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

[Xyntech]

13 pages. Wow.

I'm actually okay with this dead horse being dragged out and beaten now and then. Keeps it fresh in the developers minds that a dedicated gunner variant would be a welcome addition.

Aside from that, wait until beta before getting too carried away.

[Blackwolf]

Honestly the idea is kind of growing on me.

I doubt I'll drive a tank, but if you think about it, tanks are going to be a lot more vulnerable in PS2 then they were in PS1. Having a second gunner might really be a requirement in order to stay alive. Particularly when it comes to squaring off against aircraft.

And when you think about it, the PS1 tanks had serious flaws in their design. Either the secondary gun (the one that actually had a lot more viable target rich environments) was either controlled by the driver, was more or less optional, or was controlled by the gunner in addition to the main gun. In all situations the secondary gun wasn't used for what it was meant for really.

Prowler gunners just shot infantry with the main gun, that secondary was virtually useless. Vanguards did the same, switching to the machineguns for AA work. Magriders couldn't shoot infantry and I suspect most Mag drivers pretended that the gun didn't exist since it was virtually worthless against aircraft and really only useful when chasing enemy vehicles.

Now since the main driver uses the big gun, tank battles will slow down speed wise. Drivers will have to multi-task a little when engaging tanks and likely WON'T be engaging infantry quite so much, as aiming at a tank while driving is hard enough. Infantry will have a better chance at survival outside unless they come across tanks with secondary gunners (geared for AI).

I didn't like the idea at first but hey, I'm just happy PS2 is no longer a pipe dream.

[Serpent]

Originally Posted by Rhapsody

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.

I see what you mean. Maybe PC/360 terminology is different (I don't have a PC atm, so I have to use my 360 for now :P )

And I know what you mean, Zoom optics on BF3 MBTs = these "Lone wolves"

[Mechzz]

Assuming 10 players in a squad who want to have a "tank evening", what vehcs should we spawn for an outpost assault (seems fair that a 10 man squad can attempt an outpost?). My thoughts:

2 x 2-man AA MBT (Medic/engy crew for rez/repair/defences)
2x 2-man AV MBT (medic/engy crew for rez/repair/defences)
1 x 2-man AI MBT (LA/LA crew for jump jet ability)
1 x ATV for recon (infil/sniper)
1 x Sunderer with Max/HA passengers and Engy driver to make up 10

Would be fun imo with that sort of mix. You could duke it out in the field with enemy MBTs but still have the firepower to take an outpost defended by similar numbers.

What other mixes would be good?

[Figment]

Basically what this discussion comes down to is that those against driver-gunner being one role can do basic optimization maths as they would apply it themselves, while the other party cannot conceive what that is or is in denial that players would apply it or that it magically wouldn't be applied. Waiting for beta is irrelevant when every optimalization math answer you can get says two tanks of some kind is better than one.

It is naivity, nothing more.

On top of that, the quality of tank battles goes down by being less dynamic and more stationary. Look at world of tanks to see how everyone being a singleplayer tank affects combat: short sprints, corner camping, driving into friendlies and obstructions, swifter deaths making logistics more annoying (more frequent spending time to get to the battle), potential motion sickness if no third person (may not affect all), less situational awareness (dumber opponents/worse decisions). And that is not even considering you may be able to switch to a gunnerposition instantly, which would mean you would want it to be empty so you can use it yourself at the cost of maneuvring, but would have double the firepower if a buddy would as well.

PS1 simply had the best tank combat experience I ever had as a driver. I don't mind infantry being more effective (mainly in use of cover by expanding amount of cover and effective defense measures like emp grenades). I don't mind AA tanks, I do mind tank spam and mindless and simple gameplay where players become less dependant on one another.

[Mechzz]

^
but the math depends on assumptions, it's not "hard/concrete" maths in that sense. Only really playing the game will determine whose assumptions were best.

[Figment]

The math only assumes a tank has hitpoints and deals damage. Nothing more. There are no advanced assumptions made at all.

[Atheosim]

I definitely think that the "lone wolf" type player will quickly realize that he/she is fodder for air/infantry if they're without a gunner. They'll see that fully crewed tanks last a lot longer and get more kills and as a result they won't want to leave home without somebody in the gunner seat.

[Slib]

I completely agree with the OP's sentiment.

I understand that the person driving the MBT will be the person who is spending the resources to get the vehicle, but so what?

You're part of a TEAM. If your role in the team is to be a bad-as-fuck tank driver, you're doing it because you love doing it.

If the driver only drives and leaves the shooting to the gunner, we'll see less killwhores rolling around in tanks with just themselves in it.
Less vehicle spam means individual tanks and their dedicated, skilled, crews make more of a difference on the battlefield, and the tanks themselves won't have to be nerfed into pointlessness (they WILL be nerfed when SoE realizes how many people are driving around in them because they get easy kills all day).

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Atheosim

I definitely think that the "lone wolf" type player will quickly realize that he/she is fodder for air/infantry if they're without a gunner. They'll see that fully crewed tanks last a lot longer and get more kills and as a result they won't want to leave home without somebody in the gunner seat.

STOP THINKING IN LONE WOLF TERMS.


TWO TANKS IS NOT A LONE WOLF, IT IS TWO LONE WOLFS AND THEY CAN HAVE A COMBINATION OF ANY TYPE OF WEAPON SYSTEMS THEY WANT. TWO TANKS WILL LAST LONGER THAN ONE TANK BECAUSE IT HAS MORE TOTAL AND MORE EFFICIENT ENDURANCE.


Sheesh how hard is that that after around 70 pages or more on this discussion, you STILL think the argument is around SINGLE lone tanks? As I said a few posts earlier, you don't get the maths. At all. Stop pretending you do.



What I find strange, is that those that tell the people that see issues here to wait for beta, do not tell that to those that think there's no issues. In fact, they're typically the ones that see no issues. They make assumptions as well, they just make the mistake of narrowminded and limited gameplay user scenarios under benevolent circumstances too without stress testing it. Often even just considering one single scenario.

Meanwhile, those who are against look at all kinds of ways to combine these units to be as effective as possible in different situations and how to deal with different circumstances and apply different tactics because you can (with more tanks). Big difference.

[Atheosim]

Originally Posted by Figment

STOP THINKING IN LONE WOLF TERMS.


TWO TANKS IS NOT A LONE WOLF, IT IS TWO LONE WOLFS AND THEY CAN HAVE A COMBINATION OF ANY TYPE OF WEAPON SYSTEMS THEY WANT. TWO TANKS WILL LAST LONGER THAN ONE TANK BECAUSE IT HAS MORE TOTAL AND MORE EFFICIENT ENDURANCE.


Sheesh how hard is that that after around 70 pages or more on this discussion, you STILL think the argument is around SINGLE lone tanks? As I said a few posts earlier, you don't get the maths. At all. Stop pretending you do.

We are all sure glad you used caps lock to describe that point, otherwise none of us would have understood it. Take a nap or something, cheer up.

[Zekeen]

The real issue is that it is a departure from the old PS1 teamwork style of things, and if a designated variant exists, it still wouldn't technically be much better than basic solo operation tanks. Really, they need to make some better different for a designated position tank than just separating the roles, the firepower stays the same either way at the expense of more manpower.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Atheosim

We are all sure glad you used caps lock to describe that point, otherwise none of us would have understood it. Take a nap or something, cheer up.

You on the other hand, should wake up and stop sleepwalking in your perfect dreams.

[Mechzz]

We had this discussion (driver = main gunner) for the first time back in March or so, I believe. We won the concession that the devs would look at allowing a cert for the driver to give up the main gun. We still have had no details on that. Is it in? How will it work for the magrider with its fixed main gun?

So those of us who prefer driver = secondary gunner (I count myself in that group) are still waiting to see what makes it into the first version of the game that we get our hands on. I think that is what makes it frustrating for peeps with, like, super-strong views. Hard as it may be, though, venting on peeps who like the proposed system doesn't make the time pass any quicker. So before one of us blows a fuse, let's hope they announce Beta and let us put our theories to the ultimate test.

[Atheosim]

Originally Posted by Figment

You on the other hand, should wake up and stop sleepwalking in your perfect dreams.

Because without doing that I would seriously damage my own reality, which, unlike yours, lies outside of this videogame, correct?