though I doe perfer the Driver/Gunner crew system instead of the Steer and Point Pilot control of the Planetside 2 tanks they made that change for a reason. Tehy want PS2 to be a much faster pace, so making it that a single person can crew a tank instead of a driver having to V-N-G spam untill someone quits the zerg and hops in would make it so that more tanks are avalible. I don't see the secondary guns being used as much as anything else other than an Air Defence weapon. The splash damage from the ground cannon makes an effective anti infantry weapon.

Figment · 2012-07-16, 09:16 AM

@Littleman: So who cares if you require certs for speedier seat switching or even switching at all? A dedicated solo driver who doesn't intend to play with a gunner will just cert that: solo-problem solved. Why the hell would you assume solo drivers wouldn't spec out their character and vehicle for solo use? What a bullox assumption.

And why the hell do you expect solo drivers to only bring one type of firepower? The Lightning can be customized to AA, so no, they won't do without AA firepower, you just don't think of that kind of use of solo vehicles: separating the roles of your group instead of all using the exact same unit. Consider that with the 9 people I refer to, you can have a spread of 9 people over different roles. Including AA. So no, they won't get their arse kicked by aircav.

Next questions please.

And you accuse me of only putting up one scenario for solo use. Seriously?

Azren · 2012-07-16, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

@Littleman: So who cares if you require certs for speedier seat switching or even switching at all? A dedicated solo driver who doesn't intend to play with a gunner will just cert that: solo-problem solved. Why the hell would you assume solo drivers wouldn't spec out their character and vehicle for solo use? What a bullox assumption.

Simple: solo driver puts AV on main gun and AA on secondary. If aircav comes, how-swaps to AA. Sure, he won't be able to move, but he still has a better chance to live than with the AV cannon, depending on situation of course.

_________

A topic in the Idea Vault for optional "dedicated driver" certification. If you are in favour, show your support there;
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=45169

Sledgecrushr · 2012-07-16, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Azren

Simple: solo driver puts AV on main gun and AA on secondary. If aircav comes, how-swaps to AA. Sure, he won't be able to move, but he still has a better chance to live than with the AV cannon, depending on situation of course.

_________

A topic in the Idea Vault for optional "dedicated driver" certification. If you are in favour, show your support there;
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=45169

Your setup will only allow you to deal with one threat at a time, and that my friend is an inherit weakness in a combined arms game like ps2. Guess we will have to wait for beta to see how this pans out.

Littleman · 2012-07-16, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

@Littleman: So who cares if you require certs for speedier seat switching or even switching at all? A dedicated solo driver who doesn't intend to play with a gunner will just cert that: solo-problem solved. Why the hell would you assume solo drivers wouldn't spec out their character and vehicle for solo use? What a bullox assumption.

And why the hell do you expect solo drivers to only bring one type of firepower? The Lightning can be customized to AA, so no, they won't do without AA firepower, you just don't think of that kind of use of solo vehicles: separating the roles of your group instead of all using the exact same unit. Consider that with the 9 people I refer to, you can have a spread of 9 people over different roles. Including AA. So no, they won't get their arse kicked by aircav.

Next questions please.

And you accuse me of only putting up one scenario for solo use. Seriously?

Why do you assume the certifications will make the switching instant? If a guy is in a bloody tank, and is up against a tank and an aircraft, he has two really $#!%%& choices: engage the tank, get stomped by the air, or switch seats to fight the air, but is immobile to the tank. He could have other allies nearby, however. So should the tank/air cav combo, and if there's cover, the tank could out maneuver the extra, opposing tank to get at the other guy's back side. So many possibilities. Then we have to consider simple numerical imbalances solely due to player counts, and infantry support, engineers, HA, etc.

No one's going to really care about the driver and gunner being separate roles when engaging the tank.

And don't bring in the lightning excuse. You're side doesn't get to say "oh, but drivers need to concentrate!" and then go "grab a lightning for your AA." Wouldn't you rather the AA to not have to worry about where they're driving? The real pro to the lightning is that it may bring the superior AA however. Hrm... trade offs...

I'd still prefer a fully loaded tank and my third guy in the lightning as opposed to requiring 3 people like YOU want to. Or maybe I prefer a fully loaded tank and mossy support?

Or perhaps I just won't drift away from the main force like an idiot and the rest of my team can cover my weaknesses while I cover theirs. Bring the three single manned MBT's. I'm not gonna say good luck with the AA gun, because if those three MBT's are doing it right, they'll be sticking with their main force which in all likelihood will have infantry, and those infantry will gladly jump in to rip apart those mean old mossies/reavers/scythes if they have a modicum of common sense.

So really, it won't matter if there's a gunner in the second slot or not if you are doing it right, as your "gunner" will be fighting outside the tank until there's a need for that gun.

I want more to shoot at, and when I see a tank, I'm not concerned with how many are in it sans the simultaneous use of the extra guns, I'm just concerned with it being a tank. Driver/gunners put one more guy in the field and still sell the illusion of a full tank crew.

Stop arguing. You should know as well as I SOE won't back down from this decision. This decision was made despite how PS1's tanks handled, and they are a hell of lot more cognisant of what works today.

Azren · 2012-07-16, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Littleman

Stop arguing. You should know as well as I SOE won't back down from this decision. This decision was made despite how PS1's tanks handled, and they are a hell of lot more cognisant of what works today.

They are more cognisant of what makes money today. They do what they think the majority of the players will prefere, what they feel comfortable about, what they are used to. Time will tell if this is the right strategy.

At any rate, why be biased and only have one or the other? Just make it optional how the MBT is setup and everyone will be happy ˇ_ˇ

Figment · 2012-07-16, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Littleman

Why do you assume the certifications will make the switching instant?

Please point out how stating "speedier switching" as you attested is assuming instant? I did not suggest that at all in that post.

If a guy is in a bloody tank, and is up against a tank and an aircraft, he has two really $#!%%& choices: engage the tank, get stomped by the air, or switch seats to fight the air, but is immobile to the tank.

Sure. Nice scenario drafting. Oh wait, it assume solo tank in isolationist situation. Again? HHMMMMMMMmmmmMMmmmm.

He could have other allies nearby, however.

Ah! So you do admit that's a possibility. Hohum.

So should the tank/air cav combo, and if there's cover, the tank could out maneuver the extra, opposing tank to get at the other guy's back side. So many possibilities. Then we have to consider simple numerical imbalances solely due to player counts, and infantry support, engineers, HA, etc.

...what? Difference situations can occur? REALLY?! Wow. [/sarcasm]

No one's going to really care about the driver and gunner being separate roles when engaging the tank.

...Yeaaaah about that... No. It makes all the difference on how you approach an enemy unit. You check for a units capabilities, check the context (their friendlies) and determine your course of action from there by your own available options and friendlies.

And don't bring in the lightning excuse. You're side doesn't get to say "oh, but drivers need to concentrate!" and then go "grab a lightning for your AA."

Yes we do, because we state that while your driver will be worse off, in a group they get more endurance.

Stop being an uptight arse and for once hear us out, because this is what we've been saying from the first page of the first driver/gunner discussion.

Wouldn't you rather the AA to not have to worry about where they're driving? The real pro to the lightning is that it may bring the superior AA however. Hrm... trade offs...

Yes we would, but we would also like to see some survivability added to that because otherwise it's moot.

I'd still prefer a fully loaded tank and my third guy in the lightning as opposed to requiring 3 people like YOU want to. Or maybe I prefer a fully loaded tank and mossy support?

WANT to? NO. I'm saying this is what would happen because it'd be more effective and we're not stupid that although we'd WANT a full vehicle, we'd USE IT IF IT WAS THE WORSE ALTERNATIVE! Ugh. Stop being so horrible at reading comprehension and stop putting words in my mouth to make it mean what you want it to mean! Ffs man!

Or perhaps I just won't drift away from the main force like an idiot and the rest of my team can cover my weaknesses while I cover theirs.

Oh hey, there's your isolationist scenario again. Hi, we missed you.

Bring the three single manned MBT's. I'm not gonna say good luck with the AA gun, because if those three MBT's are doing it right, they'll be sticking with their main force which in all likelihood will have infantry, and those infantry will gladly jump in to rip apart those mean old mossies/reavers/scythes if they have a modicum of common sense.

Which three single manned MBTs? Could be two MBTs and a Lightning depending on what's the best solo-mix for the context. Wrap your head around that.

So really, it won't matter if there's a gunner in the second slot or not if you are doing it right, as your "gunner" will be fighting outside the tank until there's a need for that gun.

Uhm. So you're argueing that "instant" or "timed" switching won't be enough to save a tank from aircav, BUT if infantry have to leave their position to jump in a gunner position of a tank that moves faster than they do and doesn't always know you want to gun and creates all sorts of communication and logistical issues, not to mention is very situational, etc... this is suddenly a better solution than a dedicated gunner?

Wow.

I want more to shoot at, and when I see a tank, I'm not concerned with how many are in it sans the simultaneous use of the extra guns, I'm just concerned with it being a tank. Driver/gunners put one more guy in the field and still sell the illusion of a full tank crew.

Good for you, but stop being selfish by pretending that's best for the game or everyone else.

Stop arguing.

Please stop indeed.

You should know as well as I SOE won't back down from this decision.

Whatever happend to "everything can change in beta, just wait for beta to give your feedback" and "SOE will change everything based on our feedback", which was your side's primary reason to tell us to wait with feedback?

Or hey, maybe that's why we've been argueing about this and other things since earliest alpha, since nothing is "as permanent as temporary" and needs to be retained for optional change for as long as possible until we're sure it's good or not?

And as you can tell, there's no concensus on this at all. And please stop pretending that in contrast to creating new units, the MBT question is a matter of coding who provides what input and changing the description of a minor number of certifications.

This decision was made despite how PS1's tanks handled, and they are a hell of lot more cognisant of what works today.

Really? I'd love to see your objective factsheet about that.

SgtExo · 2012-07-16, 11:38 AM

I will repost what i believe will make it a better choice to use MBTs that have two gunners instead of being solo tanks.

I believe that for the resource cost it will be high for the big vehicles, but not so high that you cant buy a couple at a time. For example you should be able to buy 2 to 4 MBTs in a row if you die fast and buy it as soon as the cooldown is done. But after that, you should have run out of the needed resource and maybe have to wait for an hour for it to pool back in. You would have other resource for other types of vehicles like an aircraft or a Max, but because you wasted (or maybe you did achieve your goal) your resources, you will not be able to get another tank for a while.

This is where sharing the resource cost with a gunner can come in useful. Instead of having resource for x amount of MBTs now you could possibly have 2x the amount of resource for the tank. This will be useful for those really long gaming sessions that last for hours, a weekend for example. That is why you would want to have a second gunner in your tank becomes important, you maximize the efficiency of the vehicle towards the cost. Yes the other sides could bring in more solo MBTs, but in the long run they would run out of resource allot faster (taking into account that the resource gain is equal here), and thus their tank supply could potentially trickle down from having 20 tanks per fight down to 2 tanks per fight, while your side is still at a constant 10 tanks per fight.

LBurrows · 2012-07-16, 11:51 AM

personally i like having a solo tank options, the times i get a vanguard out and some prat jumps in starts chatting away not paying attention and we get blasted, or they decide they need to loo right at the point of battle leaving you to get blasted, it gets frustrating the 90 millionth time it happens lol.

Also if you tar every lightning driver with the same brush you might find some very skilled solo drivers trying to find you all over PS2, Infact that would add to the fun, Right everyone except me is rubbish in a tank :P come find me :-)