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

[JHendy]

Originally Posted by JPalmer

The games without these features you hate have already been released. Go play 'em. If you hate modernization, no one is forcing you along.

+1BeatDeadHorse

You're confusing modernisation with simplification.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Shogun

hmm, everything dies with almost one shot from anything if the ttk stays as it is. so it doesn´t matter at all

but if ttk is changed to a level where the choice of weapon does matter, the tanks should be old ps1 style by default and should have a sidegrade/cert for the kiddys that don´t understand the concept of driver and gunner to change to the lightning-system.

Wait a second. If tanks are killing each other that fast, has anyone considered the ramifications of Liberators? That Massive Air COmbat video showed some pretty intense cannon bombardment.

Unless Liberator cannons are somehow going to be magically a LOT weaker than tank cannons.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Wait a second. If tanks are killing each other that fast, has anyone considered the ramifications of Liberators? That Massive Air COmbat video showed some pretty intense cannon bombardment.

Unless Liberator cannons are somehow going to be magically a LOT weaker than tank cannons.

People don't think that far ahead, they have to "see" it first. :P


Compared to a Galaxy Gunship, Liberator will be peanuts though.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Figment

People don't think that far ahead, they have to "see" it first. :P


Compared to a Galaxy Gunship, Liberator will be peanuts though.

Thing is, weren't you arguing for GG to have weak armor(which would result in a low TTK for GG killing)...I am instead arguing that the overall TTK shouldn't be so low. That way, vehicles can set up near cover and move into it when threatened from the air, but with the vehicle TTK I've seen, you will become quite dead before you have the chance to drive 5 feet- and that's from just ONE aircraft hitting you.

[Immigrant]

I myself have an impression that the new system is better there are however several conditions presumed.

Conditions:

1. Main tank gun isn't actually the strongest (DPS wise) gun on the tank, it has large blast radius requiring less accuracy and it must have limited movement so drivers can actually focus on driving (so even if he isn't shooting at all he could still make a great team if paired up with a good gunner).

2. Gunner's gun should actually be primary weapon of that tank making the most DPS in consideration to it's class (AI, AA or AV). AV gunner's gun actually be more powerful than the main cannon itself, however gunner's guns should require great deal of precision (no blast radius) and should have 360 free movement radius independent of the direction the vehicle itself is facing.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Thing is, weren't you arguing for GG to have weak armor(which would result in a low TTK for GG killing)...I am instead arguing that the overall TTK shouldn't be so low. That way, vehicles can set up near cover and move into it when threatened from the air, but with the vehicle TTK I've seen, you will become quite dead before you have the chance to drive 5 feet- and that's from just ONE aircraft hitting you.

I was argueing to not have a GG at all, tbh, because it seems to me the entire concept of the GG is simply broken by definition.

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by Figment

I was argueing to not have a GG at all, tbh, because it seems to me the entire concept of the GG is simply broken by definition.

Wowowooooo... Let's not get carried away there... Some game mechanics can actually break a game ?


I always thought people were oblivious to that concept. But then again, it's Figment posting and I like your posts so you may be the exception confirming the general rule.

Maybe there will be a day where people agree unanimously that ideas which sound awesome may not be actually fun in a game.

[Stardouser]

Fun is subjective and unfortunately, some people think their fun is ruined if a multi-crewed vehicle exists that requires teamwork to kill, this is where we come back to some people wanting duel simulators, and an infantry AA can't really solo duel kill a large air unit, can they? The key is that large units like that need to not be nimble and too fast, allowing them to be swarmed and killed by other appropriate units.

[Rhapsody]

Originally Posted by Pyreal

I can't remember using a tank in PS, but from my experience as a Heli gunner in BF3, unless you have direct communications and good rapport with your pilot/driver you aren't going to have much FUN.

I say Heli gunner because the main damage from a Heli is the gunner, not the pilot.

I like the way PS2 is handling tanks, and that is because I like blowing stuff up! It's fun, and that's what my focus is going to be in PS2: one of the finest purple painted ass kickers around!

If the driver didn't control the main weapon tanking would be less appealing to me. I'm a team player but I still like to play My way within that team. I don't want some toestubber driving the tank just so I can try to blow stuff up whilst he bumbles into everything. I want him to go that way, but he goes this way...

My tank, my big gun, your smoking wreck!

The reason their making the MBT's over-sized 1 person lightnings is likely because of the BF, MW, CoD crowd who are use to having 'fun' while solo-riding in a tank. But, at the same time, its throwing us old PS1 players a curve-ball as were USE to having 'fun' by getting together with a buddy and owning up 'single-seaters', and sometimes other 2 seaters, due to the extra mobility we have when one person is focused strictly on driving, while the other focuses on gunning.

If they want to cater to the CoD, MW, BF crowd, they should make the ability to take controle of the main gun a 'cert' and leave the tanks the old PS1 way by 'default'.

And as someone mentioned the VS tanks gun. In PS1, the VS tank had 2 guns on it. Its primary gun which the gunner controlled was mounted on top in a turret. Not sure why they seemed to have removed that from the new Magrider. The one mounted on the nose which the driver controlled was a lower damage anti-everything weapon. While hopping in a mag-rider solo was effective, it wasnt nearly as effective as if they waited for, or got, a gunner to man the main gun.

Like i said, if their turning the MBT's into over-sized lightnings to cater the Cod, MW, BF crowd, i honestly think they should make that the 'option', not the default. They shouldn't 'dumb-down' PS just to get more subs.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Fun is subjective and unfortunately, some people think their fun is ruined if a multi-crewed vehicle exists that requires teamwork to kill,

That's not the point really. If killing one GG requires teamwork, how much teamwork is required to kill 20?

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by Rhapsody

If they want to cater to the CoD, MW, BF crowd, they should make the ability to take controle of the main gun a 'cert' and leave the tanks the old PS1 way by 'default'.

This may be in the game, actually. Only the other way round. In one of the interviews Higby says they're considering a cert for the driver to give up the main gun.

Not sure how that will work on the magrider, but am prepared to wait and see.

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by Figment

That's not the point really. If killing one GG requires teamwork, how much teamwork is required to kill 20?

Well, the answer is "the same amount of teamwork as was used to get 20 fully-manned GGs in the air".

The only time this doesn't work is if your side is low on the organised groups you'd need to do that. If that happens too often, then the "fun" gets drained away and replaced by a sense of helplessness.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Figment

That's not the point really. If killing one GG requires teamwork, how much teamwork is required to kill 20?

That would be 120 guys if fully staffed, and how many people total are in a battle on average? If the average battle was 400 people(200 per side, and yes for simplicity I'm assuming a 2 empire fight) and you have 120 of them in GG alone, they won't be able to capture flags on the ground. Strategically, it should all balance out, because however many less guys they have on the ground capping flags, lets your team have that many more guys up in Mosquitoes or Reavers(or Lightnings) to shoot them down.

Yes, I'm aware that this may force extra infantry to choose AA, or to not play infantry at all and instead pull appropriate vehicles, but if it weren't that way, the strategic importance would be reduced.

Also, if we've got 5 gunners in a GG, I'm guessing only 3 will get good firing aspect angles at any given time, the inefficiency of that fact also makes this less powerful than it seems. A GG = 5 gunners, only 3 of which will have a good shot at any given time, whereas if it were replaced by 6 Reavers, would that not be a lot more powerful?

[Rhapsody]

Originally Posted by Mechzz

This may be in the game, actually. Only the other way round. In one of the interviews Higby says they're considering a cert for the driver to give up the main gun.

Not sure how that will work on the magrider, but am prepared to wait and see.

Yea, someone mentioned their considering a cert for the driver to 'give up' the main gun. But that implies the driver has control of it by default. It should be the other way around: Cert being required for the driver to take control of the main gun, with the trade-off being he wont be nearly as mobile as a 2 person crew.

And yea, the new Mag is an issue since they seemed to have removed the top turret and turned the 'nose' gun into its main gun.

[Rhapsody]

Originally Posted by Mechzz

Well, the answer is "the same amount of teamwork as was used to get 20 fully-manned GGs in the air".

The only time this doesn't work is if your side is low on the organised groups you'd need to do that. If that happens too often, then the "fun" gets drained away and replaced by a sense of helplessness.

Actualy, me and a gunner use to chase GG's off all the time with a skyguard, and we'd even take them out when 4 of us got together in a pair of skyguards