My one 'dislike' of PS2 (Main Battle Tanks) - Page 11

Reapter · 2012-05-26, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Rhapsody

The same thing has happend to the MBT's, theyve been 'dumbed down' from being a 2 person vehicle, to being an oversized Lighting with a bigger gun?

Its more of a you refuse to acknowledge the fact that 2 people in a tank are still superior to one. You just throw out a general 2 people aren't required to fill 1 counter yet 2 can counter 2 things at once so now there a single man tank and no teamwork is required.

Really you should just say in my opinion I think people should be forced to have multiple people in a tank. It doesn't stop peoples ability to work together as a team, all the teamwork is still there, your just against the idea of a solo player impacting the battle in anything other then infantry. One guy in a tank, and one guy in AA working together is still teamwork. Regardless of what we do we are still working together. If one guy drives and one shoots and no communication is said at all, it is still less teamwork then one tank and one aa coordinating together.

Which I am sure there are less hardcore team only players then solo so you want to alienate a lot of the player base rather then incentavise teamwork without it being forced.

Rhapsody · 2012-05-26, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Reapter

Its more of a you refuse to acknowledge the fact that 2 people in a tank are still superior to one. You just throw out a general 2 people aren't required to fill 1 counter yet 2 can counter 2 things at once so now there a single man tank.

Im not refusing to acknowledge the fact that 2 people in the 'current' PS2 tank is 'slightly' superior. I just dont agree with a single-person MBT being as effective against its dedicated targets (other thanks/ground vehicles), as they are when it use to require 2 people to do that.

Your also forgetting the fact that the only tank that really had decent AA protection in PS1 is the TR tank with the dual chainguns on top (which took its own gunner to use). Mag-riders were decent, but the firering arc of their main guns limited them in that regard, the TR's top turret had a much wider Firering Arc, so it acted as an 'aa' gun of sorts.

In PS2 1 single person in a MBT is a threat to every ground vehicle out there. He's a little weak to AA, but as far as the targets its designed to take out? He'll have no problems. In PS1, for a MBT to be a threat to its designated targets (ground vehicles) it required a dedicated Gunner. This was the trade-off between the lighting and the MBT's. Lightings were single-seat tanks, which could engage other ground vehicles, but they traded out lower damage and lower armor as well as lower manuverability due to looking a different direction than your tank was diving.

With PS2, we now have 2 person skyguards replaced by single seater lightnings, and 2 person MBT's replaced by single seater oversized Lightings with an 'optional' 2nd gunner.

Immigrant · 2012-05-26, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Reapter

Because if were talking about resources and single person tanks don't effect the overall team in the least then they are irreverent. It has no impact at all on anyone else so what would it matter if someone solos as they do nothing to effect your play experience for the overall team. Basically then resources play no part in this, they just don't matter. It is more you want to force people to have full tanks rather then any other concern, it is you just want to limit solo players then basically. Resources shouldn't have been mentioned at all.

We don't know how a secondary AV gun will play out. For all we know the 5 manned tanks can beat the 10 solo. Even if they are fully equal in power the there's not really any issue since they are paying more, taking up more room, having more issue with risk of ramming each other, less stealth in general for more cost. Multiple people in 1 vehicle is always better then 1 vehicle with 1 person, no one asked against that. The single manned has an advantage it just doesn't make them god mode versus 2 tanks against there 1 if that is what you want.

Yes, I missed the resources part and corrected myself already above. I don't want to limit soloers I just think multi-crew tanks should be preferable option (if you make them almost equal and gunner little more than just a passenger than there's no reason to multi-crew tanks at all since both cost and effectiveness wise 2 guys in 2 basic tanks will always be better than 2 guys 1 in one specialized AV tank).

If they choose AV secondary gun that gun should pack at very least twice the firepower (armor penetration) or better double the damage per second ability against vehicles if not more if. Otherwise there's really no strong reason to multi-crew tanks. If they are fully equal, that would be a huuuge problem.

Stardouser · 2012-05-26, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Reapter

Its more of a you refuse to acknowledge the fact that 2 people in a tank are still superior to one. You just throw out a general 2 people aren't required to fill 1 counter yet 2 can counter 2 things at once so now there a single man tank and no teamwork is required.

If multicrewing is optional, 2 one man tanks will, 75% of the time, be superior to 1 two man tank.

And this means on a squad level, instead of 5 two man tanks there will be 10 one man tanks. That's double the firepower even if there's a slight situational awareness delay.

And while I think there should definitely be some limitations on C4, even if there aren't, being C4'd for not having a 2nd crewman isn't going to happen enough to make up for this, AND, with 10 tanks instead of 5, that's 5 more tanks that can cover each other.

ArmedZealot · 2012-05-26, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

If multicrewing is optional, 2 one man tanks will, 75% of the time, be superior to 1 two man tank.

And this means on a squad level, instead of 5 two man tanks there will be 10 one man tanks. That's double the firepower even if there's a slight situational awareness delay.

And while I think there should definitely be some limitations on C4, even if there aren't, being C4'd for not having a 2nd crewman isn't going to happen enough to make up for this, AND, with 10 tanks instead of 5, that's 5 more tanks that can cover each other.

Except when aircraft come along you have 10 easy pickins tanks. Where 5 2 man tanks would eat anything in the air, ground, and walking.

Reapter · 2012-05-26, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Rhapsody

Im not refusing to acknowledge the fact that 2 people in the 'current' PS2 tank is 'slightly' superior. I just dont agree with a single-person MBT being as effective against its dedicated targets (other thanks/ground vehicles), as they are when it use to require 2 people to do that.

Your also forgetting the fact that the only tank that really had decent AA protection in PS1 is the TR tank with the dual chainguns on top (which took its own gunner to use). Mag-riders were decent, but the firering arc of their main guns limited them in that regard, the TR's top turret had a much wider Firering Arc, so it acted as an 'aa' gun of sorts.

In PS2 1 single person in a MBT is a threat to every ground vehicle out there. He's a little weak to AA, but as far as the targets its designed to take out? He'll have no problems. In PS1, for a MBT to be a threat to its designated targets (ground vehicles) it required a dedicated Gunner. This was the trade-off between the lighting and the MBT's. Lightings were single-seat tanks, which could engage other ground vehicles, but they traded out lower damage and lower armor as well as lower manuverability due to looking a different direction than your tank was diving.

With PS2, we now have 2 person skyguards replaced by single seater lightnings, and 2 person MBT's replaced by single seater oversized Lightings with an 'optional' 2nd gunner.

According to Immigrant you can outfit the 2nd slot with an AT gun, something ps1 didn't have as far as I am aware of. So a single guy in a tank isn't as much of a threat to others in a tank, so it is still true in ps2. Does that mean your issue is resolved?

Stardouser · 2012-05-26, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

Except when aircraft come along you have 10 easy pickins tanks. Where 5 2 man tanks would eat anything in the air, ground, and walking.

Well, that's assuming aircraft come, but, with one man tanks, you can basically have a squad of 6 one main MBTs, and 4 AA vehicles. I would say that 5 two man tanks are probably only going to be equal to about 6-7 one man tanks, so 6 one man tanks and 4 AA vehicles should be far superior to 5 two man tanks(unless AA vehicles can't even scratch the paint on a MBT).

And the way everyone wants infantry to be 1 to 1 matches for aircraft, I have to wonder - can infantry carry AA weapons and drive a tank? If so, they will do that too, and if they get engaged by aircraft while not engaged on the ground, they will hop out and fire AA.

ArmedZealot · 2012-05-26, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by elfailo

It also means that 10 people will need to cert tanks, sacrificing diversity. If only 5 people had to, then the other 5 could use those cert points to increase effectiveness in other area's. I agree though, 1 two-man tank should rival 2 1-man tanks. The obvious solution is to give the weakest gun to the driver (like the Magrider in PS1).

I don't see why this should be true. 2 players dedicated cert point to have 2 tanks on the field. They should be stronger than 1 player dedicating cert points with a gunner.

SniperSteve · 2012-05-26, 02:00 PM

If you watch the videos you will see that you need the top gunner for situational awareness and for defending against air/ground/armor. Being a solo tank driver is possible, but will get you killed.

Stardouser · 2012-05-26, 02:00 PM

The gun that a one man tank controls and the gun that a main gunner of a two man tank should be exactly the same. No artificial weakening of 1 man tanks. Either SOE should force 2 man tanks, or not.

Immigrant · 2012-05-26, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

Except when aircraft come along you have 10 easy pickins tanks. Where 5 2 man tanks would eat anything in the air, ground, and walking.

That's only if you persume 10 soloers will all go for tank. But if 5 take airplanes and 5 took tanks they still best 5 fully crewed AA tanks and that would mean soloing vehicles is way better than multi-crewing, and even possibly could cost less if soloers took basic vehicle types that cost no-resources.

ArmedZealot · 2012-05-26, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Well, that's assuming aircraft come, but, with one man tanks, you can basically have a squad of 6 one main MBTs, and 4 AA vehicles. I would say that 5 two man tanks are probably only going to be equal to about 6-7 one man tanks, so 6 one man tanks and 4 AA vehicles should be far superior to 5 two man tanks(unless AA vehicles can't even scratch the paint on a MBT).

I don't get what you are saying here. Out of 10 people how would you best optimize them with tanks.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

And the way everyone wants infantry to be 1 to 1 matches for aircraft, I have to wonder - can infantry carry AA weapons and drive a tank? If so, they will do that too, and if they get engaged by aircraft while not engaged on the ground, they will hop out and fire AA.

From the TB video he couldn't 1 to 1 a Reaver with lock on weapons, I'm not going to give up all my tank HP to bet that I could kill a Reaver.

roguy · 2012-05-26, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Gandhi

What's this supposed to show? I only saw one person mention the word "boring" and his suggestion was to give the driver the ability to call targets for the gunner, which would be great, and to say giving the driver the main gun would be a bad idea.

It's supposed to show (and it does) that before the COD-Hate crowd joined the forums, that people had big issues with the PS1 driver+gunner implementation.

Wich I then reasoned that since the liberator, galaxy and sunderer remain untouched by this change (as in, they still require multiple crew and are arguably MORE team orientated than the PS1 tank), probably means that the dev team made 1-man tanks based on those complaints rather than "It was in COD (wich it freakin' wasn't in the first place) therefore we've added it to PS2".

ArmedZealot · 2012-05-26, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by SniperSteve

If you watch the videos you will see that you need the top gunner for situational awareness and for defending against air/ground/armor. Being a solo tank driver is possible, but will get you killed.

This is what it all boils down to. Everything else is just theorycrafting for a game that we can't even play yet.

Reapter · 2012-05-26, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

The gun that a one man tank controls and the gun that a main gunner of a two man tank should be exactly the same. No artificial weakening of 1 man tanks. Either SOE should force 2 man tanks, or not.

What was wrong with moderation in this case where both are viable so it is just down to player preference both with advantages/disadvantages or equal where it really just ends in player skill?