Crewed MBT's for one week

[Kail]

Originally Posted by Figment

F3 + F4 = 9F1m

So, the simplified maths assuming ideal, fair conditions, suggests the combined firepower of F3 and F4 would have to be 9 times as strong as a main gun on a solo MBT to make up for its disadvantage in endurance.

That model is only true on what a WoW player would refer to as a "patchwerk fight".

1. It does not give any advantage to the single tank for having undivided attention to a given task; the driver drives, the gunner guns, and there is tangible survivability increases due to that
2. It does not take space or terrain into account. Since two tanks cannot occupy the same space at the same time, every tank at any given instant in time has an attack and defense modifier based purely on it's location - and I would argue that it is rarely equivalent between two tanks, let alone four.
3. It assumes a cage-match fight; the fight ends when F1m blows up, or three enemy tanks blow up, and during this time every tank contributes at maximum effeciency. Given how often I see tanks get damaged and back off, find some cover quick and repair, or leave the fight for flanking purposes, I believe its safe to say this assumption is usually false

Would the raw firepower of 9 tanks sometimes be required for a solo, 3-man tank to win? Sure. Would it ever be higher? Sure. Would it ever be lower? Definitely. And more importantly that math is incorrect because by that logic a solo 3-man tank would require the firepower of 9 tanks to be "balanced", when it would clearly not be since it would be able to one-shot anything it came across. It's the same reason DPS isn't the only important stat on a weapon (else, why was everyone complaining about the bolt-action rifle vs the semi-auto? They have equivalent DPS!)

[Figment]

You should read the conclusions better: I said it can't be balanced. I also stated the conditions to be perfectly fair. In reality, with three tanks they would tag team circle and beat the crap out of the one tank. I also stated it was impossible to do this without massively upsetting balance, which is why balancing based on firepower alone is simply absurd, another conclusion I drew...

See, if you want to take in terrain, you do is add efficiency modifications. Balance is based not on every single practical situation, but on ideal, controlled situations and then modify from there to make up for specific specifications with little tweaks. You cannot dismiss the maths on that basis though, since any modifier can apply to either side. They cancel each other out on average.

Now, attention and focus does contribute positively, but to argue that it can outmatch such an extreme disadvantage is ridiculous. Besides, would you want to balance based on the most positive situational situation you can theoretically come across?

The maths is an approximation, everyone knows that. I did say simplified for good reason. But consider that most people don't even take the effort to understand this much. Do you honestly think that working with efficiency factors would make it easier for the same of argument?

Then we get for each of the three players:

e1 = elevation difference
e2 = distance to target
e3 = accuracy
e4 = overkill damage
e5 = cover use
e6 = repairs
e7 = approach angle
e8 = armour upgrade mods
e9 = dodging skill
e10 = leading skill
etc. etc. etc.

No that helps in general balance discussions. :/ Details like these are irrelevant in determining the order of magnitude. This isn't finetuning, it is checking the soundness of the basic plan. Since that already isn't feasible, it is a rather waste of time to brainstorm with more arbitrary detail.

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by SpottyGekko

The majority of PS2 players are not going to be joining an outfit and playing as a co-ordinated team. They will be solo, the same way that they play BF3 and CoD and whatever other FPS they play.

I have no problem with the idea of dedicated driver separate from dedicated main gunner, but ONLY if that is an option as opposed to the only way.

Smed has it right on this one.

This is retarded, what is the point of playing PS2 if its just another BF3, COD. This is suppose to be a MMOFPS built around team play. If you don't want to join an outfit and make friends and play with them constantly as a team then you should just play BF3 and COD for it will always be better for that game style. The only reason to play PS is for the team play mechanics and large scale complex battles that come out of it. They will never hold the quick fix solo arcade clone player for any amount of time, there are at least 2 new games that will always be shinier then PS that will come out every year to pull those players away.

[Figment]

Besides, don't you love the stereotyping?

Our outfit already took in 9 BF3 and CoD origin players. And I'm not even trying hard For recruitment at this point. Saying they wouldn't join an outfit is such rubbish. tons of them are already in clans, some want to import their entire clan... If it providers benefits to fps players, they will do it.

Outfits are the ultimate benefit, they just need to see the value of groups.

[Kail]

Originally Posted by Figment

You should read the conclusions better: I said it can't be balanced. I also stated the conditions to be perfectly fair. In reality, with three tanks they would tag team circle and beat the crap out of the one tank. I also stated it was impossible to do this without massively upsetting balance, which is why balancing based on firepower alone is simply absurd, another conclusion I drew...

See, if you want to take in terrain, you do is add efficiency modifications. Balance is based not on every single practical situation, but on ideal, controlled situations and then modify from there to make up for specific specifications with little tweaks. You cannot dismiss the maths on that basis though, since any modifier can apply to either side. They cancel each other out on average.

Now, attention and focus does contribute positively, but to argue that it can outmatch such an extreme disadvantage is ridiculous. Besides, would you want to balance based on the most positive situational situation you can theoretically come across?

The maths is an approximation, everyone knows that. I did say simplified for good reason. But consider that most people don't even take the effort to understand this much. Do you honestly think that working with efficiency factors would make it easier for the same of argument?

Then we get for each of the three players:

e1 = elevation difference
e2 = distance to target
e3 = accuracy
e4 = overkill damage
e5 = cover use
e6 = repairs
e7 = approach angle
e8 = armour upgrade mods
e9 = dodging skill
e10 = leading skill
etc. etc. etc.

No that helps in general balance discussions. :/ Details like these are irrelevant in determining the order of magnitude. This isn't finetuning, it is checking the soundness of the basic plan. Since that already isn't feasible, it is a rather waste of time to brainstorm with more arbitrary detail.

Ah sorry, I did confuse the issue.

What I was trying to get at was that with too simple of a model the formula achieved leads to an obviously incorrect conclusion (which you agree with) - however, I see this as a problem with the model itself, not that the situation is unsolvable. Mainly in part due to the multipliers left out for the sake of being able to wrap your head around it can severely skew the order of magnitude.

[Figment]

If we wern't talking about the same unit being used in a different unit combination, yes. But since the basic frame is the same and all other stats remain the same, there are very few variables to work with. As a player, you will try to optimisme your choice at the vpad. If quantity works better than quality, you'll go with quantity... This is also true for guns and other choices. For air it is done such that you really base the vehicle of your choice on your manpower and target. For tanks the choice is currently a default for the solo mbt and that will remain so as long as drivers control a very strong gun. I'm also sad that there is yet to be a seat switching penalty. Playing artillery or turret happens too much now at no significant disadvantages. Even if stationary for an ammoclip, if you are threatened to get c4ed, you switch seats asap and drive over them backwards.

Solo tanking in ps1 was possible but at the cost of having to get out to change positions, Thus more exposure time and while doing so seat switching time and the risk of being stranded because infantry waited for you to get out again. That is a lot fairer if you get one shot one kill weapons and a superfast repair while the opposition gets few short range rockets. Solo tankers have far too many advantages right now. It is so convenient it entices people in a MMO to work alone... I don't mind some loning and some capacity to play alone, but then primarily with weak units and without interfering with other balance.

[azoren]

Single-manned MBTs are around because the lightning isn't a viable tank. It might as well be a buggy right now.

There are clear roles for the vehicles:
Transport/support: Sky - Gal, Ground - Sundie
Light Assault: Sky - ESF, Ground - Lightning
Heavy Assault: Sky - Lib, Ground - MBT

Ideally, the lightning should be as useful as the ESF.
Right now it's just a skyguard.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by azoren

Single-manned MBTs are around because the lightning isn't a viable tank. It might as well be a buggy right now.

No. Single maned tanks are around because Battlefield. No other reason.

Funny that it will likely take more people to crew a buggy than the main force equipment. They had better make my marauder a 3 man.