Crewed MBT's for one week

[maradine]

Dude. Hyperbole alert. Come on.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally Posted by Figment

I've said in the past, I could imagine a light, fixed forward mounted AI machine gun, indeed like the ps1 mag.

I like this idea. An optional fixed-forward driver gun (or maybe with limited arc) for all three tanks sounds like a good compromise to me. Gives drivers something to pew pew with, without making gunners optional - i.e. pretty much the same situation as the Lib.

That said, I do think it should be just one option - personally I think I'd prefer no driver gun, so I can go third-person and just focus on driving. Dropping the gun should give you a minor buff to some other aspect instead IMO - speed, turning, whatever.

[Uhlan]

Apparently, the Dev's want to make the game accessible for any random person who decides to spend the cash to play the game and get a taste for what's available.

How dare they...

That said, I wish they would have gone about the MBT's this way.

1. Make resources count, don't have MBT-Obtainium? can't make ADVANCED tanks. Everyone in your faction is part of the "bloody" infantry (with the exception of point 2).

2. Make a light tank universally available such as the Lightning. This would allow the random player/lone wolf to have access to decent tanking options and might stimulate a taste for specializing a bit.
a. Allow Private JoeRandom to speciallize it any way he/she wants. Some
examples.
1. Light machine gun anti-personnel/Battle-taxi for up to 4 players (1/2 squad). The Sunderer is only available for those who have certs
ground out as a squad leader.
2. Light anti-tank (harasser) fairly useless against personnel.
3. Forward observer options to help out the folks in the heavies who
have put the time and certs into tank specialization or for there
brothers and sisters in the air who have done something similar in
their chosen field.
b. Grinding certs in these vehicles will net you points toward the
the heavies.

I know it adds another layer to a something the dev's wanna make as simple as possible, but it would add some much needed depth.

Just some thoughts.

[Uhlan]

wow, my post looks like crap, sorry. Believe me. it looked really snazzy a second ago. Sorry about the readability.

[Figment]

Funny, Seagull, you're done nothing but denounce the position of others and trying to end debate by stating Higby made up his mind, whoever wants driver/gunner changes should shut up and putting your own position on the matter above that of others without actually using examples that mathematically add up. You are even more vague than Mitt Romneys plans for the economy. You say "stronger weaponry" without having any notion of the ratio required.

And Maradine, yes you can make efficiency assumptions about those things depending on how easy it is to lead, angle of attack, type and place of engagement, etc. You can assume high and low end efficiencies based on tank characteristics. It is very straightforward in one on one comparisons, from which you can derive other engagements. On the current tanks you can presume an accuracy of 80%, average of angle engagement and where players will put their increased armour. WoT is far more complex in terms of balance, but you can easily predict how an engagement will end if you get the drop or the other does or if you both engage and expose what side based on stats, type of gun, speed etc: it is how you plan for battle and in ps1 and PS2 that is much simpler, despite of aircav; you always try to up your efficiency and lower theirs. Despite all the variables, you know damn well you can predict outcomes of battles with ease in the field UNLESS you set yourself up for a 50/50 chance. If other units deal damage is of no relevance to balance, as you cannot predict what else will be there, you can only balance individual units or groups of units of the same kind, before looking at combined effects and strategies.

But the problem, Maradine, is that we aren't balancing an unit which variables we can all change. We are balancing "a Prowler with two people and a solo Prowler" VS "a Prowler with three people", while also balancing "a Prowler with three people" against "three Prowlers driven solo". BEFORE we even look into actual inter-empire balance. Unfortunately, that is too advanced for people who think there are compromises possible. And in terms of combinations, what about two Prowlers and an AA Lightning or one Prowler manned by two and an AA Lightning? All of the above require three crew, you honestly think that just by tweaking firepower you can balance them all into a single unit?

We are not talking about the different guns here, which can always be balanced between equal numbers of tanks with the same manpower, by altering all those variables, but to have the SAME UNIT FRAME balanced against itself in terms of manpower by creating new advantages and disadvantages with only firepower to play with is something else entirely! The endurance / firepower ratio would have to be about 1/9 to ttk wise compete with 3/3! With a ttk of three shots, that is pretty much asking for instagib on tanks weapons, because otherwise it is still both tactically and mathematically advantageous to bring three solo tanks instead...

[Figment]

For the record, do you understand the stacking effect of damage if you use multiple units instead of one?

Assuming endurance is equal between three tanks vs 1, the least damage those tanks deal is when the three tanks will die one by one, right? That means the amount of damage they can put out is one life + two lives + three lives = 6 lives worth of damage, assuming they all stand in front of the gun of the solo tank. So you, as a solo tank with three people inside.

Now, that means if one solo driver tank can fire one shot per life before dieing, you already get at least 6 shots against you in this engagement. And that is assuming insta-killing the enemy! In reality, they will get 3-4 shots per life. So the three crew tank faces 18-24 shots to compensate with damage absorption, damage dealing and dodging.

Let me know how that math works out for you in a compromise vehicle.

[McFeeble]

I prefer they way they do it now, its more fun. I dont see the issue in giving people the option if it is balanced though, but would prefer this is done via a different vehicle, as I can see balance issues if they went down the route of just swopping gunner and driver guns on the mag.

[Figment]

I can tell you now that's not going to work, because you're trying to balance endurance vs firepower ratios for the same vehicle with different manpower involved. :/

People who think it can be balanced clearly havn't actually tried to make it balanced, equal choices...



If you have Endurance [Em (mbt) or El (lightning)], Firepower [Fn], with n=1 for driver gun, n=2 for gunner and F3 for gunner of the three crew tank and F4 for the second gunner of the three crew tank. We really should assume Fn can be altered per unit type and can consist of a variety of weapons as well. I mean, why keep balance simple, right?

E on the other hand, being defined as the time to get killed conists of a formula of hitpoints and damage taken. This value of E remains the same in hitpoints, because we're talking about the same unit frame. In reality, it does vary with the angle at which the unit is approached. One must assume that angles differ more and become more advantageous as there are more vehicles involved for different positioning and encircling strategies. But, for the sake of simplicity, let's assume a set value of E for any particular unit. Keep in mind though that in reality, the less units you have, the lower your practical endurance.

The same goes for speed, acceleration and profile size and armour weaknesses: these WILL be the exact same for the same tank with one, two or three crew members inside because they're not going to make these separate certs. This also means you can NOT, I repeat NOT, use these variables to balance the unit against itself in a different configuration. This leaves only Firepower to work with!

Note also that F1, F2, F3 and F4 can vary in type and strength depending on MBT or Lightning as well as choice of weapons. Hence we will have F1m and F1l. Note that F1m can be AP, HE, HEAT. F2 can be Bassilisk, Kobalt, Fury, Enforcer, Halbert, etc. for a Vanguard. F1l can be AP, HE, HEAT, AA. Now, I'm not going over all those options seperately, but you can imagine you can replace those type of weaponry in any future comparison. These are already non-equal choices between them, but now you're also trying to balance them against a large variety of configuration options.

Then we can start looking at the amount of manpower used, because if you're going to pick a unit and have X crew available, you're going to try and utilise X crew as optimal as possible as a player. X will be the same for each option and we will treat manpower as a constant. The minimal crew size of each option will determine X, X is minimal 3 on the new cert option, so X will be three. As said, X determines the amount of units one can select, in this case, with three it's either:

[1] 3x Solo Tank (1 crew req. per time) - can be Lightnings or MBTs in any configuration that totals 3 tanks.
[2] 1x Solo Tank + 2 crew tank (driver gunning), two crewed tank + solo MBT or Lightning.
[3] 1x three crew tank.

Now, for [1], we have 3Em + 3F1m OR 3F2 tops (can switch guns), 3El least +3F1l. Combinations are possible in order to get the best mix, regardless, Etotal is always more than Em, firepower is at least 3F1l to 3F1m and may also be any combination that results in more firepower.
For [2], we have Em + Em or El, with F1m + F2 + F1m or F2 or F1l. It could also be a three crew tank manned by two, by which we have Em + F3 OR F4, + F1m or F2 or F1l.
For [3], we have Em + F3 + F4.

That's the obvious part: what could you bring? So far you can still follow right? Sounds like really simple choice balance already, doesn't it? And that's not even looking at different types of guns... ANYWAY.


Now let's start balancing this so they're equal alternatives.

To be a balanced choice of equal alternatives, the following has to be true:

1=2, 2=3, 1=3

Now to simplify this, the easiest way for a quick comparison is to look at the various ratios of damage taken vs damage dealt and also considering the alternative options you can use to create flexibility in the field.


OPTIONS [1]
3 MBTs (include all the following options):
3Em * 3F1m
3Em * 3F2
3Em * (2F1m + F2)
3Em * (F1m + 2F2)

2 MBTs 1 Lightning:
(2Em + El) * (2F1m + F1l)
(2Em + El) * (F1m + F2 + F1l)
(2Em + El) * (2F2 + F1l)

MBT + 2 Lightnings:
(Em + 2El) * (F1m + 2F1l)
(Em + 2El) * (F2 + 2F1l)

3 Lightnings:
3El * 3F1l

OPTIONS [2]
MBT (driver=gunner + gunner) + solo MBT:
2Em * (2F1m + F2)
2Em * (F1m + 2F2)

MBT (driver=gunner + gunner) + Lightning:
(Em + El) * (F1m + F2 + F1l)

MBT (driver=/=gunner + gunner) + solo MBT:
2Em * (F1m + F3)
2Em * (F1m + F4)

MBT (driver=/=gunner + gunner) + Lightning:
(Em + El) * (F3 + F1l)
(Em + El) * (F4 + F1l)

OPTIONS [3]
MBT (driver=/=gunner + 2 gunners):
Em * (F3 + F4)


As you can see, the endurance disadvantage of [3] is that you have a third to a half of the enemy endurance. This has to be completely compensated for by firepower! Is that really feasible?


What does that mean? Well, let's just start by equalising the obvious, three crew MBT vs three solo MBTs shall we?

Em * (F3 + F4) = 3Em * 3F1m
F3 + F4 = 3Em * 3F1m / Em
F3 + F4 = 9F1m

So, the simplified maths assuming ideal, fair conditions, suggests the combined firepower of F3 and F4 would have to be 9 times as strong as a main gun on a solo MBT to make up for its disadvantage in endurance. Okay, let's assume for simplicity that F3 = F4. That means that F3 would have to be 4,5 times stronger than the solo MBT main gun to make up for the endurance difference. Considering 4-5 is about the amount of shots it takes to kill a MBT, these would instantly kill any tank they see, especially Lightnings, to make it "balanced". That's going to upset other unit balance, how? I don't think I even need to go any further, do I?



Alternative evaluation: Stacking lives effect

And that's when we're NOT including the stacking effect of having multiple tanks and being able to use encircling tactics to increase lifespan and tanks only being able to tackle one enemy tank at a time. See, the effect of stacking can easily be demonstrated in a theoretical fight between two alternatives. Let's take the above situation of one tank fighting three tanks. Forget the above calculations for a second and start from scratch and just assume a total of three manpower for each situation. Any combination of three manpower must be equal in order to see them as equal choices.

If you focus fire to kill one tank, while there are three, as long as you haven't killed the first tank, the other two solo tanks take no damage, but can fire. Then, after you kill the first tank, you will concentrate fire on the second tank. As long as you concentrate fire on the second tank, the third tank takes no damage, but can fire. Finally, you can concentrate fire on the third tank. That's three "rounds" of fighting, in which the damage dealt by the solo tanks is 3 + 2 + 1 = 6 lives worth of damage, whereas the single tank in one life must try to triple that damage output, because their combined hitpoints is triple that of the damage the opponents have to deal. (3TTK vs TTK) vs 6DoT vs 1DoT => 6*3 =18.

The conclusion is that the TTK of one solo tank on another solo tank, must be 1/18th of that of a three crew tank on a solo tank, in order to be equal choices. So... F3 and F4 combined would have to actually be 18x stronger? Ouch.

The same can be done for a two crew tank vs two solo tanks as an alternative: 2+1 lives worth of damage vs the single two-crew tank who must equal that in one live. Again though, the multi-crew tank must deal double the damage to the two solo tanks, their damage output must therefore be double that of the two solo tanks. Here, balance suggests solo tanks must do a 1/2*1/3 = 1/6 of the damage a two crew tank deals to make them equal choices. In other words, a two-crew tank must deal 6 times the damage a normal tank deals.

However, the two conclusions above conflict with one another. At this point, both the 2 and 3 crew units would be able to instakill one another with a lot of potential extra damage on top of that. For one, that's not "fun". Two, it's not balanced and three it's extremely unlikely that this would be implemented.

In reality, any compromise vehicle would be significantly less powerful than the choice for multiple solo MBTs.


Ergo, they're not balanced. Ergo, they're not equal choices. Ergo, there's no such thing as "equal play styles" in this compromise.


I'm sure since you said that there'll be a cert and we can all stop worrying, you've done this mind excercise yourself and obtained good results out of it instead? Please, let's hear the maths under which stacking is cancelled out by stronger weapons and 1, 2 and 3 crew in the exact same frame (speed, profile, hitpoints, etc, aside from firepower) are equal choices for the same amount of manpower?

If you can't produce those theoretical maths, even under assumed perfect conditions, then why would I accept that there'll be balance in less than ideal conditions?

[maradine]

I don't understand how you can go into such a level of detail and stumble over the primary fallacious assertion here - same-hull-to-same-hull balance is pointless.

Setting aside the minor but entertaining fact that there is no circumstance where an MBT will fight itself, and setting aside that the primary intended PS2 balancing fulcrum might be resources spent per engagement, not manpower*, you're evaluating this in what physicists like to call a frictionless vacuum.

You ball up all the other things happening on the battlefield as "details" to be ignored while you concentrate on trying to derive a model for how 30 people would engage 30 people in prowlers and lightnings over a continuum of vehicle occupancy. If those were the only 60 people on Auraxis at the time, and the fate of the planet depended on the outcome of that single battle, huzzah - you've got a model!

But they're not, and it doesn't. Various points lost in numeric abstraction:

1. The "1/18th" math is synthetic and will never happen in a real fight, even if everyone could actually get LOS to everyone. This isn't EVE, where FC calls a primary and everyone engages a single target because everyone has a convenient sorted spreadsheet interface of everyone else in the combat. And gods forbid you try to sort it into alpha bundles. That's simply not the reality of how tank combat plays in PS2.
2. There's always infantry crawling around. Tanks with two guns can cover both their strong and their weak sides at the same time. How does the math change with HAs running around on the field? Is your pair of solo prowlers now the inferior choice to a single prowler with a kobalt?
3. There's always aircraft flying around. Tanks with two guns can keep them off station. How does the math change when the local skies are hostile? Is your pair of solo prowlers now the inferior choice to a single prowler with a walker?
4. What about in a facilities fight, where LOS is severely limited, gang-ups are rarer, and first-spot is more important than numbers? Wouldn't you like to have two pairs of eyes?
5. What about the next fight? Two thirds of what you assert to be the mathematically guaranteed losing force can still pull MBTs on respawn. No casualties from the other force can. What about the fight after that?

Your math is at more home in WoT, where 15v15 players battle in a symmetrically constructed vacuum, with one controllable mobile entity per person, no external stimuli, a time limit, and everyone goes home to the same garage at the end of the match to do it again. This isn't WoT.

A final note:

Every player is not attempting to optimize on damage output or endurance. Some groups of players, mine included, show up at the warp gate and say "well, there's 4 of us. What's the most ridiculously good time we can have with 4?" Math that relies on every model participant to be a rational actor is pointless because not everyone's a rational actor.

Figment, if pulling a solo tank is always the obvious and optimal choice, why do outfits roll fully-gunned? Why would anyone?

BWAAAAAAH.

*I really wish they'd tell us, frankly.

[Valcron]

Smed is very arrogant, he really is. And I wanted to thank you Hamma for finally taking a stance against this bullshit game they're making.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by maradine

I don't understand how you can go into such a level of detail and stumble over the primary fallacious assertion here - same-hull-to-same-hull balance is pointless.

Setting aside the minor but entertaining fact that there is no circumstance where an MBT will fight itself, and setting aside that the primary intended PS2 balancing fulcrum might be resources spent per engagement, not manpower*, you're evaluating this in what physicists like to call a frictionless vacuum.

It's not about encountering one another, it's about selecting that which deals most damage and survives longest.

You should know damn well what I'm on about: you wage that battle in your head when you approach the vehicle terminal with two outfit mates of yours: "Shall we get a single MBT or a MBT and the Lightning? Shall I get the one for my mate and one extra wingman buddy, or shall we just grab three?".

If it is to fight other tanks, you're currently already never going to select three Lightnings.

But hey. This just shows you're not thinking about this at all NOR listening to NOR understanding the arguments made. You're biased and ignorant.

You ball up all the other things happening on the battlefield as "details" to be ignored while you concentrate on trying to derive a model for how 30 people would engage 30 people in prowlers and lightnings over a continuum of vehicle occupancy. If those were the only 60 people on Auraxis at the time, and the fate of the planet depended on the outcome of that single battle, huzzah - you've got a model!

Not at all. I'm comparing which combination of manpower in units available to my empire will get me the most endurance, AP and AA power per player.

But they're not, and it doesn't. Various points lost in numeric abstraction:

1. The "1/18th" math is synthetic and will never happen in a real fight, even if everyone could actually get LOS to everyone. This isn't EVE, where FC calls a primary and everyone engages a single target because everyone has a convenient sorted spreadsheet interface of everyone else in the combat. And gods forbid you try to sort it into alpha bundles. That's simply not the reality of how tank combat plays in PS2.
2. There's always infantry crawling around. Tanks with two guns can cover both their strong and their weak sides at the same time. How does the math change with HAs running around on the field? Is your pair of solo prowlers now the inferior choice to a single prowler with a kobalt?
3. There's always aircraft flying around. Tanks with two guns can keep them off station. How does the math change when the local skies are hostile? Is your pair of solo prowlers now the inferior choice to a single prowler with a walker?
4. What about in a facilities fight, where LOS is severely limited, gang-ups are rarer, and first-spot is more important than numbers? Wouldn't you like to have two pairs of eyes?
5. What about the next fight? Two thirds of what you assert to be the mathematically guaranteed losing force can still pull MBTs on respawn. No casualties from the other force can. What about the fight after that?

Wrong on all counts.

1. Hahahahaha. Yeah, you never engage two, three, four, five tanks at once and you're definitely not going to concentrate fire on one unit at a time and remove as much firepower from the field as can be done in a short period of time. *Gigglesnort* Who learned you how to tank as a team?
2. The two tanks will have a much better chance against infantry, because they can tag-team, have better angles and can cover each other's ass, can each instagib any infantry unit they can hit. If you get ambushed and one of you dies, the other is still alive. It is also more likely for the infantry to run out of missiles against two targets than it is to run out of missiles against one target. Didn't think too long about that, did you?
3. Two pairs of solo-mbts have two pairs of guns on top which they can switch to. A single tank with a single AA gun only has one such gun. This means that 2F2 > F2. And again, the double endurance and the possibility of having a Skyguard Lightning instead of a MBT gunner spot filled is also an incredible advantage to solo users. Next argument please?
4. Is one of your solo-tankers blindfolded? Three people always have three pairs of eyes. If they're in separate locations, they will also have different vantage points and different angles to look around. Furthermore, they will have overlapping line of sight areas as wingman covering the rear of their buddies even when firing in the same direction, making it harder for C4 carrying players to sneak behind them with ease or get out of a gun angle. Therefore, the situational awareness is greater with three units on separate locations, than three people on the same location watching in potentially different directions.
5. You forget some things: the single crew MBTs will survive longer as a group and therefore won't be on timers as often. Why? Because if you have one tank with others having the same TTK on you as they do on a solo tank, while they can also focus fire (no other units around) and they can more easily encircle you since you have nobody covering your flanks.

There's quite a few more things you completely ignore, such as the capacity of three tanks to outmaneuvre and flank a single tank and at least two units being able to get to the rear of the other tank as you can't keep your front oriented as easily at three tanks as you can at one.

A very important strategic benefit of choosing the solo-tanks.

Your math is at more home in WoT, where 15v15 players battle in a symmetrically constructed vacuum, with one controllable mobile entity per person, no external stimuli, a time limit, and everyone goes home to the same garage at the end of the match to do it again. This isn't WoT.

Actually, we've been doing this sort of math to select our units since 2003 in PS1... And really, all players did this. Why do you think virtually everyone flew aircraft and next to nobody used Raiders and Raiders would lose every encounter with 5 other people in other units?

A final note:

Every player is not attempting to optimize on damage output or endurance. Some groups of players, mine included, show up at the warp gate and say "well, there's 4 of us. What's the most ridiculously good time we can have with 4?" Math that relies on every model participant to be a rational actor is pointless because not everyone's a rational actor.

You seem to forget that having a good time is tied to not having a bad time. You will give less credit to the options that are going to put you, as a group, at a disadvantages. Whether you realise it or not. Even if you'd wanted to, you honestly think you as a group will go Flash all day if you'd die before you'd get anything done every time?

Figment, if pulling a solo tank is always the obvious and optimal choice, why do outfits roll fully-gunned? Why would anyone?

BWAAAAAAH.

*I really wish they'd tell us, frankly.

Given the choice, the majority does not roll fully-gunned. That's the whole point.

In PS2, they don't unless they run out of resources or pick someone up in the field who is too lazy to go back for a new tank. We don't do multi-crew tanks right now unless we've got no other option and we hardly ever get to that point. Maybe if we'd utterly suck at tanking, yeah. But we don't.

[Graywolves]

Fun for individual driving the tank or not single crewed MBTs harms the metagame and overall gameplay of the battlefield. For starters it overrides the lightning's use as a 1man tank. I only ever pull a lightning if my tank is on cooldown and that's very rare. Sure I can use the lightning to pwn AA but honestly why would I cert into something I never drive anyways let alone bother to look at it?

Their power at the moment is a little much. Might as well just give me an attack and shield boost on my heavy assualt. Yeah most people play heavy and they have a strong presence on the battlefield but I honestly only feel threatened by other tanks. It's easy kills blasting away infantry without the threat of being disabled. Unless a Heavy Assualt is popping from behind a ridge or draw I can usually take him out just by shooting near where he's hiding, or simply get close and shoot him while his rocket is out.

When you couple the MBTs individual effectiveness with how easily it is to spam and put that in massive warfare it gets really rediculousness and imposing on playstyles. Pretty much all infantry have to go heavy and spam rockets and still be at a disadvantage or spam tanks back.

When you have something where the only promising response is to do the same thing you have a problem. That's like playing a rock-paper-scissors where rock beats everything so everyone throws rock and then plays bloody knuckles.

So MBTs either need their effectiveness reduced, more viable counters, to cost way more, or to be crewed. Is it more fun for most people to drive and shoot a tank? Maybe. Is it a good idea to pretty much force everyone to share that playstyle? No.

[maradine]

Originally Posted by Figment

But hey. This just shows you're not thinking about this at all NOR listening to NOR understanding the arguments made. You're biased and ignorant.

Sorry, mate. We're done here.

[MrBloodworth]

Nothing is more challenging, more rewarding then crewing a tank with three of your friends and refining the threat you create.

Odd thing. If your squad mate turns a sundy to squad only, you can completely drive it as if it was yours. Balanced application of the argument for Driver/gunner tanks, or a showing that its just a rational to continue to take design cues from another title?

Having discreet driver and gunner is simply more fun, more rewarding. Being the driver and gunner is just more "Playing alone, together" design.

Also, Battlefield. Its amazing in the search to make Planetside 2 a "Modern shooter" they have ignored every modern shooter but two.

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by maradine

Setting aside the minor but entertaining fact that there is no circumstance where an MBT will fight itself, and setting aside that the primary intended PS2 balancing fulcrum might be resources spent per engagement, not manpower*, you're evaluating this in what physicists like to call a frictionless vacuum.

You ball up all the other things happening on the battlefield as "details" to be ignored while you concentrate on trying to derive a model for how 30 people would engage 30 people in prowlers and lightnings over a continuum of vehicle occupancy. If those were the only 60 people on Auraxis at the time, and the fate of the planet depended on the outcome of that single battle, huzzah - you've got a model!

But they're not, and it doesn't.

This is something that theorycrafters will never, ever understand. Figment, and people like him, will always cling to the idea that combat works out perfectly the way it does in their head.

2 people will always pull two tanks! They will always run into another 2 people with two tanks! It's mathematical!