Driver/gunner survey.

[Sunrock]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

The Empire Fighters are solo vehicles in the air, but you can't effectively solo in a Liberator. What's up with that? Why should the land vehicles have a different and backwards philosophy?

What are you talking about? You can solo in a liberator, sure its not taking the most advantage over the vehicle. But neither do you do that when you solo in a tank either. Sure now in tank Vs tank you can solo because every one else does too in there tanks. However if you have a gunner that use a gun on the same target as you you will kill your target allot easier (if you have turret weapon that can do damage to tanks that is... Also as a solo tank driver you are so mush more vulnerable to HA not to mention every one that try to C4 your tank. Sure you can take care of a lone wolf infatry or lighting dirver with the tank but so you can do with a lone wolf attack plane drive too in the libirator.

But comparing a tank to a liberator is not really fair as the liberator have 3 guns and the tank only 2. It would be more fair to compare a solo tank to a liberator with only 2 crews.

[Gatekeeper]

I agree completely with Baneblade.

The devs have said previously that the tanks must give the main gun to the driver because otherwise it's unfair on the player who spends resources (and possibly certs) on getting that vehicle.

However none of other multi-crew vehicles follow this logic - deli, gal and lib all give their most powerful (or even only) guns to dedicated gunners - leaving the driver/pilot with lesser guns or no guns.

Why are the MBTs the only exception to the general logic of the game?

The Lightning already fills the role for one-man tank, there is no problem with forcing the MBTs to have a gunner - it just ensures they fill a different role. Having trouble finding a gunner? Field a Lightning instead. Simple.

[Sunrock]

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper

I agree completely with Baneblade.

The devs have said previously that the tanks must give the main gun to the driver because otherwise it's unfair on the player who spends resources (and possibly certs) on getting that vehicle.

However none of other multi-crew vehicles follow this logic - deli, gal and lib all give their most powerful (or even only) guns to dedicated gunners - leaving the driver/pilot with lesser guns or no guns.

Why are the MBTs the only exception to the general logic of the game?

The Lightning already fills the role for one-man tank, there is no problem with forcing the MBTs to have a gunner - it just ensures they fill a different role. Having trouble finding a gunner? Field a Lightning instead. Simple.

Well I would find it very frustrating to not be able to make the tank move exactly as I want to gunning as me might decide to move 1 inch when I'm about to fire and miss the shot and I would find it very boring to spend time as a tank driver if all I have to do is sit still for 10 - 20 min while the tank gunner for the cannon do all the job. At least as a deployed prowler tank driver.

And I really don't understand way lighting fills the roll of one man tanks. That is like saying that it's useless to have a gunner in your tank witch is so untrue. Also the lighting is more efficient as solo tank then a so called MBT (though I have no clue what's medium about them) anyway so if you want to solo driver it's already better to spawn a lighting. Sure the advantage is quite small as the only advantage you have in the lighting is that its little bit faster but can put out as mush damage as any moving tank.

[Mechzz]

The Magrider in PS2 is flat out perfect as it is. I can play it solo to good effect and I can play it as a team vehicle and have as much or more fun in it. The upgraded guns for both driver and gunner are awesome.

Seems the TR and NC got the short end of the stick for a change!

Also, the poll is missing questions about "fun" - the Devs are trying to ensure as many of the playerbase are having fun as possible at any given time. The crowd advocating driver <> gunner strike me as a lot of scrooges sitting at the top of Peris Field Tower shouting "bah, humbug!" every time they see a VS tank column roll towards Regent Rock. Or maybe they are part of the column, secretly enjoying it?

[Sunrock]

Originally Posted by Mechzz

Seems the TR and NC got the short end of the stick for a change!

As a TR player I don't agree we got the short end of the stick. I been playing around with both Vanguard, Prawlers and Magriders. They all got there strength and weaknesses but they are all 3 equally easy/hard to solo with.

[Mox]

@figment: since you have gathered a lot of quasi metric data it would be nice to see some more advanced statistical testing. I would love to see if there are significant differences between the gamer groups (fps, rpg, etc.) and other variables regarding the opinion on mbt. Maybe you should also build some indices out of the variables that almost measure the same thing.

[JesNC]

I actually like the current tank driver/gunner + secondary gunner/commander combo by now.

It's different than before in PS1, but it works! And it requires in no way less teamplay.

[Crator]

I wouldn't take any options away. IMO, you are more effective when allowing your gunner to use the main weapon on a MBT and the driver being dedicated to driving. So, give the tank drivers a cert to be able to give control of the main gun over to the gunner. Also, if you obtain said cert they could offer more certs that allow you to have better situational awareness while driving. For instance better camera control or viewpoints. Could also allow the driver to use the 2ndary gun at this point.

In a MBT I don't much mind quick switching (with a minor delay) between main gun and 2ndary gun for solo drivers. It just makes sense that they would be able to switch fairly quickly due to the physical build of a tank and the weapon controls being setup inside the cockpit to allow such a thing. Sunderers on the other hand are long buses and should have a longer delay in switching gun spots. I would even go as far to say that they should require that any occupant step out of the vehicle and walk to the appropriate location on the outside of the vehicle to enter a different gunner position.

Galaxies should also require longer delays in switching guns and perhaps also require stepping outside to get to another gun spot. Perhaps an option for the GAL driver to quick switch to any gun while still seated in the driver spot. It makes sense that the driver could have the equipment up front in the driver seat which includes a monitor for each of the guns with controls for shooting them. If another player jumps in the gun spot while a driver is using it the driver will get a UI indicator on his screen that tells him there's a gunner in the seat and could switch back to just being a driver or to another empty gun spot.

The Liberator should require stepping outside to get to another gun position. *Not so much for game-play reason but for immersion.

[Snipefrag]

I think they have to add a high level cert or a new set of tanks: the advanced MBT (or AMBT, that are so complicated they require dedicated gunners). That way people can play how they want.

Good point whoever mentioned about the Gal/Lib, their current stance on MBT's doesn't fit with some of the other vehicles.. Why the discrepancy?

[Flaropri]

I've posted quite a bit on this topic in the past, so I'll just put in a few thoughts that came up as a result of the survey.

1. Is this linked into the official forums? In any event, I as a general rule dislike these types of surveys. While more in-depth than polls posted on say, CNN's website, it still has the problems of being specific to the people on the website, who are interested enough to take it, etc. It's also something that people could theoretically do multiple times if they wanted to weight it.

Essentially, there's no way to say if the results are actually representative of the full demographic.

That said, it is put together well enough, and for a general feel it would be interesting to see the results after a good few hundred votes (at a minimum) and I did it myself to contribute. The poll is slightly slanted, but not appreciably so, it's mostly well put together, except perhaps the first question which has such a short list.


2. That out of the way, I was someone who voted for 2-man MBTs... but part of this is that I would also like Heavy tanks for 3-man or larger crews. I used to play a lot of Warhammer 40k (IG to be specific) and I really like a lot of the tank designs in that game. Among others were, for example, Baneblades, which were basically super-heavy tanks, while the Leman Russ filled in as the actual main battle tank for the Imperium.

For video game purposes, I think that having small crews for MBTs is better. Even if the Leman Russ would have had at least 4 crew, part of that had to do with sponson weaponry, which is lacking in PS2 MBT design. I think it would be great though, to have that kind of tank, with side-guns as well as the main cannon(s). But that's something down the line. For how PS2 MBTs are designed, 2 crew seems good.

3. I like driving, whether it's for myself or for others. Also, I do think that it's harder to hit distant targets while driving, but that's less because your attention is split (still a factor, just not a great one IMO) and more because of the general lack of stability. In other words, I think if you're moving it is harder to hit distant targets whether you're driving or not (arguably slightly easier when driving since you know where the tank's going to go barring getting rammed).


4. Some things were unclear. For example, I agree there should be a delay when switching positions, but from the ghost of threads past I recall disagreeing very much with the AMOUNT of delay (with me on the shorter side of things), and I think that plays a large factor in whether people want it or not.



Anyway, interesting poll, as I said, I'd be very interested in seeing the results with an appreciable amount of entries.

[Crator]

Originally Posted by Flaropri

I've posted quite a bit on this topic in the past, so I'll just put in a few thoughts that came up as a result of the survey.

1. Is this linked into the official forums? In any event, I as a general rule dislike these types of surveys. While more in-depth than polls posted on say, CNN's website, it still has the problems of being specific to the people on the website, who are interested enough to take it, etc. It's also something that people could theoretically do multiple times if they wanted to weight it.

Essentially, there's no way to say if the results are actually representative of the full demographic.

It would benefit you to glance over other posts in threads, or do a search in threads for specific things. This was already mentioned before. You cannot hold survey threads on the beta forums. It's against the rules.

[Flaropri]

Originally Posted by Crator

It would benefit you to glance over other posts in threads, or do a search in threads for specific things. This was already mentioned before. You cannot hold survey threads on the beta forums. It's against the rules.

*shrug*

Fair enough (PSU sort of did the same by removing create poll from most forumites). I only ask simply because it would get more exposure that way, and have a better chance of reaching a descent number of entries.

[ringring]

Originally Posted by Sunrock

So you're saying those that drive lightings cant shoot? Because driving and shooting is too hard?

Driving is not hard enough for it to be able to diminish your effectives as a driver if you need to use a gun at the same time too if you ask me.
And how is it not team play to not have gunner in your tower if you can drive and gun too?

This is just some bogus QQ about PS2 is not exactly as game X.

The fact is that it does and it's clear in the way that ps2 tanks are being fought. It's rather static.

The lightning comment refers to .... if you want to drive and gun the option is there in the lightning. It's a good little tank and the gun upgrades are good too.

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by ringring

The fact is that it does and it's clear in the way that ps2 tanks are being fought. It's rather static.

The lightning comment refers to .... if you want to drive and gun the option is there in the lightning. It's a good little tank and the gun upgrades are good too.

I believe "Staticness" of combat is also favored by the paper armor.

Terrain itself should deter tanks from getting into a place, not its armor or gun mechanisms.

Nothing that couldn't be seen coming a long long time ago though...

As far as I'm concerned, I said I would try before getting to conclusions and I can now say that I am disappointed with the current state of ground vehicles and their combat in PS2. For many reasons (many which were expected), I do not find it exciting nor appealing. It has no potential to build one of those intense and awesome moments you shared with your gunner in PS1.

While I spent 80%+ of my time driving vehicles in PS1, if I play PS2, it is/will be for infantry combat and objectives.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Mox

@figment: since you have gathered a lot of quasi metric data it would be nice to see some more advanced statistical testing. I would love to see if there are significant differences between the gamer groups (fps, rpg, etc.) and other variables regarding the opinion on mbt. Maybe you should also build some indices out of the variables that almost measure the same thing.

I don't personally have a lot of time for that, if you want I can send you the excel file and any new .csv files I got (note that you'd have to convert it from a dutch to english excel, turned out my brother installed the dutch version prior to me taking it over... ;P Mostly a matter of replacing Som by Sum though ).


I did do a quick check between PS players and non-players with regards their voting on question 8. PS players and non PS players alike prefer at roughly 2 to 1 the split controls (a slightly higher portion of non-PS1 players likes driver-gunner, but not by much tbh). Most interesting is the popularity among both groups of 3 crew tanks.

PS1 players only


All


I haven't checked the latest stats though. As the sample group is still small, it could go in various directions. But I do see a lot of trends that are true for both sides as those answers are very one sided.


As for measuring "fun"... I'd say that's measured by what people prefer as a combined package, not? >.>