My one 'dislike' of PS2 (Main Battle Tanks)

[Rhapsody]

Originally Posted by Reapter

According to Immigrant you can outfit the 2nd slot with an AT gun, something ps1 didn't have as far as I am aware of. So a single guy in a tank isn't as much of a threat to others in a tank, so it is still true in ps2. Does that mean your issue is resolved?

Depends on how you look at it.

Think of the 'current' PS2 MBT's as a 2 seater BFR from PS1. Only instead of the driver having controle of the two dinky guns up front, he has controle of the powerfull Gun up on the back. And the 'gunner' instead of having controle of whats basicaly the 'main gun', now is relagated to only controling the two less powerfull front/side guns. A 2 seater BFR with only a driver in it was still a threat yea, but nowere near a threat as he'd be if he had a gunner controling that upper gun.

With the change they made to the MBT's. You now have the equivilant of a 2 seater BFR in which the driver has control of the main gun instead of the less powerful side-guns. Since he now has control Why would he even need or care to have a back-seater? It might add a little bit of survivabilty, give him a little more versatility, but he now controles the 'main' gun. Why would he wait or even 'team up' with anyone else?

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

I don't get what you are saying here. Out of 10 people how would you best optimize them with tanks.




From the TB video he couldn't 1 to 1 a Reaver with lock on weapons, I'm not going to give up all my tank HP to bet that I could kill a Reaver.

What I am focusing on is not how you would optimize with 1 man tanks, but how you would cripple your forces by two manning. If a squad is running 5 two man tanks, 7 one man tanks ought to be able to win against them for sure. And if we're talking about a 10 man squad, that leaves 3 spaces to bring along AA vehicles. Those 3 AA vehicles combined with the tank drivers hopping out to fire AA would add up.

[Reapter]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

What I am focusing on is not how you would optimize with 1 man tanks, but how you would cripple your forces by two manning. If a squad is running 5 two man tanks, 7 one man tanks ought to be able to win against them for sure. And if we're talking about a 10 man squad, that leaves 3 spaces to bring along AA vehicles. Those 3 AA vehicles combined with the tank drivers hopping out to fire AA would add up.

We don't know damage values at all currently so that is basically unknown currently. To compound this certs are an issue in effectiveness.

Originally Posted by Rhapsody

Depends on how you look at it.

Think of the 'current' PS2 MBT's as a 2 seater BFR from PS1. Only instead of the driver having controle of the two dinky guns up front, he has controle of the powerfull Gun up on the back. And the 'gunner' instead of having controle of whats basicaly the 'main gun', now is relagated to only controling the two less powerfull front/side guns. A 2 seater BFR with only a driver in it was still a threat yea, but nowere near a threat as he'd be if he had a gunner controling that upper gun.

With the change they made to the MBT's. You now have the equivilant of a 2 seater BFR in which the driver has control of the main gun instead of the less powerful side-guns. Since he now has control Why would he even need or care to have a back-seater? It might add a little bit of survivabilty, give him a little more versatility, but he now controles the 'main' gun. Why would he wait or even 'team up' with anyone else?

Because not everyone has it unlocked and it still adds combat ability and survivability. Especially if the main gun can't hurt air/infantry for the most part but the secondary gun can. If you happen to have a second person fully certed in the right spot such as AA it will probably come more down to player skill then anything. That or if you have two extras who are uncerted in certain roles they can still contribute by manning the other guns.

[Rhapsody]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

What I am focusing on is not how you would optimize with 1 man tanks, but how you would cripple your forces by two manning. If a squad is running 5 two man tanks, 7 one man tanks ought to be able to win against them for sure. And if we're talking about a 10 man squad, that leaves 3 spaces to bring along AA vehicles. Those 3 AA vehicles combined with the tank drivers hopping out to fire AA would add up.

The problem with the 7, 1 man tanks vs 5, 2 man tanks scenario, is that your not factoring in the mobility that a dedicated driver brings to bare against someone who has to split his time between shooting AND driving. Sure numerical numbers would make you 'think' you had the advantage. But if 3 of your tanks smacked into each other, or a tree.. or something else, while trying to manuver, they turn themselves into sitting ducks and easier to hit targets. While the tanks with dedicated drivers have the advantage in being able to 'dodge' alot easier.

[SgtMAD]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

What I am focusing on is not how you would optimize with 1 man tanks, but how you would cripple your forces by two manning. If a squad is running 5 two man tanks, 7 one man tanks ought to be able to win against them for sure. And if we're talking about a 10 man squad, that leaves 3 spaces to bring along AA vehicles. Those 3 AA vehicles combined with the tank drivers hopping out to fire AA would add up.

5 two manned tanks easily kill 7 one manned tanks as long as the gunner is playing "with" the gunner and not some stray picked up at the end of the veh spawn ramp,you get those 7 tanks in a situation where they have to turn and defend at the same time they are done.
when you have a separate gunner for the main gun along with an outfit on vent/TS you then have the ability to drive and focus fire, which will result in solo tanks being targeted and killed very quickly while the driver is able to keep the tank moving while avoiding rocks,trees and finding hills to use for cover.

any decent outfit could pull that shit as long as they played together and had half a brain when it comes to picking the ground to fight over

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Rhapsody

The problem with the 7, 1 man tanks vs 5, 2 man tanks scenario, is that your not factoring in the mobility that a dedicated driver brings to bare against someone who has to split his time between shooting AND driving. Sure numerical numbers would make you 'think' you had the advantage. But if 3 of your tanks smacked into each other, or a tree.. or something else, while trying to manuver, they turn themselves into sitting ducks and easier to hit targets. While the tanks with dedicated drivers have the advantage in being able to 'dodge' alot easier.

that's just it - I was factoring those things in, otherwise I would have said they would match up 5 equal to 5. But since the two man tanks have extra mobility and attention, 5 two man tanks should be equal to about 7 one man.

And; I can tell you now...people smacking into trees or each other is probably not a concern. EXCEPT for one little thing...BC2/BF3 tankers are not so unskilled as to run into trees and stuff, BUT, BF's Destruction does have them accustomed to being able to just roll through trees and knock them down. Since that can't be done in PS2(that we know of), that might, early on, cause some issues. But it would only be temporary.

[Reapter]

Originally Posted by Rhapsody

The problem with the 7, 1 man tanks vs 5, 2 man tanks scenario, is that your not factoring in the mobility that a dedicated driver brings to bare against someone who has to split his time between shooting AND driving. Sure numerical numbers would make you 'think' you had the advantage. But if 3 of your tanks smacked into each other, or a tree.. or something else, while trying to manuver, they turn themselves into sitting ducks and easier to hit targets. While the tanks with dedicated drivers have the advantage in being able to 'dodge' alot easier.

On top of this your harder to spot and have a smaller area to hit and less clutter, the 7 tanks if they all had 100hp would have 200hp difference more in the least. In order for the 7 to fire though effectively they would all have to be spread out more.

[Immigrant]

To conclude my discussion here I'd like to say that I really don't care how exactly they resolve these issues as long as they make multi-crewing more preferable.

Soloers aren't really a problem at all since they won't organize their efforts to pose a serious problem, however I wouldn't like to see outfits practicing single-crewing vehicles besting those outfits that practice multi-crewing (what would make multi-crewing useless). That would be really bad for the game imo and that's why multi-crewed vehicles need to have their overall power increased proportionally to their crew size..

[Rhapsody]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

that's just it - I was factoring those things in, otherwise I would have said they would match up 5 equal to 5. But since the two man tanks have extra mobility and attention, 5 two man tanks should be equal to about 7 one man.

You said that the 7 1-man tanks 'would win for sure'. And thats simply not true . 7 tanks who have to split their attention between manuvering + shooting will miss their shots (and likely run into things) alot more ofthen than the dedicated gunners of those 5 tanks with 2-man crews in them will. Having 2 extra guns wont mean much if only 3 of those 7 shots land, vs 4-5 of the shots fired by the 5 2-man tanks.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

The second gun on an MBT is pointless unless you pick up a random zerger to fill it.

Why?

You and an outfit mate want to run a tank. You grab 1 with an AV second turret because the enemy is using a lot of ground vehicles. It would be better for him to grab another MBT and run together than man your second turret. They have said the main gun will be stronger than the second gun, so you're increasing your fire power by pulling a second tank instead. You are now also 2 targets with more combined HP/armor than 1 tank.

What if the enemy is running a good mix of armor and air?

Its better for your outfit mate to pull a Lightning instead of gunning your secondary AA turret. They have said the Lightning will have the strongest AA in the game, so again you are increasing your fire power and hp/armor by grabbing 2 tanks instead of 1.

[Immigrant]

Originally Posted by DOUBLEXBAUGH

The second gun on an MBT is pointless unless you pick up a random zerger to fill it.

Why?

You and an outfit mate want to run a tank. You grab 1 with an AV second turret because the enemy is using a lot of ground vehicles. It would be better for him to grab another MBT and run together than man your second turret. They have said the main gun will be stronger than the second gun, so you're increasing your fire power by pulling a second tank instead. You are now also 2 targets with more combined HP/armor than 1 tank.

What if the enemy is running a good mix of armor and air?

Its better for your outfit mate to pull a Lightning instead of gunning your secondary AA turret. They have said the Lightning will have the strongest AA in the game, so again you are increasing your fire power and hp/armor by grabbing 2 tanks instead of 1.

Exactly what you've said.

[Shamrock]

I enjoyed driving and gunning, and some of the best tank fights have been in 3 man prowlers talking to my outfit mates on ventrilo. There is no way in hell a driver - gunner will be any match for dedicated driver and main gunner, the second they have to rotate the turret to hit anything flanking them or coming up behind them they will lose focus on what's in front of them increasing the odds of hitting any obstacle, tree, rock, you name it. And once he is stationary he's dead meat, because he's a sitting duck that you can land easy hits on while your dedicated driver keeps you a moving target.

I think the driver-gunner set up is pandering to solo lone wolf types; in PS1 these would be the guys that certed MBT and would park it on a ridge overlooking a base, jump onto the main gun and use it as artillery. They were great reaver bait.

But im hopeful that the dev's as some of you have already mentioned will implement the option to cert a dedicated main gunner.

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

If there is an infantry around with lock on then the lightning is also extra.

Don't agree. Most pilots will quickly cert flares and learn to afterburner away from lock on. The lightning has a flak gun and can't be so easily countered. It will have a useful role on the battlefield, I'm sure.

[Serpent]

Originally Posted by Shamrock

I think the driver-gunner set up is pandering to solo lone wolf types; in PS1 these would be the guys that certed MBT and would park it on a ridge overlooking a base, jump onto the main gun and use it as artillery. They were great reaver bait.

Not meaning to sound like a jerk, but it's hard to be a lone wolf in an MMO... though I get what you're saying I find it hard to believe people would play PS2 over CoD if they want to lone wolf around.

People may just like PS2 a lot better or something, but still.

[Rhapsody]

Originally Posted by Serpent

Not meaning to sound like a jerk, but it's hard to be a lone wolf in an MMO... though I get what you're saying I find it hard to believe people would play PS2 over CoD if they want to lone wolf around.

People may just like PS2 a lot better or something, but still.

I think what he meant with the term 'lone wolf' are those players who want to be able to use everything, do everything, and play as everything, by themselves, with no need to get 'help' from anyone.

The BF crowd who hop in the Tanks then run off to some hill during a Conquest map just to 'score kills' while completely ignoring the actual objectives.

If that tank they hopped into required a gunner to operate the main gun, they'd be sorta forced to work as part of 'some' sort of team in order to 'score kills'.

I think thats what he meant by stating that the driver/gunner as 1 person was 'catering' to the "Lone Wolf" crowd.