Compromise for the driver=gunner issue.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Furret

They want the people who put the certs into the vehicle to be able to use the vehicle. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but that's where the Armored Assault I and II system worked. If you wanted to solo-whore, which is the type of group PS2 is starting to shift to, you could spend 2 certs and get your lightning. But if you really wanted to be effective, get a friend and pay an extra cert for that vanny.

I know that's what they said, but that's a bullshit excuse. Several other vehicles and classes are designed around SUPPORT. Medics, Engineers, to name two infantry support. Transport drivers and to a lesser extent Bomber pilots.

All of those have one thing in common - weapon systems / tools which benefit other people and not themselves. Even if you give a driver the main gun he's still putting cert points into a gun he can't use - the secondary gun. I expect that one will have a lot more upgrades than the main gun anyway. If you get people certing it just because they can also gun it then that added set of players is just going to upgrade the stuff that only benefits them.

It is not necessary to turn a vehicle into a one-man killwhore machine just to get people to drive it/cert it. Plenty of people drove galaxies when needed. Plenty of people drove tanks and piloted libs. The tradeoff of the far more firepower and a stronger vehicle emphasized teamwork and coordination with gunners/bombardiers.

As a longtime tank driver what rewards me is not the ability to shoot. It is knowing that my tank crew was kicking ass and impacting the battle. Of course I'm going to cert things that make my entire tank better. You don't need to motivate me or distract me with a main gun.

I'd much rather understand the real design vision and gameplay goals of this change. Giving the certed person the ability to shoot from the vehicle is a poor excuse and I know that isn't the main reason they made the change. They wanted to run design impacts by the playerbase so they have to be straight with us with what they intend with things.

I hope that whole vet-things-with-the-players doesn't start after release. Like to see more idea sharing and insight into what it is they are trying to achieve. I'd certainly go a long way toward us providing more meaningful feedback and ideas that help them achieve it rather than blindly fondling around trying to figure it out and getting visceral reactions to significant changes that seemingly make little sense.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Malorn

I know that's what they said, but that's a bullshit excuse. Several other vehicles and classes are designed around SUPPORT. Medics, Engineers, to name two infantry support. Transport drivers and to a lesser extent Bomber pilots.

All of those have one thing in common - weapon systems / tools which benefit other people and not themselves.

It is not necessary to turn a vehicle into a one-man killwhore machine just to get people to drive it/cert it. Plenty of people drove galaxies when needed. Plenty of people drove tanks and piloted libs. The tradeoff of the far more firepower and a stronger vehicle emphasized teamwork and coordination with gunners/bombardiers.

As a longtime tank driver what rewards me is not the ability to shoot. It is knowing that my tank crew was kicking ass and impacting the battle. Of course I'm going to cert things that make my entire tank better. You don't need to motivate me or distract me with a main gun.

As a player whose most offensively oriented cert was special assault, and who had liberator, sunderer, deliverer, galaxy, ams, and ran around gluing bases back together during defenses, I really hope the devs can wrap their heads around what you just said.

Originally Posted by Malorn

I'd much rather understand the real design vision and gameplay goals of this change. Giving the certed person the ability to shoot from the vehicle is a poor excuse and I know that isn't the main reason they made the change. They wanted to run design impacts by the playerbase so they have to be straight with us with what they intend with things.

I'm sympathetic to the notion of "hey, give the guy buying the certs the chance to use the gun." I don't think the path they've indicated is the best way to do that, though. I've outlined a simple solution that does that (as the stated goal) without mucking about with cooperation dynamics and team vehicle vs. solo vehicle balance.

I will admit, though, I'm skeptical, as well, as to whether that's the entirety of the intent. After all, they've gone out of their way to declare that they're providing lots of support roles for people who aren't good at standard FPS skills. One would think, then, that essentially allowing the "driver pulls the vehicle" to create a "driver" support role, and they'd be find with that.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Malorn

I know that's what they said, but that's a bullshit excuse.

It's not a bullshit excuse. Bottom line is that ANY tank without a secondary gunner is going to be nothing but wreckage when a Reaver flies by.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Raymac

It's not a bullshit excuse. Bottom line is that ANY tank without a secondary gunner is going to be nothing but wreckage when a Reaver flies by.

Only if there is NO other AA nearby. It's an MMOFPS, not a 1v1. All it takes is one good AA in the vicinity to ward off reavers. It could be a MAX, or a Wasp, or good reaver pilot, or infantry-based AA.

Even if none of those exist, you'd only need minimal secondary gunners.

4 tanks, only 1 has a gunner with an AA config. 5 people, 4 tanks. Lots of main gun firepower. Lots of tank hit points to destroy before they're gone. Way better than running 2 tanks.

[cellinaire]

My personal impression from this topic is : They(dev team) are basically toying around with this 'driver can also act as main gunner' idea to support the faster-paced gameplay they're striving to achieve in PS2. And from what I've observed very recently from Higby's twitter, he knows this issue now and is also thinking about some kind of compromise I guess.

Anyway, I think they're willing to change this kind of controversial things based on enough beta feedbacks from us in this time around, so we still can't be certain whether this'll make it into the actual gameplay or not.

[Captain B]

I wouldn't mind drivers being able to do more than just drive if certed properly and in some vehicles (like MBTs), but being able to fire the main gun and be able to operate independently, even if not as effective as a two- or three-manned vehicle, is still going to put more tracks than boots on the ground. PlanetSide is awesome because of the combined arms nature of the game - infantry, tanks and air - not just all vehicles.

Not to mention they don't need to be treated as "power-ups", as someone had put it in the other thread. Just another cog in the war machine.

[Azren]

Originally Posted by Lonehunter187

As long as no single driver with a gun can beat a tank with a driver and gunner It'll be fine

No it won't. As long as two driver only tanks can kill one tank with driver + gunner, this idea is very bad. Because that is precisely what you have to compare, the combined effort two people can do, and however you look at it two one manned tanks (two main guns, twice the armor) will do much better than one with a gunner (just one main gun and one "other", not AV gun, and half the armor).

Originally Posted by Brusi

sweet, another whole thread about this.

Make as many as it takes until this stupid idea gets scrapped.

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

we don't that the gunner thing isn't going to be changed,we don't need to be compromising yet.

wait for beta and let everyone see how this idea sux

If we wait for beta it will be far to late.

1 - they stated that they want beta be a stress test mostly, they will not want to bother with other aspects (even if they said they will, we all have heared those empty promises before, do not trust them)

2 - even if they do, this is a CORE gameplay issue here, every single sidegrade / upgrade a tank can have will be influenced by this. Each vehicle would have to be re-ballanced to meet this change. If they want to change it later, they have to rework every aspect of the tanks - something they will not do

No, the only way is to make them scrap this idea as soon as possible (along with that fixed magrider main gun).

We have people leaving already because of this...

[Surge72]

Originally Posted by BorisBlade

Since you do require 50% more manpower a third more armor minimum seems fair.

For two out of the three MBTs, it is/was 100% more manpower. The TR MBT requires 200% more.

[moosepoop]

another guy summed it up nicely: let drivers drive, let gunners gun.

i would like to ask the devs to think rationally. sure i like planetside, but im not gonna have misplaced loyalty and give you money if you go in the wrong direction of what the majority of players want.

i still have some faith in you guys to have some integrity.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by moosepoop

i still have some faith in you guys to have some integrity.

This quote above...are you freaking kidding me, guy? You think this is about integrity? Really? That's taking it a bit far.

And like Brusi said, yay, yet another thread about this same tired debate.

[TheRagingGerbil]

I have a feeling this issue is being blown way out of proportion. We do not even know if vehicles will be driven from first person or third. Now if a tank is driven from first, I suspect you will be forced to switch to a gunner view making driving very difficult.

My guess is the driver will have the ability to drive and gun at the same time, but unless this is taking place in an open dessert it will be very ineffective. I bet the option will be to have a gunner in the vehicle who can take control of the main gun or the secondary.

[moosepoop]

two very important facts about imitating tank game play from badcompany 2:

1- tanks in bad company 2 are overpowered and few in number

2- players who like bad company 2 will all be playing battlefield 3. imitating bc2 will not likely attract them to great effect but instead deter the loyal core playerbase.


if the team shows true spirit and passion, i will full heartedly support you and throw money at you. but if you do not think rationally and views the game as merely a product, then my boner will go from semi hard to completely flaccid.

[Draep]

Originally Posted by moosepoop

two very important facts about imitating tank game play from badcompany 2:

1- tanks in bad company 2 are overpowered and few in number

2- players who like bad company 2 will all be playing battlefield 3. imitating bc2 will not likely attract them to great effect but instead deter the loyal core playerbase.

This shit right here. Tanks in BC2 have incredible range and killing power. I had multiple 100:1 or more K/D ratios and could pull out with ease for repairs if shit got too hot. A lot of this prolly had to do with the destructible environment of the game tho.

[BlazingSun]

nvm

[TheRagingGerbil]

Again, everyone is making the assumption that tanks will be driven and gunned primarily from the third person. This is an important piece of information we are missing.

If there is no reticle visible while driving in third person then all of these conversations are meaningless. Especially since the specific comment was "drivers can."