My one 'dislike' of PS2 (Main Battle Tanks) - Page 14

Figment · 2012-05-27, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by Atheosim

Because without doing that I would seriously damage my own reality, which, unlike yours, lies outside of this videogame, correct?

Another ad hominem and no actual argument that counters someone else, as usual, nice.

You are a lovely person in reality I'm sure.

Atheosim · 2012-05-27, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Another ad hominem and no actual argument that counters someone else, as usual, nice.

You are a lovely person in reality I'm sure.

Oh tish tosh Figgy, fun among friends right?

Figment · 2012-05-27, 02:33 AM

Originally Posted by Mechzz

We had this discussion (driver = main gunner) for the first time back in March or so, I believe. We won the concession that the devs would look at allowing a cert for the driver to give up the main gun. We still have had no details on that. Is it in? How will it work for the magrider with its fixed main gun?

So those of us who prefer driver = secondary gunner (I count myself in that group) are still waiting to see what makes it into the first version of the game that we get our hands on. I think that is what makes it frustrating for peeps with, like, super-strong views. Hard as it may be, though, venting on peeps who like the proposed system doesn't make the time pass any quicker. So before one of us blows a fuse, let's hope they announce Beta and let us put our theories to the ultimate test.

I think they made that compromise. Don't agree with the argumentation for it though.

DOUBLEXBAUGH · 2012-05-27, 03:07 AM

Even if you cert to be the driver only, it's still 1 tank vs 2 tanks.

Mechzz · 2012-05-27, 03:12 AM

Originally Posted by DOUBLEXBAUGH

Even if you cert to be the driver only, it's still 1 tank vs 2 tanks.

or 1 tank vs 1 reaver and 1 AV grunt

or 1 tank vs 1 reaver and 1 tank

or 1 tank vs 1 liberator and 1 ATV

there are many scenarios that play out every minute of a game like this. The scenarios are also affected by what previously happened (did I start the fight at 80% health?)

So only by getting our hands dirty will we know what really works. I understand the 2 tanks vs 1 tank bit, I just don't think we can draw hard conclusions on zero evidence?

We all have our preferences, but for now they are just that - preferences.

Figment · 2012-05-27, 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by Mechzz

or 1 tank vs 1 reaver and 1 AV grunt

or 1 tank vs 1 reaver and 1 tank

or 1 tank vs 1 liberator and 1 ATV

there are many scenarios that play out every minute of a game like this. The scenarios are also affected by what previously happened (did I start the fight at 80% health?)

So only by getting our hands dirty will we know what really works. I understand the 2 tanks vs 1 tank bit, I just don't think we can draw hard conclusions on zero evidence?

We all have our preferences, but for now they are just that - preferences.

It's not so much what you're fighting that's the vs bit, it's what you can field yourself. The comparison is not about what strength you have with respect to the opponent, but how you can optimise your own strengths.

DOUBLEXBAUGH · 2012-05-27, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

It's not so much what you're fighting that's the vs bit, it's what you can field yourself. The comparison is not about what strength you have with respect to the opponent, but how you can optimise your own strengths.

This. Why stick both people in a tank when you can have the second person grab something else that can do the same job as the secondary gun, but better?

Mechzz · 2012-05-27, 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by DOUBLEXBAUGH

This. Why stick both people in a tank when you can have the second person grab something else that can do the same job as the secondary gun, but better?

The idea is that 2 people in 1 tank is more effective than 1 person trying to drive and gun at the same time in 2 tanks/vehcs. The secondary gunner can fully concentrate on keeping the vehicle alive while the driver makes sure trees etc. don't bring the run to an abrupt halt.

I understand the hit-point argument for 2 tanks vs 1, but the effectiveness argument is based on imponderables, so it's wait and see imo.

Rozonus · 2012-05-27, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by DOUBLEXBAUGH

This. Why stick both people in a tank when you can have the second person grab something else that can do the same job as the secondary gun, but better?

It might come down to resources then. Spending them will probably have to be thought out tactically, and you might not want to spend a large chunk of resources on a new tank if there are already enough tanks being used, or perhaps you might not have enough resources to spend on a new MBT or Lightning.

In that scenario you could still help by jumping into the spare seat of an MBT and provide AA support. For example. We'll have to wait to see how fast resources build up.

HellsPanda · 2012-05-27, 04:25 AM

I would have liked a compromise. Move the main gun to the gunner slot, keeping it customisable. Then giving the driver a forward locked gun of somekind basen on empire ( like oversized shotgun for the vanguard)

Figment · 2012-05-27, 04:31 AM

@Rovonus: The problem with that is that it's a balance that can mean that an empire with more territory gains more resources, thus can field more vehicles and more appropriate types, while you're forced to work with less units, which individually take more heat and get a shorter life time (more concentrated rather than dispersed fire), meaning the drain on your resources becomes higher as you lose more units at a higher rate, as well as a few other disadvantages if you're the losing empire as well and/or are numerically disadvantaged by sheer player numbers.

You'd get a lot of extra drawbacks from being in a disadvantaged position in multiple ways... They should take extra care that battles do not become too one sided until the third empire intervenes and the pressure is let off.

This does illustrate quite well why a third empire is not just extra, but required in an ongoing game.

Stardouser · 2012-05-27, 09:34 AM

I just had a thought about the possibility of making multicrew tanks an option. PS1 historically had multicrew tanks. Driver drives, gunner guns. Battlefield has historically had driver/gunner tanks. If this is successful in PS2, do you think other games with tanks in them might copy it and make this an option?

I just think it would be funny if Battlefield 4 suddenly had this option.

ArmedZealot · 2012-05-27, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I just had a thought about the possibility of making multicrew tanks an option. PS1 historically had multicrew tanks. Driver drives, gunner guns. Battlefield has historically had driver/gunner tanks. If this is successful in PS2, do you think other games with tanks in them might copy it and make this an option?

I just think it would be funny if Battlefield 4 suddenly had this option.

Oh my.... You do have fantasies don't you.

DOUBLEXBAUGH · 2012-05-27, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Mechzz

The idea is that 2 people in 1 tank is more effective than 1 person trying to drive and gun at the same time in 2 tanks/vehcs. The secondary gunner can fully concentrate on keeping the vehicle alive while the driver makes sure trees etc. don't bring the run to an abrupt halt.

If you just pay attention to your surroundings you wont run into trees ect. I had no problem running and gunning in a Lightning in PS1, and now in PS2 I get a bigger gun!

Baneblade · 2012-05-27, 09:58 AM

The easier thing to do in my mind would have been to simply give all kills shared credit between the gunner who got it and the driver. I'm not terribly happy about having to be my own gunner either, in fact I suspect I'll spend more time in a Sunderer for that very reason.