harrasser proves dedicated driver is great - Page 5

leifnielsen · 2013-05-03, 04:56 AM

Can we have CIWS Phalanx's on our Super Heavy Tanks?

Figment · 2013-05-03, 05:07 AM

Internal seat switching screws up any plans for heavy tanks.

Remove seat switching completely first. Otherwise, just split controls for MBTs.

Dougnifico · 2013-05-03, 05:10 AM

Gatekeeper · 2013-05-03, 05:16 AM

Because a lot of people feel very strongly about this, and nothing PS2 has done has changed their minds? And because SOE have done really well in responding to a lot of player complaints and requests, but is still holding out on this one, big issue? And because the success of the Harasser proves (again) that their arguments about the driver "needing to have the big gun because they paid the certs and resources to create it" is just drivel?

Shogun · 2013-05-03, 06:28 AM

this thread will be back again and again, until we get good tanks.

the vanguard in ps1 wasn´t a fast funvehicle as well, but i don´t think it was a problem.
at least i saw more vanguards than lightnings in ps1 and don´t say that was because of the different certsystem. everybody who had certed the vanguard also had the cert for the lightning. but still there were plenty of vanguard drivers.

the complains on the forums from people who wanted to drive AND gun at the same time obviously came from a vocal minority and led to the introduction of BFRs.

the lightning is 4/5 as strong as a MBT, so why is the MBT almost exactly the same vehicle as the lightning? in ps1 it was a valid because you had the choice to take more firepower with the need of a gunner or less firepower but singleplayer use.

you say only driving a tank would be boring? i always liked it, and i say just gunning with a secondary gun is boring because the driver mostly drives oly to bring his maincannon to a good position. the secondary gunner is ignored and just kind of a bonus.
with a dedicated driver fun is guaranteed for both, because the drivers job is to bring the tank to a good position for the gunner.

Illtempered · 2013-05-03, 06:36 AM

We are absolutely loving it. We were having some epic fights with NC around Saurva last night. It had a very Mad Max feel.

Baneblade · 2013-05-03, 06:45 AM

The very existence of the Lightning completely invalidates any argument against crewed MBTs. Period.

I personally think both the existing weapons should be gunner only, but let the driver have a Flash style forward oriented weapon for those opportunity kills.

Figment · 2013-05-03, 07:31 AM

A forward limited arc Basilisk / Kobalt would be okay and suffice, pretty much PS1 Magrider caliber.

Canaris · 2013-05-03, 08:20 AM

I say forget about asking for the current MBT's to be made into dedicated drivers and instead maybe ask for a new tank to be designed, something like a NS common pool one that is a two or three man tank with a dedicated driver, similar in strength to the current ones. Best of both worlds?

Something akin to the Lightning just it's bigger brother
First comes the Lightning then
The Thunder

HiroshiChugi · 2013-05-03, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Canaris

I say forget about asking for the current MBT's to be made into dedicated drivers and instead maybe ask for a new tank to be designed, something like a NS common pool one that is a two or three man tank with a dedicated driver, similar in strength to the current ones. Best of both worlds?

^THIS! I couldn't handle being either a driver or a main gun operator... I don't trust people to use my IR smoke correctly and plus I love to drive my Vanny AND shoot it oo... My High Explosive gun is just too much fun.!

! But, I think I could handle a common pool dedicated driver tank.

Deadeye · 2013-05-03, 08:31 AM

People tend to take the path of least resistance and hate to be forced to rely on others for their points. In PS1, I never touched Vanguards beyond one or two times when I gunned for them and even on TS, it never worked out.

By being able to drive and gun for myself, I was far more effective because my driver knew exactly where to park for that perfect shot and my gunner could anticipate every turn and bump in the road. Did I run into stuff? Yeah but it was alright; still preferred driving and gunning since lightning didn't lose much except against MBTs.

I also noticed something in PS1. when running with the zerg, I tended to notice a lot more reavers being pulled despite plenty of people around for gunning. Why? They were faster, had rockets that decimated things and, I believe the most important reason, they only required one person for all this.

So I think while yes, there will be fewer tanks, the soloers will gravitate to other vehicles that don't restrict them like lightnings and especially ESFs will see a lot more play.

Gatekeeper · 2013-05-03, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by Canaris

Something akin to the Lightning just it's bigger brother
First comes the Lightning then
The Thunder

Nice

I'd still like them to change the current MBTs to have a dedicated driver, but I'd settle for this as an alternative.

Make it a three-man tank, with a fixed-forward driver gun (same choices as for Flash?) and two dedicated gunners (one for the main cannon, one with an MBT-type secondary).

As we've seen with the Harasser, you can easily sell the dedicated driver role when it's bundled with a cool new vehicle - so I think this is something that both die-hard PS1 vets and newer driver=gunner types could get behind.

Figment · 2013-05-03, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Deadeye

People tend to take the path of least resistance and hate to be forced to rely on others for their points. In PS1, I never touched Vanguards beyond one or two times when I gunned for them and even on TS, it never worked out.

Without meaning disrespect, that just means you stink at it. And I mean, are absolutely rotten at teamwork. Which means you have nothing to add to the conversation regarding the design of teamwork units, because they're not designed FOR YOU. And they never should be. Which means, you should focus on having units that are designed for players like you (the Lightning) and having them balanced fairly (as in weaker, but competitive in groups).

We had two gunners on TS for a single vehicle with less firepower (Thundere and Deliverer) and we rampaged with a FAR LESSER ENDURANCE UNIT THAN A PS1 TANK. Which means you're just a biased liar, because you pretend to speak for everyone else while you're only speaking for an absolute minority of players that suck at teamwork.

I'm really sorry, but bad players shouldn't get to design the game by ruining the game for good team players. And you really, utterly stink. I mean really, you sucked at Vanguards so you didn't use them and used other equipment you could use instead. So where's the problem? If something isn't for you, you shouldn't use it! That's how life works!

Every person that brings up they couldn't work together with another person, is an utterly lousy teamplayer. Which means they should avoid using teamplayer units NOT @$(^@($*&@*$&@# DEMAND TO REMOVE ANY AND ALL TEAMWORK UNITS BECAUSE THEY SUCK AT USING THEM THEMSELVES.

Hell, if there's a new heavy tank unit that would be stronger, they'd go and demand them to be used by themselves, just because they absolutely stink at playing the game in relation to other players.

Honestly, what the hell are you doing in a teamwork oriented game?

PS: As for why people used reavers: next to no field AA, heaviest armoured air vehicle, solo usage, highest firepower of any unit in game, second to highest speed of any vehicle in game, could get repairs at any air tower or repair crystal which usualy were within a few hundred meters flying, could bail out from it for a second life at a moment's notice, ignored terrain impediments and CE and could be used against any type of unit with at the least 50-50 odds. They were pretty OP really, especially after the unnecessary armour buff Brewko gave them.

They should have been two crew units.

ThatGoatGuy · 2013-05-03, 09:10 AM

I absolutely adore the harasser. The problem I'm seeing with a dedicated MBT driver verses the Harasser is that it simply is not fun. Not only that, but imagine the comparison between something that goes around 100 kph compared to something that goes what? 20 kph? (I'm not in a tank much because I just find them too slow. Harasser shall forevermore be mah jam)

Gatekeeper · 2013-05-03, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by ThatGoatGuy

I absolutely adore the harasser. The problem I'm seeing with a dedicated MBT driver verses the Harasser is that it simply is not fun. Not only that, but imagine the comparison between something that goes around 100 kph compared to something that goes what? 20 kph? (I'm not in a tank much because I just find them too slow. Harasser shall forevermore be mah jam)

After racking my brain for what possible solution there could be for this problem, I've finally come up with this: how about making the MBTs a bit faster and more fun to drive?

As a trade-off for now requiring a crew of two, I think it's pretty doable.

Also one advantage the MBTs would have over the Harasser in terms of fun is that the driver would (presumably) still have a gun - it'd just be the secondary now, instead of the primary.

Unless we're making them 3-man tanks, in which case buffing their speed and armour even more is probably fine, in terms of overall balance.