Driver/Gunners... NO!

[fod]

Originally Posted by Furber

The argument of "You pay the certs so you should control the main gun" seems a bit flawed. I think it should more accurately be "You pay the certs so you get the choice". If they add in the dedicated cert, this will solve the issue.

^THIS EXACTLY

i dont care if someone wants to solo drive a tank - thats fine, but at least give us people that DONT want to solo drive a tank the choice, i dont mind spending the certs to be able to do this

also how would this work for the mag with its fixed gun?

[Littleman]

Originally Posted by Purple

there will be a driver and a gunner when buggys make it into the game right?

Regarding this subject, I'm on the fence, but definitely leaning towards separating the roles.

Driving and gunning for a tank is a cake walk compared to driving and gunning for a buggy. The latter is much faster, lightly armored and survives pretty much on its speed alone. Running into something because you weren't looking where you were driving and coming to a complete stop is a death sentence.

The same could be said for the lightning, which is why I'm on the fence. I can only imagine it being somewhat redundant for the buggy driver to be the main gunner as well when he could just opt for the lightning if he wants to drive and gun a lighter, faster land vehicle.

However, I really would like to drive and gun something as light and quick as a lightning/buggy that was empire specific. But again, redundancy.

The most combat capability a buggy driver might have available to them are simple forward set firing systems and maybe one hell of a grill for running down squishies. Mind you, all through certs. A little twisted metal in Planetside, if you will.

Originally Posted by fod

also how would this work for the mag with its fixed gun?

It would only work if the Magrider moved at it's maximum "forward" velocity regardless of where it's front was facing, and the gunner were handed controle over the main body of the tank while the driver focused on simply moving it by simply wanting to go in that direction, while possibly managing the secondary gun as well. The darn thing would handle like infantry would for the driver at this point.

Strangely... that actually still works into the VS model of minimizing their weaknesses/inconveniences, which is part of the point in the fixed forward main cannon - to keep the thickest armor facing the enemy!

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Originally Posted by Raymac

With all due respect, that kind of shows how out of touch you are with one of the root problems of having a tank driver only. V-N-G was the voice macro for "We need a gunner." which you would have to spam for sometimes a very very long time in order to find someone to jump in your tank and gun for you. Sitting around waiting and begging for a gunner is not fun gameplay.

Ummm.... No... It doesn't. It means I misunderstood you. My experience with the issue comes from a dozen other games, some of which are "driver/gunner" and some of them are "driver and gunner". Whether it's PS1 or an entirely different game, the base concept is the same.



"It's not really selling out or prostituting. SOE is first and foremost a company. As such they only reason they exist is to make money"

That's almost the definition of the word, dude If you're doing something SOLELY for money, that's not a good motivation. I know it's a business, and they have to make money. That's a given. To treat it any other way is just ridiculous. But whenever somebody starts thinking exclusively in "bottom line" terms, it does not end well. I don't want people making games JUST because it's a way to make money. I want them to be making games because they LIKE games.
My earlier comment was "I know SOE devs need a livelihood. They need a house, etc. They do not all need Ferraris and beach houses." The point being, as long as you can turn a profit and be successful, that's a good thing, and is the basis you should judge the endeavour off of. But the goal hopefully should not be "MOAR PEOPLE MEANS MOAR MONEY" cause that just ends in... Well, look at China's economic interaction with the rest of the world.

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by fod

also how would this work for the mag with its fixed gun?

If they can fix it, they can also turret it ? We are the Vanu, for Vanu's sake ! If the NC can make a MAX out of tincans, we sure as hell could laser weld a tank into shape.

[Khellendros]

Why is this issue framed as either/or? It should be BOTH.

Let the driver decide how his tank is configured. I mean, damn, PS2 is being touted as having cust-uh-may-zay-tion up the ass, so why suddenly, that's not the case here?

Devs: let the driver choose who guns what. Problem SOLVED.

[Sephirex]

Originally Posted by fod

also how would this work for the mag with its fixed gun?

Gunner gets to unleash the famed Vanu Laser Light Show, dazzling enemies and inspiring allies.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Originally Posted by fod

also how would this work for the mag with its fixed gun?

Wouldn't have to be anything done to it... Nothing wrong with an altogether different design. The Mag has its own completely different approach to everything, and there's nothing wrong with that necessarily. The whole idea of it is different.

Originally Posted by Khellendros

Why is this issue framed as either/or? It should be BOTH.

Let the driver decide how his tank is configured. I mean, damn, PS2 is being touted as having cust-uh-may-zay-tion up the ass, so why suddenly, that's not the case here?

Devs: let the driver choose who guns what. Problem SOLVED.

Cause we like black and white :P

[SixShooter]

Originally Posted by Khellendros

Why is this issue framed as either/or? It should be BOTH.

Let the driver decide how his tank is configured. I mean, damn, PS2 is being touted as having cust-uh-may-zay-tion up the ass, so why suddenly, that's not the case here?

Devs: let the driver choose who guns what. Problem SOLVED.

I totally agree with but most people around here believe that it has be their way or the highway. I've seen this thread many times before and the arguments never change.

**edit**
There seems to be some misunderstanding around here. The only "one man tank" is the Lightning. The Magrider and Vangard are "two man tanks" and will only be 50% effective with only one person. The Prowler is a "three man tank" and as such will only be 33% effective with only one person.

[Vexus]

I don't know. As a veteran of World of Tanks, I'm failry confident that one person can both pilot and gun a tank effectively in a video game. The two things I want to do in PS2 are to fly the 1 man aircraft (as a pilot and gunner) and operate the 1 man tank (as driver and gunner). Sure, there are other things that will be enjoyable too, but I'd rather interact as one tank in a tank column rather than simply be a driver/pilot.

When I play World of Tanks, I always wish I could join a battle of scale and importance, add in air and infantry assets and storm a meaningful target ... as opposed to a typical World of Tank match. Scale, complexity, enduring wins, constant combat ... yeah that's going to be fun. But I want to drive/pilot AND gun, because it's very fun for me.

If the devs removed the 1 man tanks/aircraft, that would really be a huge letdown to me.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

We'll see how it works during beta. I'm sure the first couple weeks will be wild spam and craziness as everyone tries everything out (the first couple weeks almost don't count). After that, we'll have an idea what the "pulse" of the program is.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

Originally Posted by Raymac

What was the name of the Driver/Pilot class in PS1? From what I can remember from playing the other day, you could drive any vehicle in Agile armor. You seem to be saying they are removing something that was never even in PS1.***

Now, since you asked, I would prefer it if Heavy Assault couldn't pilot vehicles except for the ATVs, but that's just me.

As for the Vehicle combat vs. Infantry combat, I believe the devs have stated that their goal was to make it about 50/50 which sounds good to me. I grew extremely bored of the same clausterphobic stairwell battles over and over again. (but that is a whole other thread)

If you're trying to argue that having tank drivers control the main gun is part of some vast conspiracy to "'encourage' people to spend money on boosters", that is so out in left field I don't even know how to respond.

Not my fault you can't see how the game mechanics are being skewed that way.

1: Bases are now very open, most observable control points within splash damage range of most vehicles, infact vehicles can drive 'inside' most structures.
2: Most bases have very little cover from air attacks.
2: Infantry now require (forced) medic 'support'.
3: Most POWERFUL ground vehicles now only need ONE person to be effective, instead of 2 as before.
4: Only MAX class restricted from using vehicles, RExo aka HA was previously heavily restricted.
5: Plethora of 'certs' designed to enhance vehicle survivabilty and self sufficiency, viz auto repair.

All the things I've seen in game point to them making it harder for someone to just go around footzerging should they wish to and far easier to just hop into ANY of the vehicles and just spam spam spam and then hop out and be just as effective as the guy that wants to play as Infantry, whilst having no drawbacks for certing into the vehicle side.

**
No, I'm saying they're not being consistent in making Infantry now REQUIRE teamwork to function effectively, whilst making things even EASIER for Vehicle users. There is no downside to using a vehicle, none what-so-fucking-ever.

It's like they saw the 'super-soldier' problem, redesigned bases to solve that problem (ie corridor spam fests, all control points well inside), then nerfed everything else intrinsic to that actual gameplay, whilst simultaneously giving a bunch of bonuses to vehicle users above and beyond the redesign of bases and make the most powerful of them not even require the annoyance of needing a second person to use them!

[Soothsayer]

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

Ok, I'm starting to see what's wrong with you...

#1... Oh fuck it. I'm not even going to bother going into this...

Yeah, I got a new person on my ignore list...

Originally Posted by Raymac

With all due respect, that kind of shows how out of touch you are with one of the root problems of having a tank driver only. V-N-G was the voice macro for "We need a gunner." which you would have to spam for sometimes a very very long time in order to find someone to jump in your tank and gun for you. Sitting around waiting and begging for a gunner is not fun gameplay.

You've got no idea how fun I find a really intense prowler run, if you join the right outfit you don't have trouble finding gunners and you find people who are reliable that play in sync with your style of driving. Why do you expect a person to risk getting into your vehicle without knowing anything about you? It goes both ways with letting randoms into your vehicle and getting into random tanks. There's no limitation on what vehicles you can pull, if I couldn't find a gunner and I wanted to pull a tank I could just as easily pull a prowler that is set up for me to gun. Just toggle a button and you don't have to rely on anybody.

Originally Posted by Khellendros

Why is this issue framed as either/or? It should be BOTH.

Let the driver decide how his tank is configured. I mean, damn, PS2 is being touted as having cust-uh-may-zay-tion up the ass, so why suddenly, that's not the case here?

Devs: let the driver choose who guns what. Problem SOLVED.

Yepp, that's about what it comes down do, no reason to have to make a choice other than to allow the choice to be made.

Originally Posted by Vexus

I don't know. As a veteran of World of Tanks, I'm failry confident that one person can both pilot and gun a tank effectively in a video game. The two things I want to do in PS2 are to fly the 1 man aircraft (as a pilot and gunner) and operate the 1 man tank (as driver and gunner). Sure, there are other things that will be enjoyable too, but I'd rather interact as one tank in a tank column rather than simply be a driver/pilot.

When I play World of Tanks, I always wish I could join a battle of scale and importance, add in air and infantry assets and storm a meaningful target ... as opposed to a typical World of Tank match. Scale, complexity, enduring wins, constant combat ... yeah that's going to be fun. But I want to drive/pilot AND gun, because it's very fun for me.

If the devs removed the 1 man tanks/aircraft, that would really be a huge letdown to me.

As it has been said, there are 1 man tanks/aircraft already. If you want a one man tank that is designed to be for 1 person, pull a lighting. If you want a solo airship, pull a reaver/mossie/scythe.

[SgtExo]

But the lighting isn't really a tank, its a fast response vehicle and has no armor. Just because you don't know anyone or just want to play solo for a while, it should not mean that you cant has some armor.

The MBTs and Lightnings serve 2 different roles, so don't just say that soloers should go with the lightning.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Originally Posted by SgtExo

The MBTs and Lightnings serve 2 different roles.

That's basically the core of the argument

It doesn't matter. I mean, really, short of a mass uprising (and probably not even then), they're going to do whatever the hell they've decided on and we'll just have to make the best of it. Hopefully, everything works out ok and everybody will be happy. If I'm displeased with the game (but still consider it playable) I'll sacrifice a few extra NC and VS on the altar of my rage.

[Vanir]

Go to time index 15:35 on the video to hear the most recent thing that Higby has said about tank drivers controlling the main cannon.

Personally I'm in favor of an optional cert that will unlock an optional main gunner seat in the tank will give the driver the option of giving control of the main cannon to another player. Thus allowing up to 3 people in the tank. The driver, the main gunner, and the secondary gunner.