Driver/Gunners... NO! - Page 16

MrKWalmsley · 2012-07-11, 04:34 AM

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

@MrKWalmsey

I don't see why you'd necessarily have to do anything like that. Not everything requires a specific and deliberate "balance" in place. Some things can just be what they are, I would imagine. In the case of the Mag... As you yourself described, the thing that makes the Mag attractive is it's greatly increased maneuverability. It's less affected by rough terrain, it can move side to side with equal ease. It circle strafe, basically.

I don't think the vehicles should all "be the same", necessarily. Differences and variation are just fine. The Mag is good example. Why should it have the same/similar restrictions to it that another tank does? It's very, very different from the others. It is not really a "turreted" tank so much, and there's nothing wrong with that. Hell, there's precedent for it in real life, even. Remember the old WWII turretless tank destroyers? Some of them were even designed for speed and maneuverability over armor.
Different vehicles can have different crew requirements/design philosophies, nothing wrong with that.

Did you even read my comment? I was using it as an argument AGAINST putting a turret on top of the mag. And yes there does need to be a deliberate balance, otherwise Vanu will completely dominate battlefield if they have turrets on the mag, that was my argument.

Azren · 2012-07-11, 04:34 AM

We had this topic so many times before. I am surprised it didnt get shot down right away.

All you driver/gunner supporters, why are you so insistent on having the MBTs on that setup? If you want a solo vehicle, there are options avaiable already, even in tanks.

What is the point in having two driver/gunner tanks in game? Only one should have this setup while the other should run with dedicated driver.

I think you supporters only want the benefit of greater armor for your solo vehicles... As for the devs, they just want to make the CoD kiddies happy.
I do not buy that bs line that the devs made it this way so you can enjoy the benefits of spending your certs on the vehicle, how does that logic apply to the liberator/sunderer/galaxy?

RodenyC · 2012-07-11, 04:35 AM

Promotes lone wolfing.Planetside is not a lone wolf game.Therefore it does not belong.

Bobby Shaftoe · 2012-07-11, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by Ant001

They have said many times they want to attract players from bf and cod.

Thats pretty fucking flimsy when compared to the fact they removed self healing from Infantry, y'know where the BF/CoD players expect health regen.

So they're happy to make them use teamwork as Infantry but they decided having two people for a vehicle is going to be beyond their abilities?

Azren · 2012-07-11, 04:51 AM

Originally Posted by Bobby Shaftoe

Thats pretty fucking flimsy when compared to the fact they removed self healing from Infantry, y'know where the BF/CoD players expect health regen.

So they're happy to make them use teamwork as Infantry but they decided having two people for a vehicle is going to be beyond their abilities?

Only for the MBTs, everywhere else it's fine PS1 style. No logic to be found here I am afraid.

XLynxX · 2012-07-11, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by TheDAWinz

Because a irresponsible driver in charge of three people would waste more resources then being in charge of two people. Simple as that.

Did you ever play Planetside? Because if you did, you'd know that rarely ever happened. A driver didn't just drive off cliffs, it was a real dependancy on each other. The driver needed the gunner to get XP, and the gunner needed the driver so he could move. Mixing them will just mean hundreds of tanks and little teamwork.

Superbus · 2012-07-11, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by Bobby Shaftoe

I'm a BR40

You're being shot down, because your arguments hold little value with statements like this.

Its like me saying well I am the second coming of Jesus Christ on a christian forum you all best repent, for my word is the word of god.

Bobby Shaftoe · 2012-07-11, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by Superbus

Its like me saying well I am the second coming of Jesus Christ on a christian forum you all best repent, for my word is the word of god.

Nice non sequitur, since I actually AM BR40. I have gameplay/mechanic experience of 'doing everything at once' in PS1. Do you, of being the second coming of Jesus Christ?

Didn't think so.

It's fine by me if you don't want listen to those with previous experience and have concerns of what the PS2 devs want to implement, you'll just get to learn those lessons the hard way.

Superbus · 2012-07-11, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by Bobby Shaftoe

Nice non sequitur, since I actually AM BR40. I have gameplay/mechanic experience of 'doing everything at once' in PS1. Do you, of being the second coming of Jesus Christ?

Didn't think so.

It's fine by me if you don't want listen to those with previous experience and have concerns of what the PS2 devs want to implement, you'll just get to learn those lessons the hard way.

I have plenty of previous experience to know which game design mechanics I liked and did not like in PS1.

My point was you being BR40 in a 10 year old game holds no merit for this one, as you are making assumptions but have little facts to back up your statements. You just add in things like my experience in a previous game gives me special insight, listen to me!!!! It's fine to be critical, but being br40 in PS1 holds no merit in PS2.

In short, get over yourself.

Bobby Shaftoe · 2012-07-11, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by Superbus

making assumptions but have little facts to back up your statements.

That's odd, I could have sworn they were letting all armour types except MAXs drive/pilot vehicles, not only that, they've designed MBTs (the most powerful ground vehicles) to be effectively used by ONE person.

Just because you don't like me and would rather attack my character than address the thread topic, doesn't change the fact the above 'mechanics' are quite frankly, appalling things to implement in an MMOFPS which is supposed to be about teamwork and allegedly 'tradeoffs' for each role you fill. Viz, 'you want to be Heavy Infantry, ok you'll need medic/engy support to be effective.' Compared to, 'you want to be a vehicle driver... ok you can be that AND Heavy Infantry.'

There is no reason NOT TO BE in a MBT or any vehicle at any point in the game between bases. Infact, you're probably going to be hurting your empire if you're not in a MBT and instead chose to take up a seat (aka teamwork) in a transport because you're not contributing to the fight until you get out of that transport.

PredatorFour · 2012-07-11, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by Bobby Shaftoe

There is no reason NOT TO BE in a MBT or any vehicle at any point in the game between bases.

So true, like i said in another thread its going to be very similiar gameplay to Dust 415 where you get people sitiing in tanks killing lots of things. You have to buy the equipment with rescources/or cash in that game too.

The issue is, they wanted to give the driver the gun because he specced the tank so he `gets to shoot`. So if they give the option of a dedicated gunner its going to unbalance some of the tank fights. This will lead to the single kill whores getting rather upset about being blasted to oblivion by tank crews, getting pissed off with the game and maybe stop playing as much. They have said many times they want this mainstream FPS audience and if its true they have no patience and low attention spans, as has been quoted many times, this could lead to less revenue for SoE.

Don`t get me wrong, i think a 1 man MBT is a terrible idea and fully support me being the driver and having a dedicated gunner.

Shallon · 2012-07-11, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by Stew

Not agains those tread are getting silly

Having gunner driver make perfect sens in a video game like this thanks

Everyone seems to be forgetting the MMO at the front of this FPS, Driver gunner makes perfect sense in a game like BF where time and teamwork are at a shortage but this game is all about teamwork and social interaction.

I'm scared it's going to take away a lot of the Planetside feel. Yer it will look good 2000 tanks rolling over the hill (which could be done anyway, Lightning!) but I think it will take away some of the emersion when forming up a massive raid.

I think the cert option to allow a second person to gun is a good middle ground, but not perfect. I get worried by MMO's being dumbed down for the COD Kiddies of this world.

Just worried though, wont prejudge just yet

sunzen · 2012-07-11, 07:04 AM

So, in this matter they gave in to the "I want to be able to do everything by myself at any time" thing thats been going on in many different types of games nowadays. I had rather gone for an option like, light vehicles can be driven and used by yourself with the possibility that a second person could use the gun, whereas the heavy vehicles need at least a second player to be effective. This adds a lot of excitement to the gaming experience.

fvdham · 2012-07-11, 09:41 AM

Why would any1 drive a Lightning if they can get a solo MBT ?

Could it be the purchase cost at the vehicle term?
Say if an MBT cost 2.5 times the price of a Lightning?

SgtExo · 2012-07-11, 10:43 AM

A Lightning is a fast response vehicle made to be fast and light. The MBTs are heavy tanks made to take punishment and and dish it out. When you say to ppl that want to play a tank alone to go in a lightning, that is not what they want to play, they want to play the big tank with the big gun, not the small one with the auto-canon.

I'm not saying that the Lightning wont be worth playing, I'm saying that they do not fill in the same role and ppl should not be penalized just because nobody they know is online to gun for them, or if they are new and don't even know anyone.

Also when you compare the teamwork in Libs and Gals with the MBTs, that just does not match up. The Liberator is a gunship, it would be really hard to fly and be able to shoot a gun that is not in a fixed position, so it is normal that it needs multiple ppl to make it work and for that, it has a vastly greater damage potential than the tank. Saying that ppl will not use Gals and Sundys just because they could all drive a tank does not take into account that different terrains will limit the effectiveness of massive tank formations. Also allot of ppl will not even want to be in a tank and just prefer infantry combat, and that is where the transports are going to come in, a cost effective way to transport ppl for base captures. I am sure that tanks will not be cost effective for ppl if they just want to get to a fight. First, they are slow and there are fast ways of getting there like the Flash. Second they are big targets and easy to spot for roaming air vehicles. Last but not least, I would not be surprised if they are the priciest ground vehicle.

For the ppl that want a turret on the Mag, I have played the hover tank in BF 2142, and it is turret-less also and it is not a downside, its just a different way of playing. If i could get the hover tank and still be NC, I would take that option in a heartbeat, because hover tanks are just that good.