Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2

[CutterJohn]

Lightnings will have a choice of different weapons, like the MBT gunners do.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Rivenshield

Because the Lightning will prolly just have the same gun as a Sundy turret. There'll *be* no mission-configurable Lightning. Which makes the MBT potentially more powerful, which stimulates teamwork, etc.

Ehr no. It will have fully customizable weapons, including AA, AI and AV, each of which supposedly just a bit more powerful than any MBT gunner.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Tamas

To have valid statistics you'd need a random sample size of 1000 people to get even close to plausible results (I didn't make up these rules, this is standard).

You have to agree that this place is more for PS1 vets, who will mostly vote PS1 way. It does not represent what the whole community might want, only that 62 PS1 vets want it.

Already indicated that the sample size was small. Regardless, the PS1 playerbase, the entirety of it, will probably share that ratio because it's what they know worked. Each and every single PS1 player you bring this up to and didn't know about it yet will bring up the same issues.

The whole community will be PS2 vets. They will like whatever PS2 is. So if that's like PS1, then they will like it like we did in PS1. That's how mass opinion works.

Besides, players who never played PlanetSide don't HAVE an informed opinion on splitting roles because they probably never played that way. To say it therefore should never happen is a load of bull, because one day there were pre-PS1 players who had never played in two-three crew units. Yet somehow these people now believe it is the best way to do it.

Strange huh?

Never argue from a mass that is uninformed and has no opinion based on experience and worse, is not polled at all about this. I find it absolutely ironic that anyone that will say that any poll conducted here is biased, yet has absolutely no poll or statistic to back up their own claim of what "the masses" want ("yet somehow know exactly what they want") and even if they had, that it would be the opinion of uninformed people.

It's like polling people if they agree with the EULA or only ask those people that actually read the EULA.

[CollinBRTD]

The lightning is still a one man tank and the MBT is a 2 men tank in PS2.

I guess we just have to wait how its working in PS2.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Tamas

As per driver and gunner - I'd like that to be a "specialization". Take Reaver - one man normal as seen in footage, however if it turns into 2 man, than it acts as Helis in BF - 1 pilot with the rockets and the gunner with now rotating gun/cannon (whatever you put there). Now the gun would rotate, zoom in, infrared vision - all that, making it far more deadly and powerful than the static gun we saw in the GDC video ( fixed aim, no zoom etc). Just by making it 2 man it becomes far more deadly without even "buffing" the damage, speed etc.

You forget that while this single unit becomes more effective compared to a single player version, there'd only be half the amount of them.

It is a numerical restriction. On the previous page, Atomos, stated he didn't want to see a split because then there'd be more tanks. That's a viable argument, though I and others are very concerned of 'spam', where it becomes too dominant, used too much and infringing on the viability of other units. Atomos and others suggested power being related to the amount of troops inside (weapons or shield or other characteristics). That would help in toning down their power and making gunners more attractive, but it'd still be a lot of potential spam and infringe on the Lightning's AV role.

[Tamas]

Originally Posted by Figment

Already indicated that the sample size was small. Regardless, the PS1 playerbase, the entirety of it, will probably share that ratio because it's what they know worked. Each and every single PS1 player you bring this up to and didn't know about it yet will bring up the same issues.

The whole community will be PS2 vets. They will like whatever PS2 is. So if that's like PS1, then they will like it like we did in PS1. That's how mass opinion works.

Besides, players who never played PlanetSide don't HAVE an informed opinion on splitting roles because they probably never played that way. To say it therefore should never happen is a load of bull, because one day there were pre-PS1 players who had never played in two-three crew units. Yet somehow these people now believe it is the best way to do it.

Strange huh?

Never argue from a mass that is uninformed and has no opinion based on experience and worse, is not polled at all about this. I find it absolutely ironic that anyone that will say that any poll conducted here is biased, yet has absolutely no poll or statistic to back up their own claim of what "the masses" want ("yet somehow know exactly what they want") and even if they had, that it would be the opinion of uninformed people.

It's like polling people if they agree with the EULA or only ask those people that actually read the EULA.

"I can't prove there is no god, you can't prove there is one". By default both our statements are invalid. So even though I can't back up my claim, you can't back up yours, thus a standstill.


On another matter. I personally don't believe in balancing with players per vehicle approach. Lightning is a fun fast vehicle, that should primarily hit and run or go AA (as it was stated it will have the best AA), it should not the "Main battle tank" to lead the charge - the Vanguard/Prowler/Mag should be.
Defning their roles should be placed purely on their strengths/weaknesses.

Take WoT for example. A light tank (AMX 13 90) can destroy a heavy tank if the player knows what he is doing (above average skill). Heavy tank - great front armor, big gun, slow turret, light tank - normal gun, no armor, very fast. You can simply avoid the aim of the heavy and circle him to death.

In another case hard counters - a lot of tanks = just bring what counters them. There will be counters - from infantry to air vehicles and turrets (from engineers). Just like any RTS game - you stack one unit, you lose to anyone with some experience. Besides the tank problem would be solved by several liberators.

Since none of us are in the actual Beta, we are purely speculating on the information and building scenarios (what if). Until people test the actual thing, I don't want to say I'm 100% sure on what I say, since I'm not.

Yes, I'm more biased towards driver/gunner 1 person, since I hate my experience with 1 driver 1 gunner. However I'd prefer optional approach instead of only 2 or 2 mandatory players.


Let me point our something. Lets say you require 2 people. Yet anyone can take a Vanguard, drive to a location, switch to gunner and shoot. I'm very sure this would happen (hell, I'd do that if I didn't have any friends online to go 2 man). In this case players that do that are less efficient, but they still achieve their desire to go solo. In the process they are sort of hindering their team, as a tank is performing under strength and is likely an easier kill for the enemy.

[Figment]

Vanguard, Prowler and Magrider will each have different roles though.

If we are talking WoT, then as they have been defined sofar, the Vanguard is the Tiger II (heavy brawler), Prowler the Pershing (speedy flanker) and Magrider akin to a cross between Jagdpanther and an US turreted TD (agile sniper). You cannot expect each of these to lead the charge in the same way.

The Lightning will probably be something akin to the M26 Chaffee or VK3001(H). The AMX 13 90 is a bit too unique to compare with due to the clip gun. The AMX is a much more hit and run unit because it cannot stay around too long while reloading. Personally expect the Lightning to be more both hit and run and continuous circling unit (hence Chaffee).



I'd much rather have someone (get out and) switch seats and be a stationary target and easy kill, then someone driving around with heavy armour and a heavy gun, on his own, while all his buddies do so as well. That'd recreate the BFR-experience where fightning small numbers is hard but doable, but large numbers impossible because of the leverage of numbers in endurance and firepower.

The Liberator argument also requires it to be available and not instantly by shot down by all the Lightning AA that would drive along the one crew MBTs (besides, all MBTs would probably have AA on top anyway and switch to that).

[Tamas]

Just to be clear - Vanguard is IS4, not KT. KT - lol shoot lower armor = 100% pen, fire and dead engine.

I hope Mag plays as BF 2142 Type 32 Nekomata. Strafing sideways and firing is awesome.

I'm going NC and VS (different servers), as I love their weapons (how they perform/look) and both faction vehicles (except VS non nanite air - le terrible vehicle).

I hope Lightning is Type 59 prior to the nerf (lol had 78% win rate for first month). Speed, good gun and won't die very easily (unless ammo rack).

I'm going Lightning full AA - hope there are cannons (like flak) as I prefer them over heatseaker missiles. I just have a thing for AA vehicles - like when they show movies with air warning sounding and flak tracer fire going into the night sky - I just melt at it's awesomeness. Loved the part in GDC vids where Higby is flying in night time and has incoming VS ground fire - I imagine a lot of action on the ground in the actual game due to more players - that is so awesome!!! Also engineer for more AA turrets! And base defense for AA turrets! *stops shaking hand*

Anyways, I hope I get into beta to see how this all works out.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

If you want to drive a vehicle without a weapon you can use a quad or wait until the buggies are released, just don't mess with the tanks.

Wait, what?

Why on earth would you present *buggies* as the go-to for dedicated drivers, and present that as balanced with driver-gunned MBTs?

If anything could be considered acceptable, I'd argue that the lightly armored, faster buggies would be the more balanced choice to make driver gunned.

[Tamas]

Originally Posted by kaffis

Wait, what?

Why on earth would you present *buggies* as the go-to for dedicated drivers, and present that as balanced with driver-gunned MBTs?

If anything could be considered acceptable, I'd argue that the lightly armored, faster buggies would be the more balanced choice to make driver gunned.

erm the art showed a buggy with a grande launcher on it (I believe a tweet from Senior art director), so buggies will get weapons, also they hinted at 2 man buggies in some interview with Higby (said was a possibility).

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by kaffis

Wait, what?

Why on earth would you present *buggies* as the go-to for dedicated drivers, and present that as balanced with driver-gunned MBTs?

If anything could be considered acceptable, I'd argue that the lightly armored, faster buggies would be the more balanced choice to make driver gunned.

Buggies move way faster than MBT's do, so the current line of thought for some is that because of their higher speed it would be much more difficult for the driver to also have to concentrate on gunning and still keep control of his vehicle. Thus having a dedicated driver would be vital.

Mind you, I don't necessarily share that view since I drove a Lightning at near buggy speeds (75kph) quite often without much issue in PS1. I have seen others post such reasoning on the boards here though.

That said, driving a Thresher solo in PS2 would truly be an orgasmic experience!

[Hmr85]

Originally Posted by Figment

Already indicated that the sample size was small. Regardless, the PS1 playerbase, the entirety of it, will probably share that ratio because it's what they know worked. Each and every single PS1 player you bring this up to and didn't know about it yet will bring up the same issues.

The whole community will be PS2 vets. They will like whatever PS2 is. So if that's like PS1, then they will like it like we did in PS1. That's how mass opinion works.

Besides, players who never played PlanetSide don't HAVE an informed opinion on splitting roles because they probably never played that way. To say it therefore should never happen is a load of bull, because one day there were pre-PS1 players who had never played in two-three crew units. Yet somehow these people now believe it is the best way to do it.

Strange huh?

Never argue from a mass that is uninformed and has no opinion based on experience and worse, is not polled at all about this. I find it absolutely ironic that anyone that will say that any poll conducted here is biased, yet has absolutely no poll or statistic to back up their own claim of what "the masses" want ("yet somehow know exactly what they want") and even if they had, that it would be the opinion of uninformed people.

It's like polling people if they agree with the EULA or only ask those people that actually read the EULA.

Very well said, I agree completely. I truly believe come beta. They devs should have the MBT's set up both ways. So for instance maybe have a month where it requires multiple guys to crew a tank. Followed by another month of 1 man tanks. Then hold a poll or a forum where they could receive feedback on what players want. I really believe a lot of people would ultimately choose multi crew MBT's after actually getting a chance to see how much more effective they could be with a dedicated driver and gunner.

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by Erendil

That said, driving a Thresher solo in PS2 would truly be an orgasmic experience!

Dealing with turning AND strafing AND gun orientation would be pro.


1-man threshers = the new "Land Reaver" ?


EDIT:
Just to add a point about buggies. I think their force was from allowing 2 users with REXO and bailing. It compensated for the high risk associated with low durability.

The Tresher+Lancer combo was particularly good:
Tanks -> evade and come back to hunt with AV from long range
low-HP tanks -> finish off with AV or thresher orbs (good at AV, great at AI)
Infantry alone -> hit and run to kill softies, bail if very-damaged, resume on foot
Infantry among heavy vehicles -> hit and run to kill softies, bail if very damaged, resume on foot

The Enforcer was also god at roaming around battles and sniping targets (one hit kills on infantry with decent long-range accuracy). It was also great at evading with the best forward speed of all buggies and good armor. You could also finish things off with the Jackhammer should the vehicle get too damaged.
Bail+Jam+double phoenix/deci shots was also quite good if you did not miss the jam.

The marauder was a bit more complicated... It had decent AI and 2 guns but the machine gun turret usually did not really help that much. It forced you to get really close without giving the evasion/mobility of threshers. 2 guns did not compensate for that IMO. The pounder gun could clear a cluster of infantry really fast though.

With buggy bails, we may see more of suicide tactics than this kind of stuff, though. Bail is OP.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Figment

will probably share that ratio because it's what they know worked.

Or because its just what they're used to, and lack the imagination to see anything else as capable of working, or just want the exact same game again(which is fine, but not an argument against change, just an argument for a preference).

Kinda like how nobody is complaining that the Lib has a powerful driver cannon, despite being a 3 man teamwork oriented vehicle. Why? Because thats how it was in PS1.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Or because its just what they're used to, and lack the imagination to see anything else as capable of working, or just want the exact same game again(which is fine, but not an argument against change, just an argument for a preference).

The only ones lacking imagination would be the ones who cannot fathom a multi-player unit while never having played with one. Considering everyone who played PS1 knows damn well how a single player tank works, they're the only ones with a legit argument for preference. The rest simply never had experience on BOTH systems. BOTH Cutter, BOTH.

New players will ALWAYS adapt to the game they meet, so to say they NEED single crew tanks to find the game acceptable for instance is utter bullshit. If that were the case, PS1 would NOT have had multi-crew split tanks! But keep ignoring that since it doesn't suit your own preference...

But ffs Cutter, you are a mod now, drop the ad hominems of others not knowing what they want and being biased, without having a good reason to back that up. People who have no experience cannot make a choice in advance. People that have experience can say what would happen, big difference.

Putting words in other people's mouths, pretending you know what they think and why in order to whenever they disagree with you dismiss them without any argument to backup that claim is very annoying. No, these people don't want a carbon copy of PS1, but that doesn't mean PS2 has to be a complete 100% overhaul in terms of game mechanics and systems from PS1 either. For something to be overhauled, PS1 would have to have failed in that respect or a better alternative available.

Changing for the sake of changing is what you get when you let Micheal Bay make a nostalgia movie.

Kinda like how nobody is complaining that the Lib has a powerful driver cannon, despite being a 3 man teamwork oriented vehicle. Why? Because thats how it was in PS1.

You want to compare a Libs' fixed forward level flying nose gun with a turret mounted (dual) 100mm or higher cal cannon? Good luck with that.