Please remove Vehicle seat swapping.

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

That's exactly what we all want... you should be fucked if you didn't take a gunner. You shouldn't just be able to alternate between AV and AA taking out threats as they come along. If there wasn't a delay, why would you ever want to have a gunner?

Because I like being able to move when someone is shooting at me? I dunno, seems kinda dumb to leave the driver's seat. Especially when I have this nice 150mm cannon to shoot you with and blow half your jet away. Call me crazy.

If I had the instant seat swapping thing, I'd STILL focus on shooting you with the cannon. Because blowing half your health away in one shot is a FAR better way of scaring you off then jumping to an AA turret, rotating the turret to aim at you, then try to pull off a miracle in killing you before you destroy my stationary ass.

Wait for beta, you've no idea how long it will take to kill a tank with a bird and no idea if the instant seat swapping will actually generate a problem that needs correcting. You and everyone else in this thread are over reacting to doomsday theories and it needs to stop.

[SixShooter]

Originally Posted by HeatLegend

/Signed

With an exception of making it take at least five seconds. The same goes for entering/exiting vehicles.

Holy shitballs thats a long time. Climbing into tanks in PS1 was maybe 2 seconds tops, 5 seconds is an eternity

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Originally Posted by Littleman

The year is 2800-something and we still haven't connected weapons systems to the same console, making access to them as easy as flipping a switch?

I know, I know... it's a balance thing to have a timer in. Something of a punishment for going in half-manned.

Actually, you make a valid point there. Remote controlled weapons already exist on armored vehicles. A good example close to home are some of the Striker variants, even some Humvees have remoted controlled weapons. My arguments against single/low crew vehicles are evaporating. Although I think most should still require at least two people to be effective, from the standpoint, of whether or not it's POSSIBLE... Actually, if they split your screen, I would have no objection to it. A real one man tank would have a forward viewer displaying direction of travel, and then his targeting computer.

[GreatMazinkaise]

If you can effectively multicrew any vehicle by yourself without screwing yourself over, then that's a measure of player skill. If you can't outfight a solo tanker or solo Lib in a fully crewed vehicle then your crew sucks... this is an imagined problem.

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

Actually, you make a valid point there. Remote controlled weapons already exist on armored vehicles. A good example close to home are some of the Striker variants, even some Humvees have remoted controlled weapons. My arguments against single/low crew vehicles are evaporating. Although I think most should still require at least two people to be effective, from the standpoint, of whether or not it's POSSIBLE... Actually, if they split your screen, I would have no objection to it. A real one man tank would have a forward viewer displaying direction of travel, and then his targeting computer.

Getting too complicated there.

A1 Abrams' command seat can take control of any and all aspects of the tank at will without changing his seat. It's right there.

But the point isn't realism here. The point is people wanting to implement rules in order to make their intended job easier. Or because they have some silly notion that everyone has to play the game the way they play it. Getting irritating.

Worst of all are the doomsday people claiming that some minor aspect of a F2P game will break it for whatever reason. "OMG PEOPLE CAN CHANGE SEATS INSTANTLY IN THIS GAME! THIS GAME SUCKS! I'M NEVER PLAYING THIS GAME AGAIN!"...

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

Getting too complicated there.

I agree I was just running with the idea


But the point isn't realism here.

It is to me. I already mentioned I like realism

The point is people wanting to implement rules in order to make their intended job easier. Or because they have some silly notion that everyone has to play the game the way they play it.

Can't argue with this.

Worst of all are the doomsday people claiming that some minor aspect of a F2P game will break it for whatever reason.

DEFINITELY can't argue with this.

1234 (required characters, because in the quote don't count)

[typhaon]

I'll wait til I see how things start to play out in the Beta.. but I think the concerns are certainly valid.

I feel like 2 (or 3) people cooperating in a MBT should generally be the most powerful choice... 2/3 people each with their own MBT, or with other light vehicles... should generally be quite a bit weaker (except for certain tactical situations).

I'm not sure that's how things are set, right now.

[Novice bot]

At least on wiki's galaxy, it states that quick seat swapping and bailing out are up gradable perks.

[proxy]

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

If you can effectively multicrew any vehicle by yourself without screwing yourself over, then that's a measure of player skill. If you can't outfight a solo tanker or solo Lib in a fully crewed vehicle then your crew sucks... this is an imagined problem.

I have disagreed with this gentleman before, but I agree with him here.

This is a non issue; most multiperson vehicles will not be at full capability without a full crew compliment. If you can get near it with less, good on you.

[GreatMazinkaise]

Originally Posted by proxy

I have disagreed with this gentleman before, but I agree with him here.

This is a non issue; most multiperson vehicles will not be at full capability without a full crew compliment. If you can get near it with less, good on you.

I'm not sure I agree with some of my old opinions; having started playing modern games I have begun to appreciate the differences (free time playing PS Live also hasn't been all that rosy, tbh).

What is core to my belief in general is that if one player is dominating groups of people that have access to the same tools, the problem is not with the single player, it is with the group. Having a high skill cap (whatever that means for the game genre in question) for individuals is a good thing. If your "teamwork" can't beat them then you're just a bad team.

[Flaropri]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

If there wasn't a delay, why would you ever want to have a gunner?

Mobility.
Battle-field awareness.
Conservation of resources while maintaining firepower.
Letting people focus their certs on something other than vehicles (albeit this may only matter for the first few months of play for some players).
It's fun to work with a direct partner (at least for many people).
If you lose your vehicle too early you can use your partner's spawn timer instead of being stuck on foot.

There are a lot of reasons why you'd want to actually fill your crew positions even if there were still no delay on hotswapping. I'm sure I've missed a few.


EDIT: Formatting for legibility: fun for the whole family.

[Ranik Ortega]

Originally Posted by Novice bot

At least on wiki's galaxy, it states that quick seat swapping and bailing out are up gradable perks.

5 second seat swapping trainable down to 2-3 seconds sounds good.

[Brusi]

Originally Posted by Ranik Ortega

5 second seat swapping trainable down to 2-3 seconds sounds good.

seat swapping... ey?

how about seat swapping takes 5 seconds and gives you aids IRL, trainable down to 2-3 seconds, with herpes.

Seat swapping in air vehicles just gives you a deadly aneurism, but trainable to down-syndrome.

[Tuoweit]

Originally Posted by Corpse

I take it that the people against seat-swapping feel that it doesn't take any skill to do so effectively? I mean, generally this is the reason that these kind of discussions take place.

I don't believe so. I don't think anyone here is arguing that individual skill should be unrewarded. It's rewarded in PS1 with combat experience for kills and so on.

Disclaimer beforehand, I haven't played PS1 myself. [...] It's a bit silly really and I'm genuinely surprised there is a discussion about this.
In every other game that involves multi-seat vehicles seat swapping is completely fine.

From my perspective, there's a couple of factors, both rooted in PS1 so if you haven't played that then I can understand why it's not immediately obvious.

One has to do with the whole player-power design in PS1. In the PS1 frame of reference, hot-swapping seats in an MBT or Liberator would be like having your cake and eating it too, because the power of the tank or liberator cert (compared to, say, an infantry weapon cert) is balanced against the fact that you need at least one other player to man the vehicle with you. Compare to a foot soldier who has a man-portable AV weapon, he is totally outclassed by either the tank or the Liberator. Against the one-man stuff like the Lightning, or a MAX, the foot soldier at least stands a chance with his AV, given good tactics. However if you were to suddenly have one-man MBTs roaming the field, regardless of whether they can stand against a fully-manned MBT or not, the certification power balance is thrown way off. It just rubs me the wrong way.

In PS2, of course, that balance problem doesn't exist since you can use any vehicle or weapon without certs - but the gut reaction of what is "balanced" remains.

Second, and related, PS1 was always more about the large scale than individual performance, and operational decisions over tactical advantage. Sure, some guys could be really good with their chosen weapons or vehicles, but ultimately one person not sway things very much through sheer application of force (with a few exceptions - the much-maligned Orbital Strike,
for example, or a well-timed rear-area generator kill which could be accomplished solo, but the latter required excellent timing and coordination with the main battle elements to be a real tide-turner). This lack of individual sway through firepower is mostly because of, as I described above, the firepower available to any one player is actually rather limited in comparison to the battle. Being in the right place at the right time was a much more significant factor, and one guy in the right place could prevent what was initially a small probing hack on a continent from escalating into a massive invasion.

Dramatically increasing the amount of available firepower to a single individual (by introducing hot-swapping, for example), regardless of how much extra skill that may require to pull off, seems on the surface to favour more the style of modern shooters, where one person can indeed single-handedly win a firefight for his team through leet skillz, even if the other side had the better planning/organization/logistics/all that good stuff that made the PS1 battlefield experience what it was and allowed one faction to win over another even though they were attacking against equal numbers and defensible positions. In other words, fear of getting my ass kicked by action heroes with no operational or strategic sense to speak of - and having that actually matter in the larger scale of the battle.

Anyways this is all from thinking about my perspective as someone who doesn't really like the idea of hotswapping on first glance (but I'm willing to wait to see how it pans out in beta), I can't say I speak for anyone else.

[BlueSkies]

Originally Posted by Tuoweit

fear of getting my ass kicked by action heroes with no operational or strategic sense to speak of - and having that actually matter in the larger scale of the battle.

It feels like this is at the root of a number of recent threads (this thread, the TTK thread, etc).

Give it a chance though. Operations and Strategy in PS2 are going to be a lot different from those we developed in PS1 (regardless of seat swapping or TTK).