Compromise for the driver=gunner issue.

[Surge72]

Originally Posted by BorisBlade

Since you do require 50% more manpower a third more armor minimum seems fair.

For two out of the three MBTs, it is/was 100% more manpower. The TR MBT requires 200% more.

[moosepoop]

another guy summed it up nicely: let drivers drive, let gunners gun.

i would like to ask the devs to think rationally. sure i like planetside, but im not gonna have misplaced loyalty and give you money if you go in the wrong direction of what the majority of players want.

i still have some faith in you guys to have some integrity.

[TheRagingGerbil]

I have a feeling this issue is being blown way out of proportion. We do not even know if vehicles will be driven from first person or third. Now if a tank is driven from first, I suspect you will be forced to switch to a gunner view making driving very difficult.

My guess is the driver will have the ability to drive and gun at the same time, but unless this is taking place in an open dessert it will be very ineffective. I bet the option will be to have a gunner in the vehicle who can take control of the main gun or the secondary.

[moosepoop]

two very important facts about imitating tank game play from badcompany 2:

1- tanks in bad company 2 are overpowered and few in number

2- players who like bad company 2 will all be playing battlefield 3. imitating bc2 will not likely attract them to great effect but instead deter the loyal core playerbase.


if the team shows true spirit and passion, i will full heartedly support you and throw money at you. but if you do not think rationally and views the game as merely a product, then my boner will go from semi hard to completely flaccid.

[BlazingSun]

nvm

[TheRagingGerbil]

Again, everyone is making the assumption that tanks will be driven and gunned primarily from the third person. This is an important piece of information we are missing.

If there is no reticle visible while driving in third person then all of these conversations are meaningless. Especially since the specific comment was "drivers can."

[moosepoop]

Originally Posted by TheRagingGerbil

Again, everyone is making the assumption that tanks will be driven and gunned primarily from the third person. This is an important piece of information we are missing.

If there is no reticle visible while driving in third person then all of these conversations are meaningless. Especially since the specific comment was "drivers can."

in battle field bad company 2, i can drive and gun in first person with no problem.

[Talek Krell]

Originally Posted by moosepoop

in battle field bad company 2, i can drive and gun in first person with no problem.

Yeah, I'm not really seeing why the camera view would make a difference.

[ThGlump]

Its bad idea by design, and if they want to have it in the game, there should be disadvantages. Driver should be gunning only as a temporary solution till he find some gunner, and driver+gunner should be stronger than 2xdriver
first - no secondary guns! ever. thats bad idea brought by driver gunning
second - with no gunner reload and max speed should be lowered. Like to 1/3 reload, 2/3 speed.

[Draep]

Originally Posted by ThGlump

Its bad idea by design, and if they want to have it in the game, there should be disadvantages. Driver should be gunning only as a temporary solution till he find some gunner, and driver+gunner should be stronger than 2xdriver
first - no secondary guns! ever. thats bad idea brought by driver gunning
second - with no gunner reload and max speed should be lowered. Like to 1/3 reload, 2/3 speed.

No need for disadvantages. I can kill two tanks with ease if i'm concentrating on driving and my gunner concentrating on gunning while they stumble around to maneuver and have to literally stop in order to put out accurate rounds.

[Draep]

Originally Posted by moosepoop

two very important facts about imitating tank game play from badcompany 2:

1- tanks in bad company 2 are overpowered and few in number

2- players who like bad company 2 will all be playing battlefield 3. imitating bc2 will not likely attract them to great effect but instead deter the loyal core playerbase.

This shit right here. Tanks in BC2 have incredible range and killing power. I had multiple 100:1 or more K/D ratios and could pull out with ease for repairs if shit got too hot. A lot of this prolly had to do with the destructible environment of the game tho.

[Malorn]

First person tank driving/gunning makes no difference. Works fine in BF games.

Also that bit about the tanks in BF games being powerful and few in number is big. Tanks in PS2 are avaialble whenever anyone wants one, and there can be dozens/hundreds.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by moosepoop

i still have some faith in you guys to have some integrity.

This quote above...are you freaking kidding me, guy? You think this is about integrity? Really? That's taking it a bit far.

And like Brusi said, yay, yet another thread about this same tired debate.

[Furret]

Originally Posted by Malorn

PS1's system worked. It worked very well. I'm not sure why they feel the need to change something so fundamental to planetside.

They want the people who put the certs into the vehicle to be able to use the vehicle. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but that's where the Armored Assault I and II system worked. If you wanted to solo-whore, which is the type of group PS2 is starting to shift to, you could spend 2 certs and get your lightning. But if you really wanted to be effective, get a friend and pay an extra cert for that vanny.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Furret

They want the people who put the certs into the vehicle to be able to use the vehicle. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but that's where the Armored Assault I and II system worked. If you wanted to solo-whore, which is the type of group PS2 is starting to shift to, you could spend 2 certs and get your lightning. But if you really wanted to be effective, get a friend and pay an extra cert for that vanny.

I know that's what they said, but that's a bullshit excuse. Several other vehicles and classes are designed around SUPPORT. Medics, Engineers, to name two infantry support. Transport drivers and to a lesser extent Bomber pilots.

All of those have one thing in common - weapon systems / tools which benefit other people and not themselves. Even if you give a driver the main gun he's still putting cert points into a gun he can't use - the secondary gun. I expect that one will have a lot more upgrades than the main gun anyway. If you get people certing it just because they can also gun it then that added set of players is just going to upgrade the stuff that only benefits them.

It is not necessary to turn a vehicle into a one-man killwhore machine just to get people to drive it/cert it. Plenty of people drove galaxies when needed. Plenty of people drove tanks and piloted libs. The tradeoff of the far more firepower and a stronger vehicle emphasized teamwork and coordination with gunners/bombardiers.

As a longtime tank driver what rewards me is not the ability to shoot. It is knowing that my tank crew was kicking ass and impacting the battle. Of course I'm going to cert things that make my entire tank better. You don't need to motivate me or distract me with a main gun.

I'd much rather understand the real design vision and gameplay goals of this change. Giving the certed person the ability to shoot from the vehicle is a poor excuse and I know that isn't the main reason they made the change. They wanted to run design impacts by the playerbase so they have to be straight with us with what they intend with things.

I hope that whole vet-things-with-the-players doesn't start after release. Like to see more idea sharing and insight into what it is they are trying to achieve. I'd certainly go a long way toward us providing more meaningful feedback and ideas that help them achieve it rather than blindly fondling around trying to figure it out and getting visceral reactions to significant changes that seemingly make little sense.