Poll on driver gunning

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Raymac

Different secondary weapons.

Then you say, planetside 1 had more dedicated vehicles.

Than I say, weapon customization does same thing.

Then you say, they look the same.

Then I say, look at the visuals.

Then you say, there's a hole in the bucket.

Then I say, then fix it dear henry.

I told you this would happen. We can go round and round forever. I'll let you have the last word though to make you feel better, but I'm out.

[Figment]

Considering you don't seem to want to see the difference between a different vehicle platform and a different vehicle variant, yeah...

[CutterJohn]

But you don't want to see how different platforms can perform better at different niches.

So they have 2 multifunction ground vehicles. Cool. They can add a third, fourth, fifth, etc. Sure they can all do AA, AV, AI, etc, but that doesn't mean they will be equivalent. The weapons they can fit will have different characteristics, and the vehicles themselves will have characteristics that lend themselves to one situation better than another.

Maybe the lightning AA is best vs aircav, while the APCs AA is best vs libs, and the buggies is a solid mix of the two but has a crappier range, and the medium tank AA pulls double duty as an AV/AA weapon but excels at neither, which is completely opposite of the heavy tanks AA which can't even be aimed level with the ground making it crap vs vehicles.

No? Its all going to suck because its ok for nearly every single vehicle to shoot at vehicles, but if they can shoot at air its broken?

[Aractain]

I always found it funny how... elite? the flyboys are. As if thier special little flyflys have to be protected like endagered animals. :P

Also long as the AA is not dumb (lock on lock on lock on beep beep beep FAIL! I want interesting, skill based AA this time guys, no really.) aircraft and tanks should be pretty close a match up otherwise you just get boring air > everything again.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

But you don't want to see how different platforms can perform better at different niches.

Uhm... If you say this, you've not understood one bit of the argument. :/ The whole point is that different platforms SHOULD be better at different niches than one specific platform that can be customized because otherwise there is no need for multiple platforms!

So how can you possibly come to the conclusion I don't "want to see this"?! It's exactly what I WANT to see!

So they have 2 multifunction ground vehicles. Cool. They can add a third, fourth, fifth, etc. Sure they can all do AA, AV, AI, etc, but that doesn't mean they will be equivalent. The weapons they can fit will have different characteristics, and the vehicles themselves will have characteristics that lend themselves to one situation better than another.

And again you are way behind in the discussion because we been there, discussed this and explained you the advantages of the one in comparison to the other and what these characteristics would have to be to make the gunner interesting.

Maybe the lightning AA is best vs aircav, while the APCs AA is best vs libs, and the buggies is a solid mix of the two but has a crappier range, and the medium tank AA pulls double duty as an AV/AA weapon but excels at neither, which is completely opposite of the heavy tanks AA which can't even be aimed level with the ground making it crap vs vehicles.

Terribly unlikely to divide the roles up like that and doesn't sound like that from the way Higby described them either. They make them omniversal and "no joke" to actually make them more limited while their goal was to make them more independent? Ehr... no. It seems you have an awfully hard time understanding the core of the discussion tbh. :/ Do you even know what the discussion regarding advantages and disadvantages and using separate units is about?

Have you ever participated in a mathematical Raider analysis discussion? As in, damage over time discussions, multiple scenarios, TTK differences, etc.?

No? Its all going to suck because its ok for nearly every single vehicle to shoot at vehicles, but if they can shoot at air its broken?

This is just a facepalm moment. You completely failed to see the whole point of the core of the debate, no wonder you continuously disagree.

To make you understand I'd probably have to go back to the beginning and start from scratch, because you don't seem to even understand the very basics of the manpower efficiency discussion, which is what this is about. Vehicle roles becoming obsolete is directly related to THAT, not just because a unit may have multiple roles. The best way to handle this though is by splitting up niches and allow only minor overlap, where non dedicated platforms should never be as powerful as another, because then they make them obsolete. But very well, here we go again:


Considering the MBT gunner's AA/AI/AV weapon is going to have be very powerful in relation to the Lightning AA/AI/AV to be a viable alternative is what makes this role overlap a problem: either the gunner will have to be pointless, or the tank will have to be overpowered.


Do you understand WHY a MBT gunner would have to be very powerful in relation a Lightning unit? And do you understand WHY this situation either makes the gunner OR the Lightning AA pointless in such a case? If not, therein lies the problem of our disagreement because you simply don't recognise the problem due to lack of experience with unit balancing.

A problem, which would not exist if the gunner had access to BOTH weapons, because then the AA gunner would not HAVE to be as powerful as the Lightning AA to become interesting: he'd have the powerful AV gun too to use and the manpower requirement of two would compensate for the overall power of the gunner/driver combo.

Do you understand that part of the discussion? If so, we can move on. If not and you don't recognise the problem, we have nothing more to discuss. Try to think of WHY I am saying these things though. Make some combinations of units, add up hypothetical but likely hitpoints, strategic options and other benefits and then see when you'd actually choose the gunner position as the best alternative. It won't be very often when you have one or more much more interesting choices to increase your team's TTK over the gunner situation and I hope you come to the conclusion fully customizable solo platforms where the driver is the gunner provide just that better alternative to anything due to firepower/hitpoints/other benefits per player.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Figment

Terribly unlikely to divide the roles up like that and doesn't sound like that from the way Higby described them either. They make them omniversal and "no joke" to actually make them more limited while their goal was to make them more independent? Ehr... no. It seems you have an awfully hard time understanding the core of the discussion tbh. :/ Do you even know what the discussion regarding advantages and disadvantages and using separate units is about?

Umm.. Thats how they did AV weapon balance. Simple example. The magriders rail beam. No joke. The vanguards 150mm. Also no joke. One was pinpoint accurate, and had a crazy effective range, but didn't do much damage. The other had a very wide splash, and did crazy damage, but was not so useful at long range. Two AV weapons. Both were not a joke at all. Both had their own particular niche.

Btw, you know whats less likely than this? Them abandoning their ideas for customization.

Originally Posted by Figment

either the gunner will have to be pointless, or the tank will have to be overpowered.

Hmm.. The tank seems to be useless. I will bump the damage up by 1 point. Still useless. 1 more point of damage. Nope. 1 more? OH MY GOD ITS OVERPOWERED! NOTHING ELSE WILL EVER BE USED AGAIN!!! OH THE HUMANITY!!11!!1!!!1!

Amazing how it is completely impossible to make things balanced. A single point of damage represents the difference between hopelessly incompetent, and completely, game-breakingly overpowered.

You're right. The only viable solution is to make each vehicle have a gun that is capable of shooting only one type of target. Specialization ftw!

It won't be very often when you have one or more much more interesting choices to increase your team's TTK over the gunner situation and I hope you come to the conclusion fully customizable solo platforms where the driver is the gunner provide just that better alternative to anything due to firepower/hitpoints/other benefits per player.

So your contention is that the liberator will never be used?

[Figment]

Are you just trolling?

[Hamma]

Originally Posted by Figment

Are you just trolling?

Looks like he is debating you..

Rather than posting that, why not rebut his comment.

[Zulthus]

Although I don't say it much, I'm with CutterJohn on this one. Figment, you're not a bad dude, but 70% of your posts are telling people that they obviously don't understand the point of the discussion.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Hamma

Looks like he is debating you..

Rather than posting that, why not rebut his comment.

Rebute what? I see him debate something entirely different and irrelevant again and pretending I said or want something entirely different and irrelevant than is the case and has been expressed over the past pages.

@Zulthus: Unfortunately, it's true. I did not deny the use of Liberators now and then, quite the opposite, I pointed out the way they were used. Cutterjohn turned this into "I saw one flying, so I'm right and you are wrong". Something he did a few pages back as well: completely failing to comprehend the argument made. Indeed I spoke of Liberator, Prowler, Raider and Marauder, but not in terms of never being used, but in terms of one of their seats not being interesting to use. Spending full manpower in comparison to alternatives is not interesting enough and even if these seats are used at times, you will see other choices (alternative vehicles with more power to the individual) being much more common.

Which is what happened on a daily basis in PS: it being VERY HARD to get someone interested in specific gunner seats, because there are better alternatives to spend that manpower per player. Which is particularly true when certain roles overlap, because then you have more easily comparable alternatives.

That some people live in denial of this, nor seem to understand this argument after 12 pages of discussion, means I can't ever call such people out on not understanding the point being made when an argument that wasn't even made but based on something someone wrongly interpreted is being "rebuted" with false arguments? Unfortunately it happens a lot, but 70% of my posts is a bit much as it is only two or three people who repeatedly fail to understand.

I mean, first he said I said or meant the whole Liberator was not ever being used. Which is absolutely false and completely misses the point. He argues something regarding customization having to be removed according to me, which again is false: I'm talking about removing the gunner role from the driver to make balancing easier and reduce the manpower efficiency problem. In doing so it keeps the game more social and less lone wolf as it forces players to work together, rather than giving them the option to solo or work together. Because if you CAN solo, you will ALWAYS play more solo than if you don't have that option - such as aircav do: solo or team-solo as they don't always need to team up if they are the only people of their outfit online. Something also not understood by someone else, mind you. Some solo play is always more and thus less social than not ever playing solo. Regardless if you CAN work with a friend as a solo vehicle user, giving examples of multi-unit teamwork is therefore irrelevant since that is exactly why we say the two crew vehicle will be used for soloing... Proving us right by giving such examples and then claiming to have countered our argument regarding teamwork doesn't exactly mean you understand the core of the debate, does it?

Then he goes on to say that if you add a point of damage or what not to a weapon, it suddenly would become OP according to us. Though that can happen in balancing, that again misses the point entirely: when something is a dedicated one man gunner weapon, it has to be made at least as powerful as a dedicated one man AA platform to be interesting enough to use. That would however mean that the two crew vehicle would be a MUCH better option than the dedicated AA platform as it would have a lot more endurance + firepower that equals the AA dedicated platform. At that point one would start to question the use of that dedicated AA platform. And at that point you are infringing through customization on other dedicated platforms. The inverse is true if that dedicated gunner is weaker than the dedicated AA, because then the gunner spot is useless in terms of manpower spending as you get less firepower for the same dedicated AA player.

Basically, he is unable to differentiate with the significance of the difference between a side-arm and a main weapon. He is unable to understand why a side-arm is allowed to be less powerful if you also have control of the main weapon, but not if it is a main weapon for a player on its own. You can say what you want, but he simply doesn't get the point.

And what's worse, Cutterjohn somehow made this a supposed argument against using AA on a vehicle in general. Which is odd, considering I posted an AA tank concept, a medium tank with a gunner with Flaklet as secondary weapon and an amphibous tank with a possible Flaklet a page earlier (!). So how he comes to that conclusion is beyond me, unless he really just misses the point of the debate. Which he does.

Sorry, but it is my opinion that if someone doesn't understand the point he is argueing, he should be called out on it. One should try to first see if he misinterpreted something and then come back to the debate.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Figment

Then he goes on to say that if you add a point of damage or what not to a weapon, it suddenly would become OP according to us. Though that can happen in balancing, that again misses the point entirely: when something is a dedicated one man gunner weapon, it has to be made at least as powerful as a dedicated one man AA platform to be interesting enough to use. That would however mean that the two crew vehicle would be a MUCH better option than the dedicated AA platform as it would have a lot more endurance + firepower that equals the AA dedicated platform. At that point one would start to question the use of that dedicated AA platform. And at that point you are infringing through customization on other dedicated platforms. The inverse is true if that dedicated gunner is weaker than the dedicated AA, because then the gunner spot is useless in terms of manpower spending as you get less firepower for the same dedicated AA player.

Your claim was that only one of two conditions could possibly exist. Far too useful, or completely useless. Period. Absolutely nothing else. You were quite clear on this subject.

Here, lets refresh your memory.

either the gunner will have to be pointless, or the tank will have to be overpowered.

My little thought experiment with 1 damage was to show the absurdity of such a claim, and I feel it does so quite well.

Your assertion that one or the other is true is precisely your issue. You cannot, or refuse to(my vote, since you disregarded it last time I mentioned it), fathom a situation where each has pros and cons, and there is no clear 'best'. You are imagining the weapons to be precisely identical in all respects, differing only in damage potential. So long as you continue believing that, you will think there can only be one clear best.

Even if they are identical, both will still be used, since they have different pros and cons. A guy gunning tank AA will be more effective at AA than driving a lightning since he can focus, but if both players are in lightnings, they will be more effective overall, due to having 2 people with eyes towards the sky.



As for AA, I bring it up because thats the only thing that could possibly bring this argument on. Every single combat vehicle in PS was capable of engaging ground vehicles and infantry. Every last one. They did this in wildly different fashions, as I illustrated with the Railgun and 150mm examples, but of course there were plenty more, such as the Threshers firehose, the ground pounder, the reaver rockets, the enforcer rockets, the 30mm, the bombs, the flail arty, the.. well, everything, pretty much.

Now. We've established that virtually every combat unit is capable of engaging in AV and AI work, and we've established that they do so by using different methods, with different quirks, behaviors, and capabilities of the vehicle. All of this is fine, and normal, and raises no eyebrows.

Add AA to the mix, and suddenly niches become a HUGE deal. In fact, I not you've never once worried that the comparable av or ai capabilities. Interesting, that. Not a single worry about how lightning AV compares to tank AV, or AI.


Also you fail to understand the point about the liberator(which, humorously, you seem fine with as a vehicle), and indeed proceed to talk, in the very next sentence, about removing the driver gun from tanks to promote teamwork. I find this extremely humorous, since the Liberator's pilot will control a very potent cannon, despite being a 3 man vehicle, as they did in PS1.

I now follow Raymacs fine example and wash my hands of this affair. I look forward to having fun in beta. I fear you'll have worked yourself up over nothing.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Figment

In doing so it keeps the game more social and less lone wolf as it forces players to work together, rather than giving them the option to solo or work together.

OK, I lied. I wanted to chime in just 1 more time because I think the line that I quoted is really the root of the debate and the point in which we can agree to disagree.

I can understand the viewpoint of wanting to "force" players to work together. I, however, disagree with that philosophy. I'd rather not have the game "force" teamwork, but rather "encourage" teamwork. Will that result in more solo play? I'm sure it will, but it won't destroy teamwork for others.

It is my humble opinion that if you don't "force" your will of a certain style of gameplay, then you open up the game to a larger number of players (i.e. casual players with shorter play sessions), and I feel that having a larger number of players for Planetside 2 is a goal that trumps most others. I can understand somebody not wanting a certain "type" of player in "their" game, but Planetside 2 needs a larger population more than any other game ever made.

So, Figment, I offer up a peace branch that on this point, we can agree to disagree and move on.

[Azren]

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

No damnit, keep going!

All of you had interesting points and all three of you were right.

But who's the 'rightest'!

Does it really matter? The dice are cast. Drivers get the guns, end of debate.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Raymac

OK, I lied. I wanted to chime in just 1 more time because I think the line that I quoted is really the root of the debate and the point in which we can agree to disagree.

I can understand the viewpoint of wanting to "force" players to work together. I, however, disagree with that philosophy. I'd rather not have the game "force" teamwork, but rather "encourage" teamwork. Will that result in more solo play? I'm sure it will, but it won't destroy teamwork for others.

It is my humble opinion that if you don't "force" your will of a certain style of gameplay, then you open up the game to a larger number of players (i.e. casual players with shorter play sessions), and I feel that having a larger number of players for Planetside 2 is a goal that trumps most others. I can understand somebody not wanting a certain "type" of player in "their" game, but Planetside 2 needs a larger population more than any other game ever made.

So, Figment, I offer up a peace branch that on this point, we can agree to disagree and move on.

That's fair enough. I don't think it would chase anyone away though, but that's your perogative.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Your claim was that only one of two conditions could possibly exist. Far too useful, or completely useless. Period. Absolutely nothing else. You were quite clear on this subject.

Here, lets refresh your memory.

[...]

My little thought experiment with 1 damage was to show the absurdity of such a claim, and I feel it does so quite well.

Glad I was and I maintain that pov. because we're talking about significant differences in endurance here between a main battle tank and a light tank frame and 50% manpower.

Your assertion that one or the other is true is precisely your issue. You cannot, or refuse to(my vote, since you disregarded it last time I mentioned it), fathom a situation where each has pros and cons, and there is no clear 'best'. You are imagining the weapons to be precisely identical in all respects, differing only in damage potential. So long as you continue believing that, you will think there can only be one clear best.

Actually I'm merely stating there cannot be an equilibrium between the two reached.

Even if they are identical, both will still be used, since they have different pros and cons. A guy gunning tank AA will be more effective at AA than driving a lightning since he can focus, but if both players are in lightnings, they will be more effective overall, due to having 2 people with eyes towards the sky.

The problem lies not with two Lightnings, it lies in a Lightning and a MBT with just the driver (as primary AV gunner). The problem situation is about how to do AV and AA, or AV and AV or AV and AI, where two people are available. At least one person will use a MBT, the question is whether the second user will opt to gun, given the alternatives of two MBTs or one MBT and another unit. The use of two Lightnings is irrelevant to the debate whether a driver of a two crew vehicle should be able to gun.


I would like to stress that if the driver would have the secondary gun or an even lesser gun in comparison to its gunner, the problem we're talking about would not exist. The problem exists on the basis of the driver controlling the primary firepower of the tank with at least 50% of the damage output.

As for AA, I bring it up because thats the only thing that could possibly bring this argument on. Every single combat vehicle in PS was capable of engaging ground vehicles and infantry. Every last one. They did this in wildly different fashions, as I illustrated with the Railgun and 150mm examples, but of course there were plenty more, such as the Threshers firehose, the ground pounder, the reaver rockets, the enforcer rockets, the 30mm, the bombs, the flail arty, the.. well, everything, pretty much.

Agreed. The sole reason I have been concentrating AA as the main example is because it is the most likely type with truly added value. This is because its role is completely different from the AV main gun (infantry is much easier to hit and kill, even with a weak AV gun than aircraft is, AV is clearly better done by two tanks).

Now. We've established that virtually every combat unit is capable of engaging in AV and AI work, and we've established that they do so by using different methods, with different quirks, behaviors, and capabilities of the vehicle. All of this is fine, and normal, and raises no eyebrows.

Here we disagree significantly, because there are plenty of examples of vehicles in PlanetSide that lost their niche role or the niche role of spots within their tank to other vehicles. Harasser, Raider, Marauder, Prowler and Liberator are the best examples of this. The Sunderer's transport role was infringed upon heavily as well.

This is what we fear will happen once more. To see such a thing happen to each ES MBT would be rather sad.

Add AA to the mix, and suddenly niches become a HUGE deal. In fact, I not you've never once worried that the comparable av or ai capabilities. Interesting, that. Not a single worry about how lightning AV compares to tank AV, or AI.

HOLD IT! That is an outright lie! Go back to the first posts I made here, read the thread on the official PlanetSide forums and notice just how wrong you are here! See above why AA is singled out. For both AV and AV we said you'd get two MBTs instead of one when you have two people. For AI, we ALSO said you'd get two MBTs instead of one when you have two people, because one AI gun can NEVER compensate for the armour and main gun of two MBTs with regards to damage over time.

Also you fail to understand the point about the liberator(which, humorously, you seem fine with as a vehicle), and indeed proceed to talk, in the very next sentence, about removing the driver gun from tanks to promote teamwork. I find this extremely humorous, since the Liberator's pilot will control a very potent cannon, despite being a 3 man vehicle, as they did in PS1.

I've not made any value judgements about the PS2 Liberator at all in this thread. I did state in another thread that I'm very weary about Gunships in general, whereas the role of the PS1 Liberator had a much better defined own niche: attacking slow moving and stationary targets and clusters of infantry. However, the Liberator over time became largely obsolete.

Please also note that in air-to-ground use the second seat (bomber) is very interesting to man as the 35 mm can not be used against ground targets at all from high altitudes, which other aircraft can not in some situations either. This gives it its own niche. Similarly its nose gun, agility and armour are not enough to take on heavy vehicles such as tanks or BFRs alone, but if piloted right the bomber can. Neither is good at anti-fast vehicle, which is more the Reaver's role. This means it 'forces' (or 'encourages') the pilot to make sure the bomber gets in the right position aka teamwork. And it's a great mechanic. The gun of the Lib pilot is therefore a secondary weapon mostly used in aerial combat in defense or pursuit of other heavy aircraft, it not being agile enough to dogfight against good pilots. So despite being pilot controlled - as you may have read above, that is fine with me due to the disadvantages and context - it is not attractive for soloing, whereas a MBT main gun will always be. The third seat is the one that has least advantages and is most situational. Therefore despite being a 35 mm as well, it is the first seat to be 'dropped' in favour of other units. I hope this makes the argument more clear to you, rather than funny.

A few years back balance was much more in its favour, pre-BFR AA, pre-Wasp, Wall Turret AA, Gal Gunship and pre-Reaver buff. The aforementioned changes in gameplay made three players in a Liberator poor use of manpower. But I guess you need more explanation: the rear gunner could not cope with the Wasp range and heavier Reaver, thus you could better use another solo aircav as rear cover. The increase in lock on and long distance flak AA made Liberators near flight ceiling coffins of doom. The number of Liberator users has since dropped significantly in favour of aircav and crews were typically reduced in number as well.

I now follow Raymacs fine example and wash my hands of this affair. I look forward to having fun in beta. I fear you'll have worked yourself up over nothing.

Suit yourself. Better to have worked up over nothing than to await impending doom thinking nothing bad ever makes it to beta that could have been avoided. Or thinking that if it turns out to require a fix, it'll still get fixed. Remember that nothing is as permanent as temporary and beta's usualy are for most its content.