harrasser proves dedicated driver is great - Page 15

Baneblade · 2013-05-06, 07:03 PM

There would be the option you speak of... either an MBT with 2/3 or 3/3 or the Lightning 1/1. There, options.

JesNC · 2013-05-06, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by moosepoop

my original point was to convince SOE that crewed tanks can make money, by nerfing solo mbt and introducing it in an op state, just like all new content they have released so far.

my point was to present something that will benefit the devs. this is basics of negotiation.

Too bad they do not listen to that kind of sarcasm.

Dougnifico · 2013-05-06, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

There would be the option you speak of... either an MBT with 2/3 or 3/3 or the Lightning 1/1. There, options.

See, I understand that entirely. I want crew tanks, but changing MBT's would piss a lot of customers off who've already invested. If you made MBT's 2 man, you would buff them. Just create a new tank for each empire. You have the crew tank we all would like that is a really buffed up MBT and all those people who invested aren't disenfranchised. Really, everyone wins and gets what they want. Plus you have the option to take a crewed version of the MBT out if you have a cooldown or resource issue.

The only thing that people would be upset about is that solo players would have MBT access. I personally don't see that as a bad thing. They pop pretty quick now days and I think they have been well balanced.

Plus, who doesn't want more content? lol

Tom Peters · 2013-05-06, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by Dougnifico

See, I understand that entirely. I want crew tanks, but changing MBT's would piss a lot of customers off who've already invested. If you made MBT's 2 man, you would buff them. Just create a new tank for each empire. You have the crew tank we all would like that is a really buffed up MBT and all those people who invested aren't disenfranchised. Really, everyone wins and gets what they want. Plus you have the option to take a crewed version of the MBT out if you have a cooldown or resource issue.

The only thing that people would be upset about is that solo players would have MBT access. I personally don't see that as a bad thing. They pop pretty quick now days and I think they have been well balanced.

I'm not getting what I want out of that.

A solo MBT will still be impossible to beat by yourself as a heavy, which is wrong. If a heavy does the right moves and avoids the tank properly, he should win. But by allowing control over the driving and the gun, that will never be the case.

It's just too easy-mode, requires no teamwork or tactical sense. Just drive around the rock and shoot the infantry, he can't do shit.

Figment · 2013-05-07, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by Dougnifico

Sir. You are a dick, AND DOING THIS JUST MAKES IT WORSE.

I don't care what you think of me, I'm tired of having to repeat myself and others because YOU are so disrespectful to completely ignore that what you're suggesting has and always will be a non-solution and not even a compromise to us after that has been repeated for five threads on virtually every page by someone.

This has been made very clear, so to continue to propose it and suggest everybody would be happy with it is IMO just trolling and just a display of how little you respect the other people in the debate.

As far as I'm concerned, you're the dick.

But I will elaborate on my point since my wording was easy to misinterpret.

I said to have to have the option for a crewed MBT. Yes, it would give 2 people the power of a single person and would be unfair, but it is for the sake of having options. In addition to this, there would be a new tank introduced that would be crewed, have more firepower, and have more armor, than an MBT. That is easy to balance.

How did I misinterpret this?

"It's unfair, but wait, there's more: let's introduce more power creep!"

Look like I didn't misinterpreted it at all!

Another problem is that many people have invested in their prowlers as solo MBTs. This means SOE has much more to lose by taking capability away than adding content. Then again, you probably have no problem with that so long as you get your way.

I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that. Content is subject to change. Every unit gets balance passes and the content they unlocked is still available to their units. If it's really a big deal to them, simply reset all certs invested in Vanguard certs, any weaponry purchased is returned in the form of station cash and they can see how they want to reuse the certs.

Considering they'd get it in the form of SC and certs, they could not complain about their investment, since they've been compensated in full and can move all their certs and investments to the Lightning or other units if they so desire to do so.

Removing content isn't someting you should avoid at all times. The amount of players PS1 would have lost over the removal of the BFR for instance would be maybe one in 100 players, while they'd have gotten around 80 players back for every one that would leave.

I'm sorry, but I don't think speculative fear is a very good argument, especially considering the amount of people that have left in part over issues like tank spam.

As a PS1 vet, I will be the first to say Planetside 1 is dead. Its time to move on and accept that some parts of it are gone.

NOTE: It seems that over time this community gets more hostile to anyone not agreeing with how things were done in PS1. That is sad. Not everyone, but there is more middle fingers and e-yelling than there once was.

And how is this relevant exactly? Where exactly have I brought up PS1 as a reason of "this is how it was, therefore it should be like this?", opposed to "the concept worked in PS1 because it ensured A, B, C, D and the consequences to gameplay in the PS2 context would be E, F and G and therefore it is the better option"? I'm not argueing out of nostalgia sake, you've seen the extend of my arguments doesn't even require that.

Asinine comments like this that are just made to piss people of and discard their argument just because somewhere PS1 is referenced are what makes people hate your kind of posters. Why don't you go and quit if you'd get stripped from solo-mbts? I'm quite sure we both know that wouldn't be a reason to quit over for pretty much anyone. Would some miss it? Sure. So what? It's not like that playstyle is lost completely, it just means they have to use a slightly weaker frame with more options for the main gun.

I also find it hypocritical to suggest that it's not okay to piss people off that MIGHT be sad over losing something, but that it's okay to piss people off that already left over that same thing or annoy themselves about it every time they play the game as these things cause frustration in a lot of areas of play. That includes tankers who hate being a glass cannon, tankers that get outnumbered all the time, tankers that think static gameplay is boring, infantry and other ground vehicles that get spammed by tanks and therefore shells and small groups vs large groups.

And most of those people will continue to be aggravated even if an "option" is introduced, if not more annoyed because they'll know it's a deliberately unfair balance to literally entertain me-me-me attitudes.

Dodgy Commando · 2013-05-07, 05:17 AM

Originally Posted by Dougnifico

See, I understand that entirely. I want crew tanks, but changing MBT's would piss a lot of customers off who've already invested. If you made MBT's 2 man, you would buff them. Just create a new tank for each empire. You have the crew tank we all would like that is a really buffed up MBT and all those people who invested aren't disenfranchised. Really, everyone wins and gets what they want. Plus you have the option to take a crewed version of the MBT out if you have a cooldown or resource issue.

The only thing that people would be upset about is that solo players would have MBT access. I personally don't see that as a bad thing. They pop pretty quick now days and I think they have been well balanced.

Plus, who doesn't want more content? lol

How exactly would you buff a bigger tank when the current MBT is already quite powerful? Make it a bullet soak (an actual TANK)? There remains only one issue with all this (apart from having to balance a new tank within the vehicular ecosystem): the manpower issue Figment raises.
Why would I bother with a tank that can't be much more powerful than the current MBT's, and would probably cost more resource-wise, when me and my buddies can pull three MBT's instead?

Or you indeed make it the most powerful tank, stronger than the current MBTs. You can forget about the Lightning. Neither are interesting options for the game in the long run.

I'm all for more content. I really like the idea of the NS Thunder. However I'm with Figment on this one after reading a bit more and finally catching a glimpse of the bigger picture. The problems are much deeper than simply crewed vs solo tanks.

For me, the core of the game clashes with its intended nature as a F2P game, the latter implying a game which can catch as broad an audience as possible and thus the implementation of highly accessible gameplay.

Just an example among many, solo tanks. Great fun and you get to feel awesome. You enter a vehicle instantly and you're off. The gameplay is highly accessible. And it truly is a lot of fun. I actually stopped my current cert plans to up my Vanguard since spending more time with it recently. I play BF3, and I love tanks in the game. But the scale is not the same; the amount of tanks on the battlefield is highly limited. In PS2, everyone and there mother can pull a Tank.

I'm not arguing there is too much tank spam or whatnot per se, however having such power easily accessible degrades the game for everyone (except the tanker - at first). As a result, infantry can now counter armour quite efficiently thanks to the latest attempt to balance, which in turn affects the tankers' experience of the game (resulting in another balancing pass to increase MBT survivability).

So are the devs going to eventually reach a sweetspot with all the balancing? I still play the game and enjoy it. However I see whats at stake and truly feel the game would benefit from changes such as crewed-only tanks. However, this is a pretty big change to the game (and arguably a lot more needs changing). Too big a change, I fear. At the end of the day, SOE is here to make money, not the best MMOFPS to date. So they are going to use 'cheap thrills' that make the game accessible to the greatest amount of people at the expense of depth.

Of course these are just my opinion and feelings (which probably lack a lot of fact!). Like I said, I still enjoy the game quite a lot. It really isn't about coming back to PS1 as many seem to feel (at least not for me). However there are things that were done right in the game and which attracted players and kept them to the bitter end.

Maybe the game has to change to live longer and healthier than its predecessor. Maybe we have to sacrifice depth at the altar of accessibility for a game of such scope as Planetside to survive. I certainly don't think so, though. If a game is good, people will stick with it.

Canaris · 2013-05-07, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by Dodgy Commando

How exactly would you buff a bigger tank when the current MBT is already quite powerful? Make it a bullet soak (an actual TANK)? There remains only one issue with all this (apart from having to balance a new tank within the vehicular ecosystem): the manpower issue Figment raises.
Why would I bother with a tank that can't be much more powerful than the current MBT's, and would probably cost more resource-wise, when me and my buddies can pull three MBT's instead?

Or you indeed make it the most powerful tank, stronger than the current MBTs. You can forget about the Lightning. Neither are interesting options for the game in the long run.

I'm all for more content. I really like the idea of the NS Thunder. However I'm with Figment on this one after reading a bit more and finally catching a glimpse of the bigger picture. The problems are much deeper than simply crewed vs solo tanks.

For me, the core of the game clashes with its intended nature as a F2P game, the latter implying a game which can catch as broad an audience as possible and thus the implementation of highly accessible gameplay.

Just an example among many, solo tanks. Great fun and you get to feel awesome. You enter a vehicle instantly and you're off. The gameplay is highly accessible. And it truly is a lot of fun. I actually stopped my current cert plans to up my Vanguard since spending more time with it recently. I play BF3, and I love tanks in the game. But the scale is not the same; the amount of tanks on the battlefield is highly limited. In PS2, everyone and there mother can pull a Tank.

I'm not arguing there is too much tank spam or whatnot per se, however having such power easily accessible degrades the game for everyone (except the tanker - at first). As a result, infantry can now counter armour quite efficiently thanks to the latest attempt to balance, which in turn affects the tankers' experience of the game (resulting in another balancing pass to increase MBT survivability).

So are the devs going to eventually reach a sweetspot with all the balancing? I still play the game and enjoy it. However I see whats at stake and truly feel the game would benefit from changes such as crewed-only tanks. However, this is a pretty big change to the game (and arguably a lot more needs changing). Too big a change, I fear. At the end of the day, SOE is here to make money, not the best MMOFPS to date. So they are going to use 'cheap thrills' that make the game accessible to the greatest amount of people at the expense of depth.

Of course these are just my opinion and feelings (which probably lack a lot of fact!). Like I said, I still enjoy the game quite a lot. It really isn't about coming back to PS1 as many seem to feel (at least not for me). However there are things that were done right in the game and which attracted players and kept them to the bitter end.

Maybe the game has to change to live longer and healthier than its predecessor. Maybe we have to sacrifice depth at the altar of accessibility for a game of such scope as Planetside to survive. I certainly don't think so, though. If a game is good, people will stick with it.

well they did just create that new damage resistance for AV weaopon types, it could have something similar with it's own AV damage type on it's tank round or a slightly better version to do with the armour in the form of a new alloy even both, cost a few more vehicle rescources but have the benefit from it.

Dodgy Commando · 2013-05-07, 07:59 AM

So a dedicated tank killer, correct?

I haven't had a chance to play around much since the new armour changes, but they are supposed to alleviate tankers' woes when facing infantry AV if I've understood correctly. I suppose balancing a new tank similarly to the recent changes as you suggest could work out, should said changes achieve their intended goal.

But again, why roll with this bad boy when you and your teamates can each roll their own tank? You can bring sufficient damage while splitting the target you create, diminishing risks. Whereas if the only tank you can roll is a multi-crewed one, you justify its power and existence compared to solo options.

Landtank · 2013-05-07, 08:39 AM

Personally, I would be really disappointed if they didn't allow me to drive and gun my Vanguard anymore. I have no problem moving and shooting, it's not that hard.

As for teamwork: if they want to add in a cert option that either A: allows you to drive solo, or B: allows you to have a separate driver and gunner I wouldn't be against it, just leave the option! How they would go about balancing it, I'm not sure, maybe make it exactly the same? Maybe the advantages of having a separate driver/gunner will be so extreme they won't need to balance it at all.

I understand the demand for driver/gunner, but I don't see the need. Sure teamwork is fun, I agree, the Harasser is a great example. But I don't want to have to have a gunner for my tank, I enjoy being able to do both.

IMO, the devs jumped in headfirst with the solo MBT, and now they are stuck with it. Honestly, put it on test and let me see how it is, I didn't mind it in PS1, but I love being able to use a tank solo in PS2, so I guess I would have to see how I feel about it.

Dodgy Commando · 2013-05-07, 09:19 AM

The best of both worlds, except that the compromise wouldn't solve anything. The exact same tank in a crewed variant, fielded next to its solo counterparts would prove very bad for the game.

Players get more XP from the crewed tanks, so it is safe to say they would become prime targets.

You get no viable benefit apart from situational awareness. Is this a sufficient advantage? No, you can gain more of an advantage by each player grabbing their own tank.

All this much to the despair of those wanting to play in crewed tanks. Solo and crewed tanks cannot exist together in the exact same vehicle class. There is just no point to the crewed variant in these circumstances. There has to be some concrete benefit to rolling a crewed vehicle compared to a solo variant, otherwise you are not making efficient use of your manpower.

People should try and really spend some time reading what Figment has to say. He may come off a bit spikey, but just try to objectively read what he has to say without just thinking about how your gameplay experience would change, but instead that of everyone playing in this huge game.

moosepoop · 2013-05-07, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Dougnifico

I want crew tanks, but changing MBT's would piss a lot of customers off who've already invested. If you made MBT's 2 man, you would buff them. Just create a new tank for each empire.

yep, this is also my opinion. i didnt make this thread to daydream. but to make it happen.

i think empire specific/NS super heavy tanks with dedicated drivers would be the most realistic way to implement this.

benefits to SOE

- lure solo mbt users on power creep
- bring in new sales
- fills new content quota
- fills role of bfr without raising outrage
- increases fan happiness, prolonging game longevity
- since spam is decreased, able to introduce non glass cannon vehicle

Figment · 2013-05-07, 11:06 AM

You know what WOULD be a compromise? I'll give you one.

1. Role: Light support tank
Configuration: Lightning
Manpower: 1
Armaments: Driver operated turreted gun
Driver: HE/HEAT/AP
Armour levels: Light sides and rear, Medium forward armour
Hitpoint category: Low
Speed: ~70-80 kph
Handling: Good

2. Role: Tank Destroyer / siege tank (NEW VEHICLE CLASS!)
Configuration: Magrider
Manpower: 2 (Min: 1)
Weapon systems: fixed forward mounted driver operated main gun, gunner operated defensive gun
Driver: AV (strong AP) or AI (Machine gun / Flamethrower)
Gunner: Turreted machine guns (AI/all purpose)
Armour levels: Medium armour for regular TDs, light for strafe capable TDs (hover/other system?), heavy forward armour
Hitpoint category: Medium
Speed: ~35-40kph
Handling: Poor

3. Role: Main Battle Tank
Configuration: Vanguard, Prowler
Manpower: 3 (min: 2)
Armaments: gunner operated turreted main gun, gunner operated defensive gun
Turret gunner weaponry: HE/HEAT/AP
Secondary gunner weaponry: AI/AV/AA
Armour levels: medium sides and rear, strong forward armour
Hitpoint category: High
Speed: ~55-60 kph
Handing: Decent

EDIT: Just posted it here: http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i...layers.123900/

Includes additional notes, most important dev actions required and of course gameplay goals of the change.

moosepoop · 2013-05-07, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

You know what WOULD be a compromise? I'll give you one.

your compromise involves remove solo mode from mbt, and introducing a weaker solo version, forcing soloers to spend cash and start certing all over again. its gonna cause outrage. thats even worse than nerfing solo mbts.

there is no way in hell your ideas will be implemented, and you are going to decrease the chance the devs will listen.

just nerf solo mbt back to pre gu8 glass cannon version with 2 hit kill to the rear, and introduce crewed cert/ new heavy tank. its a lot less complicated.

heavy tank is the most likely outcome. because it wont require devs reworking the magrider.

Dodgy Commando · 2013-05-07, 11:23 AM

Not weaker, more specialised.

All the other compromises come at the detriment of those wanting crewed variants, to such a point that it is not even worth implementing such a compromise. Yet we seem to be berrated for speaking strongly against said compromises.

When the Solo MBT is compromised, funny how people don't want to accept that either...

Yet the pro-crewed are seen in a worse light for reacting in a similar fashion, it seems to me.

Figment · 2013-05-07, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by moosepoop

your compromise involves remove solo mode from mbt, and introducing a weaker solo version, forcing soloers to spend cash and start certing all over again. its gonna cause outrage. thats even worse than nerfing solo mbts.

Solo mbt has to be removed. I'm not removing solo vehicle play. In fact, even the Magrider remains as was, it's just nerfed in armour, hit points and possibly a slight reduction in speed (doesn't mean speed boost is gone!).

I also already said that nobody would lose certs over it because you can just refund bought weaponry in station cash and refund certs in... certpoints by just resetting the cert points invested in the vehicle at that point in time.

Investments made can NEVER be an argument to piss people off if you're compensated. In fact, if you give the people that invested in this a bonus of 10% station cash or a free camo or decal of choice for every 1000 points invested, people would even invest en mass in it prior to the removal to get a little more profit out of it.

Look at how World of Tanks compensated players for the replacement of certain tanks and look at player response to it:

http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/?showto...t=-20&p=703034

just nerf solo mbt back to pre gu8 glass cannon version with 2 hit kill to the rear, and introduce crewed cert/ new heavy tank. its a lot less complicated.

Doesn't work because it'd remain a direct Lightning competitor without adding anything to the game.

A compromise involves both sides giving and taking. Since the entire problem is created by having solo mbts in the first place, you can't do anything but remove solo mbts to solve the problem. Otherwise you're just adding void content. None of the other compromises try to tackle the serious problems that have arisen, none of the other compromises truly enrich the game by adding more playstyles and rewarding social play, none of the other compromises address tank spam at all, none of the other compromises address the Magrider issue, none of the other compromises address the Lightning-MBT competition issue.

I'm sorry, but as compromises go, mine is fastly superior... >_>