If you're gonna drive a paper tank... the Lightning's a better deal

[GreatMazinkaise]

Consider the following:

MBTs have driver/gunners and are balanced around solo play. So are Lightnings.

Lightnings can take out MBTs pretty easily (because the MBTs are solo paper tanks) and they're also faster and have faster turret rotation.

Lightnings cost about half what an MBT does.

While the potential damage output of the MBTs should exceed the Lightning's considerably assuming a second gunner, they don't have a two person team's worth of armor. The slight increase in durability doesn't really make up for how slow they are.

Conclusion: The result of rewarding the purchasee of a tank with its main guns is a slow, expensive, paper tank that can be pretty readily bested by the much cheaper Lightning.

[EisenKreutzer]

Except we don't know how the Lightning handles when compared to the other tanks, we don't know how much damage it does, how much armor it has, how many hit-points it has, how fast it is... Etc. etc. etc.

[GreatMazinkaise]

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

Except we don't know how the Lightning handles when compared to the other tanks, we don't know how much damage it does, how much armor it has, how many hit-points it has, how fast it is... Etc. etc. etc.

We don't know specifics, but we do actually know most of this stuff. The core point here is that both types of tanks are balanced around solo play; due to them being fundamentally different vehicles MBTs get the shaft with this decision.

[EisenKreutzer]

Every characteristic of the Lightning is subject to change when beta starts. Speed, hit-points, damage and a ton of other stuff.

[Envenom]

With various certs many of these factors can be changed, so I'm not sure this argument stands up.

[wasdie]

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

We don't know specifics, but we do actually know most of this stuff. The core point here is that both types of tanks are balanced around solo play; due to them being fundamentally different vehicles MBTs get the shaft with this decision.

Not if the MBTs can knock out a lightning in 2 hits.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

This thread is just conjecture. We have an "idea"... that is a "theory"... a fancy way of saying "maybe". But we don't "know". And it's subject to change.

[opticalshadow]

its also still very new, balence will start changing alot during beta, when a large number of players can provide feedback.

[GreatMazinkaise]

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

Every characteristic of the Lightning is subject to change when beta starts. Speed, hit-points, damage and a ton of other stuff.

Yeah, they can tweak it... but it is impossible to make the MBT a better choice than the Lightning without making it an overpowered solo vehicle. Since Higby's been pretty unyielding on the whole driver/gunner thing (and the certification even if it gets put in is not likely to make classic crewed MBTs any more durable) MBTs will always be bad. Or perhaps Lightnings will be made bad enough that the MBTs will be better by comparison.

Balancing MBTs for solo play is the core problem here. It works fine in games with two tanks per side or something silly like that where you NEED to have paper tanks that infantry are capable of killing, but you can't have proper tank battles with paper tanks.

This thread is just conjecture. We have an "idea"... that is a "theory"... a fancy way of saying "maybe". But we don't "know". And it's subject to change.

I suppose if the only places one gets information is from PSU it would be theory, but we do in fact know these things. Even without that knowledge we're able to Theoryside it well enough.

[EisenKreutzer]

Ok, listen, it's like this:

When the beta is over, the game will play like the developers want it to play.
Every vehicle and class will perform as the developers intend them to do. They will accomplish this through balancing and altering every mechanic in the game until they do what they are supposed to do.

At this stage of the game, it just is not possible to judge wether this or that feature will be "overpowered," or wether this gun or that vehicle will be used to the exclusion of all else, or that this or that feature is purposeless or broken.

SOE have a very concrete idea about how they want the game to play, and the beta-testers will provide them with the metrics they need to ensure that when the game is finished, it will behave according to that plan.

As beta testers, we won't just be collecting info on bugs. That is part of it, but it's not the complete picture. Our role isn't to provide feedback or new ideas either, though we can and should do that. Our role is to play the game, so the developers can see wether the game plays like they want it to or not, and wether every feature is working as intended.

In short, it's too early to start these kidns of discussions. Nothing productive will be said in any thread about specific issues of game balance, because the beta has not started yet. We have extremely little information to go on, and what information we do have isn't really relevant because practically all stats in the game are placeholders at this point.

TL;DR: You won't know if it's a rooster or a hen until the egg hatches.

[Turdicus]

Oh great mazipoo, your argument isn't too bad, except you're looking at it from only one of many angles. There is no reason a MBT can't be significantly tougher than a lightning. On top of that MBT's cost many more resources and have a much longer cooldown timer attached to them. And on top of THAT lightning's have to shoot and land 6 rounds in order to do maximum damage, while a Vanguard (for example) needs only land 1, and that 1 round does more damage than all six rounds of the lightning combined.

This is all balanced (potentially) by the notion that lightnings drive much faster and handle much tighter than MBT's and the 6 rounds clip will be easier to use while driving full speed than hoping one round will hit the target. Lightnings are not designed to stand still and line up the killing blow, they are instead hit and run attackers. MBT's are much more suited for a stand up fight. MBT's get more armor, Lightning's get more speed, and both serve different roles on the battlefield.

[GreatMazinkaise]

Y'know, this was supposed to turn into an anti-driver/gunner thread... I'm disappointed, since that's the core problem here.

[EisenKreutzer]

The percieved core problem.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

@GM

I'm anti driver/gunner

But the core of this thread is, as I said, pure conjecture, regarding the specifics of the balance of the Lightning and the MBT, something that we don't know.

Not liking driver/gunner is one thing. The Lightning being overpowered is a different. Although they CAN relate to one another, they don't NECESSARILY relate to one another, going back to what I said... We need more information. How are we to discuss something that none of us have played with yet?

[Littleman]

Fact is, most of what people have said in here can change because SOE said so -_- Lightnings could be just as expensive is MBT's, they just consume different quantities of resources.

One thing I do know, however, is that the Lightning, as of E3, has an anti-tank turret configuration.

Simply guessing, the lightning might bring the superior firepower and speed for the specific role it intends to play out, but it may have the weaker armor. Speed + no armor + only 1 guy = clumsy paper tank.

Likewise, the MBT will have the armor, but it's firepower will be the lesser of the two (speaking for the weaponry of the MBT individually,) yet fully manned it should be the more combat capable (re: destructive) vehicle over all.

At least, if I were in charge of balancing that's how I'd set them up. Lightning = solo. MBT = even with the main gun in the hands of the driver, they'll still want a partner on that second gun.