Got tank?

[Knocky]

Originally Posted by PoisonTaco

The tanks remind me a lot of Battlefield 2142. At least how one side had the traditional tank and the other had the hovering tank.

Looks really neat, and I'm liking how there's going to be differences like this between the three factions. Hopefully it balances out.

Seriously?

These tanks remind me of the ones in Planetside.

/RollEyes

[ThGlump]

In ps1 van was proper tank, just with different mobility. So in ps2 its really more reminiscent of bf2142 - track+turret against hover+fixed gun.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Raymac

If you notice, the ones that are complaining about the gun itself are the same people that are hardset against the pilot controlling the main gun. This is just another avenue for them to complain about that. But I'll leave it at that because we already have enough threads on that topic.

Another avenue? It is the same.

Btw, those "same people" is pretty much everyone but you and a VERY select few others...

Try the official forums and count pro-driver=gunner players there. Go on.

[BlazingSun]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

for kills, the 50 cal is better than the main gun.

The tank-shotgun is a secondary weapon

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by BlazingSun

The tank-shotgun is a secondary weapon

you're only strengthing my argument that the secondary weapons are extreamly effective killing weapons.

[BlazingSun]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

you're only strengthing my argument that the secondary weapons are extreamly effective killing weapons.

I never argued against that. I was talking about the driver's 2nd weapon though.

[SKYeXile]

oh driver secondary...nah never used that....was alittle confused there since iv never herd of and other sort of secondary than the 50 cal.

i wonder if they plan different driver secondarys for PS2?

i did see like a "200mm, classic" for the vanguard, so maybe.

[BorisBlade]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

i did see like a "200mm, classic" for the vanguard, so maybe.

Lol i was about to ask where you saw that at. Obviously you meant 20mm. which is almost an 80 cal. Definately no joke. I do hope tho that they keep the system of "this caliber type is good for armor and air but less effective versus infantry, while this other caliber is great for infantry and worse for armor/air" That always allowed for having choice and of course customizing for the fight at hand, which is part of their goal. So im guessing somethin along those lines is likely.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Figment

Another avenue? It is the same.

Btw, those "same people" is pretty much everyone but you and a VERY select few others...

Try the official forums and count pro-driver=gunner players there. Go on.

A) I've done time in forumside and fuck that place.
B) Bring up any idea that isn't exactly the same as PS1 and most veterans are going to hate on it. (with the exception of BFRs)
C) It's more than a "very" select few that are open to the idea of letting the pilot of a tank shoot the gun.

And by "another avenue" I meant there's other threads devoted to that debate so I don't want to play a part in turning this one into another. I may already be too late, so that's all I'll say about it.

[acosmo]

Originally Posted by Raymac

A) I've done time in forumside and fuck that place.
B) Bring up any idea that isn't exactly the same as PS1 and most veterans are going to hate on it. (with the exception of BFRs)
C) It's more than a "very" select few that are open to the idea of letting the pilot of a tank shoot the gun.

And by "another avenue" I meant there's other threads devoted to that debate so I don't want to play a part in turning this one into another. I may already be too late, so that's all I'll say about it.

our biggest problem with this is that the devs have not given any reason for it other than catering to the lcd. if you could give a better reason for adopting this new paradigm than selling out to highly individualistic, underdeveloped and immature adolescents raised on singleplayer than we should surely join you

there's just no point for our side to argue about it though anymore. dev's are implementing it. no contest

[Sabrak]

Originally Posted by acosmo

highly individualistic, underdeveloped and immature adolescents raised on singleplayer

Yeah, right.

'Cus back in 2003, we were totally raised in multiplayer.

[acosmo]

Originally Posted by Sabrak

Yeah, right.

'Cus back in 2003, we were totally raised in multiplayer.

i see what you're getting at, but, the games we played were much less streamlined and required players to find the most effective methods of working together in order to win. in a way, they were much more social games than the ones of today.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by acosmo

our biggest problem with this is that the devs have not given any reason for it other than catering to the lcd. if you could give a better reason for adopting this new paradigm than selling out to highly individualistic, underdeveloped and immature adolescents raised on singleplayer than we should surely join you

there's just no point for our side to argue about it though anymore. dev's are implementing it. no contest

You're right. The devs haven't articulated why they made this change which is a bit frustrating. But my guess is to simply allow the person that spends the skill points in an assault vehicle be allowed to use its main weapon.

A tank is not a transport like a Galaxy. It is an assault vehicle. I've said in other threads how even if the secondary gunner seats are never used (which is unlikely) teamwork, multiple tanks coordinating together, will still win out over a group of individuals.

I don't think it plays to the lcd. I think it plays to a common expectation from somebody new to the franchise. If I spend my skill points in improving my tank, why should I be relegated to a chauffeur? I don't see a problem for saving that job for the transport pilots.

[CuddlyChud]

Originally Posted by acosmo

i see what you're getting at, but, the games we played were much less streamlined and required players to find the most effective methods of working together in order to win. in a way, they were much more social games than the ones of today.

I dunno what time period you might have grown up in, but in my experience crew served vehicles have never been the norm. And streamlining games doesn't make teamwork more or less necessary. You might as well just say that the clunkier and more complicated the game, the more teamwork there will be. I've never noticed a decrease in teamwork over the years. A pub is a pub and always will be.

[acosmo]

tanks working together will remain more effective than tanks without coordination and they will also be more effective per capita. it also makes good sense that players should be able to use items that they train for. i take my comment about catering to the lcd back, i meant something else. at the core of this new paradigm is the solo player or the singleplayer experience. it's the idea that a game should do everything it can to entertain and reward the isolated player. ps2 is being designed for the singleplayer.

i think the games of today should focus on making gamers into team players. i think people derive more satisfaction from winning as a team, as a group rather than winning on their own. you may not feel that video games have much relevance on our society today but i think they can make all the difference. if games we play reward us for being team players and working together (playing together cooperatively) then our next generation will be much better prepared to join society or become better members of it.

i accept the new tank mechanic, but, they will not longer feel like tanks.