Crewed MBT's for one week - Page 6

Figment · 2012-10-31, 09:24 PM

Maradine, look at the crap this guy says about certs. He clearly demands that Sunderers must be operated solo, libs must be operated solo, Galaxies must have all four guns under drive control, because why invest into the certs someone other than you will use? I don't even think he realises the difference between a lib nose gun and a mbt turret main gun in terms of use and viability in racking up kills or even dealing damage at all. Honestly, lib nose guns are in the top five useless vehicle guns.

Selfish, egocentric, biased, uninformed, ignorant argument, right there.

I'm not spouting filth, this is 100% objective fact after reading through all his posts - there is simply no argument made or backed up with a proper example of implementation. The maths is really simple, because most variables are details. Only three specs determine balance: manpower, damage dealt over time and damage absorbed over time. That is all, the details determine how dps is delivered, it doesn't change that you end up with a dps output. Speed, profile etc are just accuracy/efficiency influencing stats and are easily integrated in dps and absorbed damage.

If he thinks air units fall under other Logic, then he is a hypocrite too. I don't hear him about how people invest in different lib guns the pilot will never use though. Imagine that, you investing in your team?

This guy doesn't have any clue and I get really annoyed with arrogant idiots trying to be denegrating and condescending. Now if he had a point somewhere in that dribble, fair enough. Fact is, he doesn't have a clue and is parrotting bad logic without fact checking.

TheSaltySeagull · 2012-10-31, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Maradine, look at the crap this guy says about certs. He clearly demands that Sunderers must be operated solo, libsmust be operated solo, Galaxies must have all four guns under drive control, because why invest into the certs someone other than you will use?

Selfish, egocentric, biased, uninformed, ignorant argument, right there.

I'm not splitting filth, this is 100% objective fact. If he thinks air units fall under other Logic, then he is a hypocrite too. I don't hear him about how people invest in different lib guns the pilot will never use though. Imagine that, you investing in your team?

This guy doesn't have any clue and I get really annoyed with arrogant idiots trying to be denegrating and condescending. Now if he had a point somewhere in that dribble, fair enough. Fact is, he doesn't have a clue and is parrotting bad logic without fact checking.

dude stop. I never made any such claims and you damn well know it. I have no idea what your beef is here but you need to chill. I dunno what is wrong with you right now but you need to relax bro.

Like I said the cost investment is to high for an MBT to just be driven and its a turn off to some players. Liberators have guns that can be used by the crew as well as the pilot. The pilot of a lib can engage targets with his own gun as well as the rest of his crew which makes for more engaging gameplay as opposed to just flying. I feel tanks should operate under that same idea.

The sundy and the galaxy are NOT combat vehicles they are transports and support vehicles. Like I said I drive a sundy a lot. I do NOT want a gun for sundy and gal drivers. Like I said they are not combat vehicles that have a different role. I use mine as an AMS so I park it and let it do its thing. I dont drive head first into battle trying to kill stuff like you would a tank.

If my presence here upsets you I will leave because I dont want to see a valid thread get derailed for no reason. But I do resent you attacks against me for apparently no reason. Particularly after your previous post.

EDIT: And I dont see what about my opinions was so ignorant or selfish to begin with? Somebody tell me please.

Figment · 2012-10-31, 09:37 PM

The problem is you don't know that you made that claim the moment you said the driver does not want to invest in other certs than guns he can use. That is simply utter hypocritical bullshit. Sorry, but it is. If they care so much they are investing in the wrong vehicle and ffs, a mbt is as cheap to invest in as any other unit. Transport or combat alike, doesn't matter: team vehicles are for a team, not for personal use only.

You don't even know what you are argueing, why should anyone listen to you?

Ps: For the record, my driver gunner survey shows that the majority of respondents (>200 respondents) sees cert investment as largely empire/team investment. Unlike you, I fact check.

TheSaltySeagull · 2012-10-31, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

The problem is you don't know that you made that claim the moment you said the driver does not want to invest in other certs than guns he can use.

You don't even know what you are argueing, why should anyone listen to you?

No my friend you are twisting my arguments and its obvious. But its apparent that I have done something wrong here to I will depart for the sake of the thread. Please excuse my ignorant self then.

Dagron · 2012-10-31, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

Its to much of an investment on the spawning player for them to only be able to drive and nothing else.

I know what i'll say next is even less likely to happen than what people have been asking for a while now, but i'll just throw some ideas around just for the hell of it.

I'm sure they could think of a way to give you the choice to spawn the tank as the gunner, only applying your offensive tank certs into it, or as the driver, only applying your defensive and mobility tank certs into it.

Alternatively, maybe a weirder but more interesting idea, they could give both gunner and driver the ability to apply their individual certs in their particular role to the tank they're both into, all they needed was to stop at a vehicle pad to re-equip it. I imagine that would make it easier to have highly certed tanks around, but they could increase cert costs to turn being a dedicated driver or gunner into specialization choices that took a lot of effort and dedication to achieve.

Edit: wow, missed a whole page. Well Figment, i agree you are getting a little hot headed here, i've been looking at Salty's posts in this thread for as long as you have and i don't think he's being as aggressive as the guys who were arguing with you before he came along. You've probably just been having this discussion for too long now and it's getting to you, relax.

Figment · 2012-10-31, 09:54 PM

Some survey results.

TheSaltySeagull · 2012-10-31, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by Dagron

I know what i'll say next is even less likely to happen than what people have been asking for a while now, but i'll just throw some ideas around just for the hell of it.

I'm sure they could think of a way to give you the choice to spawn the tank as the gunner, only applying your offensive tank certs into it, or as the driver, only applying your defensive and mobility tank certs into it.

Alternatively, maybe a weirder but more interesting idea, they could give both gunner and driver the ability to apply their individual certs in their particular role to the tank they're both into, all they needed was to stop at a vehicle pad to re-equip it. I imagine that would make it easier to have highly certed tanks around, but they could increase cert costs to turn being a dedicated driver or gunner into specialization choices that took a lot of effort and dedication to achieve.

It sounds overly complex tho I do personally like the idea of having "gunner" certs. But its probably simpler to just give the driver a gun, just not the main one. So it would function like the ps1 mag.

But apparently I am an ignorant selfish asshole so what do I know.

Dagron · 2012-10-31, 10:01 PM

I agree it's overly complex, but no harm in a little brainstorming.

Yetiee · 2012-10-31, 10:09 PM

Give the ability for the main gun to be controlled by the gunner with triple ammo capacity when only one gun is mounted. And lets get some cow catchers for the driver to do some damage

TheSaltySeagull · 2012-10-31, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by Dagron

I agree it's overly complex, but no harm in a little brainstorming.

Oh no by all means. Its just that with it being a f2p game(one that currently lacks any clear tutorial) I feel things need to be simple.

Like I said normally I would be in full support of ps1 tank mechanics but to me its just hard to justify somebody committing so much in terms or certs and resources and not being able to do anything but drive. I would prefer the more team play orientated option personally but it is a bit much. As an optional thing I am all for it but not as the default because not everybody will be happy with that. I personally wouldn't.

I just feel that the driver little gun and gunner big gun worked good for the mag in ps1 so it could be carried over. This way getting a gunner is obviously a benefit but the driver can get in on the action as well.

Also the proposed upcoming change could be very cool with how they implement it and everybody could end up happy so I think its worth looking into.

Figment · 2012-10-31, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by Dagron

Edit: wow, missed a whole page. Well Figment, i agree you are getting a little hot headed here, i've been looking at Salty's posts in this thread for as long as you have and i don't think he's being as aggressive as the guys who were arguing with you before he came along. You've probably just been having this discussion for too long now and it's getting to you, relax.

Aggression has nothing to do with it. I'm tired of hearing the same ignorant dribble time and again, especially when someone doesn't realise what he is suggesting and claiming.

There is no compromise possible. None. Not a single one. Nada. Zilch. This isn't about catering to play styles as if they are equal by just waving a magic dev wand, it's about basic balance and it cannot be achieved by any suggested setup that uses the same mbt frame as basis.

That people still have blind faith in devs and expect others to simply accept them and keep rambling false assumptions about player base desires and wishes is as ridiculous as it is insulting.

I'm one of the only person who ever took the effort to find out what players want on this matter. There is one more person on the PS2 forum who asked what players want: ps1 MBTs or PS2, the ratio of votes was about 6 ps1 for every PS2 liker, with over 140 votes cast. Now polls can be misleading, but do you honestly think that this sample size, that is consistent with reddit, PSU and every thread and poll conducted on this matter, is so flawed there are in reality more people in favour of solo MBTs?

MBT Tankspam is a HUGE concern on the official forums. You honestly think doing nothing about their numbers and adding a token cert that nobody would use as long as they can afford more tanks would help anything?

Yeah I don't give a rats arse about egocentric wishes and proud of it. I'm sure there are those that want MAX units to hack points and want Mosquitos to have napalm. I'm also aware that some people think PS1 bfrs on introduction were perfectly balanced or that infil one/two shot shotguns are fine. Does that mean you should give it to because they personally think it is fun? If there were valid game play reasons or niches that were best solved with one crew, okay. But MBTs are not that unit.

I've said in the past, I could imagine a light, fixed forward mounted AI machine gun, indeed like the ps1 mag, but it shouldn't be ever considered to give a driver of a tank balanced in endurance for more thayn one guy a heavy main tank gun. That's as stupid as given infils shotguns (and significantly worse than infils with sniper rifles, tbh).

Dagron · 2012-10-31, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

Its just that with it being a f2p game(one that currently lacks any clear tutorial) I feel things need to be simple.

It'd be pretty hard to implement, i'm sure... at first it would come out buggy as hell.

But i don't think that'd be so complex for the players, it would just take a little tutorial on how to spawn tanks the way you want (and most things in the game will already need tutorials anyway).

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

I just feel that the driver little gun and gunner big gun worked good for the mag in ps1 so it could be carried over. This way getting a gunner is obviously a benefit but the driver can get in on the action as well.

I always supported this, i agree that just driving can be a little boring and is definitely not for everyone. By giving some weapon to the driver they'd encourage more people to drive (i'd love to have a flamethrower as the driver), otherwise we'd see a shortage of those, i'm sure.

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

Also the proposed upcoming change could be very cool with how they implement it and everybody could end up happy so I think its worth looking into.

I think the problem is that overlap in the MBT and the lightning, it makes the lightning underused and the MBT overused without a gunner. I think we'll still see a lot of non certed MBTs running around and people who want to be gunners will have a hard time finding drivers.

Edit: Figment, i'm just saying you should cool down a bit, your posts are getting more and more ranty and people are less likely to take your arguments in consideration when you start down that road. I'm on your side, but i know bashing your fists relentlessly into a 10" steel door that seems firmly shut won't get it open. Been there, done that... a lot.

maradine · 2012-10-31, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

That is all, the details determine how dps is delivered, it doesn't change that you end up with a dps output. Speed, profile etc are just accuracy/efficiency influencing stats and are easily integrated in dps and absorbed damage.

Do you really believe that? Given an assumed Prowler DPS of 30 units, can you express to me in DPS the additive value of it being able to move 10kph faster than stock? Is it the same if air superiority is in play? If it isn't? If mineguards are equipped? If the opposing force can climb the rise between you but you can't?

Just to be clear here, for that argument to stand, the next characters out of your keyboard need to be a number. I'm glad you assert it's easy.

No. The view that the value of what you consider "details" is easily integrated into two numbers is ludicrous under logical and historical scrutiny. There is more to combat than the delta between input and output. If you disagree with me on that, the best I'm going to be able to do at this point is point you at some reference works, starting with the old chestnut from that Chinese guy.

Marinealver · 2012-10-31, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Hamma

I also disagree with Smed on this one.

And it would be cool if they could add it on the fly but they simply don't have the code support to do so. I've asked Kevm0 about it a couple times.

That is the problem with the game. So many things are hard code right now that there is no way to change them short of rewriting the game.

It is kind of sad that they didn't even do a proper change over with the models and meerly slaped on a "gunners" weapons. See photo for example.

TheSaltySeagull · 2012-10-31, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

some random stuff .

I would appreciate it if you didnt try and put words in my mouth thank you sir. Also you outright aggression and personal attacks against me over a video game are childish at best.

Like several other people have told you now you need to chill out and relax. The point of this forum and others is to discuss the game. Not have angry fits of rage and denounce anybody who presents an opposing viewpoint.

I do not have blind faith in the devs. But I feel the up coming changes could play out in a positive way and you arguments against it have been lackluster at best using unrealistic vacum themed math and phantom balance concerns. And random surveys from god knows where.

You will forgive me but I find your arbitray posts and logic offensive. Especially given its hypocritical nature considering what you wrote before.

You could very well be right and that the devs up coming changes could just not work. You could also be wrong. You need to stop acting like some sort of plantside god. If you do not want to partake in a discussion and will adopt the logic of "I am figment I am always right" then why are you even here?

I will not be responding back after this post. It is obvious I am sparked some sort of nerd rage from you for whatever reason and that I am apparently a stupid ignorant fool who is not worthy of being in the presence of figment. I apologize because my partaking in this discussion has apparently devalued the discussion. I will now go PM hamma and try and get him to remove my posts because they have apparently been of no value.

Please continue on.