Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2 - Page 18

Sirisian · 2011-09-28, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by dsi

This, the community has to be as vocal as possible about bad ideas like removal of a full inventory system and two man tanks, removing these things is taking out fundamental supports of the core of Planetside, teamwork.

Not sure if sarcastic or seriously believes the inventory system affected teamwork.

Also Azren you're overreacting to change. You'll see in beta how well it works.

Xyntech · 2011-09-28, 07:31 PM

I don't think you can force teamwork and expect a successful game. All you can do is make teamwork superior to solo play in effectiveness, which it almost always is.

Tanks aren't some uber twitch kinda of vehicle in most games, you will never have one single manned tank pwning a half dozen other single man tanks. Two tanks will probably be better than one, but two tanks coordinating with each other are going to be better than two tanks soloing it up.

Will a skilled one man tank beat a skilled 2 man tank half the time given an otherwise level playing field in PS2? I don't know, but it seems likely. That doesn't negate team play, it just means we don't get to have the old dynamic. Remember that we're not just talking about that gunner position being a liability due to the fact that on solo tank could potentially take on a 2 man tank 1on1, we also have to factor in non tank based threats.

I note a lot of comparisons to BFR's, but that's absurd. BFR's were wrong in so many ways, being a solo vehicle was barely on the map. A better comparison is the reaver. The reaver has had it's buffs and nerfs, but even in it's prime reaverside days it wasn't the clear dominating force on the battlefield. Any schmuck (me) could cert it and fly it around solo (me) and rack up some kills, but despite that, not everyone was flying it, nor were the people who had it flying it all the time. The reaver was (relatively) fast, but it had appropriately weak armor. Deadly AA systems also kept it in check (even more so later on). Why wouldn't this work with tanks? Tanks may have more armor, but they are slow as shit. Put in some effective AV options from both sky and land and it should balance a solo tank.

As for team work, reavers and mosquitoes always become a lot more deadly in coordinated numbers (also me). Teamwork wins in most games, even ones that aren't design around it. Now, consider the fact that a fighter can almost only team up with other fighters (aside from running guard duty on a gal or something) due to their speed. Fighters don't get a secondary gunner seat (as far as we currently know) as an additional team work option.

PS2's teamwork may not be the teamwork you want or remember, but having an on board AA or AI gunner to protect you from those threats that are most deadly to a tank (concealed AV infantry or AV aircraft) is still a great way to promote team work and make team play more deadly. Given the faster TTK's they are going for, even if a tank still has a lot of armor it will probably go down quick to a few AV infantry hitting it from behind and I wouldn't be surprised if your main cannon had to choose between doing a lot of damage to armored vehicles, or doing a larger splash damage to infantry, so if you want your tank to be effective against another tank, you had better rely on that AI turret (with it's undoubtedly extremely short TTK against infantry) to keep you safe from infantry.

So what you will probably end up with, teamwork-wise for tanks, are groups of mostly solo tanks with every few having an AI gunner (depending on the environment) and every 5th or 6th having an AA gunner (again, depending on environment). It will be different than what we are used to, but it will certainly still be team work.

Getting back to my original point, team work will dominate, but solo players will also have a chance to have fun. I liked switching between solo play and team play in Planetside 1 and I remember trying out the lightning early on. It wasn't a good experience. The lightning isn't worthless, but it's only really effective in coordinated groups. Compare that with reavers and mosquitos who have the OPTION of solo play and you can see how people wanting a more solo experience wouldn't have much fun in the ground vehicle combat of Planetside. Why push those people away? Don't we want as many players to play with as possible? Not at the expense of a good game, I'm with everyone on that, but how is the option of a solo tank going to destroy the entire game? If the game is balanced against it (unlike BFR's, who were not balanced), it can still be a good game, It may not be the same game, but I think the most important aspect is still the massive persistent scale.

Team play is the best, but solo play should really be an option, as an infantryman, as a pilot and as a driver. I sincerely hope the devs find a way include game mechanics that make those of you who just want to drive or just gun and still be an option and a viable force on the battlefield, but don't shit on the solo play. If people enjoy playing solo enough, they will be more likely to gravitate towards team play which is where the real fun is at.

NapalmEnima · 2011-09-28, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Not sure if sarcastic or seriously believes the inventory system affected teamwork.

I think he's referring to the niche where MAXes load up with glue and health so support folks don't run out while doing something like holding a generator or command console.

That's nice, I'd like to see them preserve it. But a grid inventory isn't a prerequisite to "MAXes bring stuff along to help everyone else resupply". I proposed something in my "resupply" thread on this very subject.

There are ways, it's just a matter of whether or not they choose to go that route (and have the time to do so).

Captain B · 2011-09-28, 07:50 PM

No one is arguing that two-manned vehicles will be inferior to single-manned tanks.

What people are saying is that the possibility of seeing 100 single-manned tanks is real, and that should you (in a vacuum) have equal amount tankers split between 100 tanks or 50 tanks but with two crew, the single-manned tanks will have a significant advantage.

Keep in mind you could theoretically do the same with Lightnings, but they don't have the punch of Vanguards nor do they have the armor to suck up MBTs' kicks in the face. It really is an impasse at this point: people will either see the situation or they won't. I don't personally believe talk on either end is going to further persuade, dissuade or inform people one way or the other.

Xyntech · 2011-09-28, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by Captain B

No one is arguing that two-manned vehicles will be inferior to single-manned tanks.

What people are saying is that the possibility of seeing 100 single-manned tanks is real, and that should you (in a vacuum) have equal amount tankers split between 100 tanks or 50 tanks but with two crew, the single-manned tanks will have a significant advantage.

Keep in mind you could theoretically do the same with Lightnings, but they don't have the punch of Vanguards nor do they have the armor to suck up MBTs' kicks in the face. It really is an impasse at this point: people will either see the situation or they won't. I don't personally believe talk on either end is going to further persuade, dissuade or inform people one way or the other.

But the way I see it, they will all be one man tanks. The only difference is that they also act as mobile AI or AA sentry positions that someone else can happen to ride around in. This is significantly different than before, but may not be inherently bad or anti team work in and of itself.

I understand that change isn't always pleasant and if there ends up leaving no place for some old planetside players who just want to drive, I won't be happy about that, but if it makes a better game over all, so be it. You can't please everyone.

Again, ideally there will be a place for everyone. Let's hope the devs listen and come up with some good compromises. It sounds like some people won't be happy unless it is exactly like Planetside, which is a very niche and extremely outdated game. I want more players more than I want every planetside player to have their dream sequel. I think that will only benefit the game. Sure Planetside 1 has lasted longer than most games, but it has been a shadow of it's former self for the majority of that run. What's the use of having all of that awesome potential if there is almost no one to play it with?

cellinaire · 2011-09-28, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by Azren

I'm afraid that is not good enough. This is a core gameplay issue, something that will not be changed after beta. They may remove/rebalance some guns, but this would take too much work. We need to make it clear to the devs that PS 1 style tanks are preferred, not the new nonsence concept.
The devs stated that beta will be a stress test mostly, basic gameplay will not be changed afterwards. Same with class system, anyone honestly thinks that it will be removed if we don't like it? It is a core part of the game by now, it would take too much redesigning to be changed, so it stays.

...Have you ever heard about the Blizzard's development philosophy?

well anyway..

SOE, however, isn't Blizzard so they're looking at compromise instead. I for one can live with their compromise plan, so I wrote that. In addition to this, I'm currently very skeptical about our dev team completely averting this decision given SOE's track record, but I say let's just hope this isn't the case.

and yeah, I know it's several months before we can even get our hands on Beta, but things can't be changed that easily already I guess. ('Cause from what I've observed from the mmo devs in general, they tend to say "plz at least try once before saying like the sky is falling. We'll make sure this is changed if it affects the overall gameplay in a negative way" )

Captain B · 2011-09-28, 10:17 PM

Oh I definitely agree, Xyntech. It's just without information (and quite honestly, the beta) to really flesh out the details, it isn't just teamwork/community facilitation (issue #1) but also the stats of vehicles with one-man crews (issue #2) that has me wondering where all of this will end up come launch. Being someone who's looking forward to running an air outfit, it does actually have implications outside of the "tank vs. tank" scenarios, and I'm curious as how it will impact the rest of the game (infantry/MAXes, air combat, engineers/turrets, etc.) as well.

Overall, my concerns aren't doomsday rhetoric but simply concerns as there are great things from PS1 that aren't broken, but seemingly being fixed anyway (although a lot of broken things ARE getting fixed, which is good too).

Vash02 · 2011-09-28, 10:26 PM

The change puts the mag at a severe disadvantage to the other 2 tanks. With its main gun being fixed forward it cannot shoot behind at tanks pursuing it or do hit and runs effectively. Unless MBTs are just going be heavy fire support the VS have really gotten the short end of the stick on this one.

Yeah thinking about this change its just worse overall. Just imagine all the PS2 tanks concentraiting more on what they are shooting at rather than where they are going, its going to be hell for people on the ground being run over by their team mates all the time.

sucky change.

Xyntech · 2011-09-28, 10:32 PM

Unfortunately, I think some non broken elements may be collateral in fixing other issues.

Insuring a (slightly) faster pace of game play as well as giving solo players something to do are obviously important to the developers. Keeping the long time fans happy should also be an important concern, so we'll see how they react to this kind of feedback.

I guess I just haven't personally felt the same feeling as some that a one man tank will destroy the balance or team play of the game. Obviously stats and balance are a big factor, but unlike core gameplay mechanics, those can be tweaked extensively and on multiple fronts.

Unless a fixed gun is some sort of unalterable design philosophy of the new magrider, I do hope they change it to a turret, if only for the fact that it would be difficult to make it a turret later on and, if all of the tanks had a turret, it would be easier to make larger compromises for players who only wanted to drive the tank, not gun.

kaffis · 2011-09-28, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by Vash02

The change puts the mag at a severe disadvantage to the other 2 tanks. With its main gun being fixed forward it cannot shoot behind at tanks pursuing it or do hit and runs effectively. Unless MBTs are just going be heavy fire support the VS have really gotten the short end of the stick on this one.

While we don't know enough to definitively rule this out, I don't understand why people are so panicky about this aspect of it.

Vanu-specific vehicles can strafe. That makes the entire tank a turret, provided the handling allows for it. "Fixed forward" is meaningless when you can drive sideways to begin with.

Xyntech · 2011-09-28, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by Vash02

The change puts the mag at a severe disadvantage to the other 2 tanks. With its main gun being fixed forward it cannot shoot behind at tanks pursuing it or do hit and runs effectively. Unless MBTs are just going be heavy fire support the VS have really gotten the short end of the stick on this one.

Any tank being shot from behind is gonna get that exposed ass of theirs handed to them, so shooting at a tank behind you may not be such a good idea for any of the three. Options are always nice of course, but...

The Magrider has always been the lightest armored MBT though, with it's faster speed, maneuverability, hovering and direct fire weapon making up for it. This is pure speculation (but what else can we do with so little information!), but what if they buff the strafing speed and the turning speed of the Magrider? Suddenly it is strafing the sides of superior armored tanks, keeping moving, it's gun trained on them and it's strongest forward armor pointing at them, all while the enemy tank is either stationary and turning to keep it's front armor facing the Magrider, or it's moving around with it's weaker sides exposed to attack.

If they fuck up our tank, there will be hell to pay and quite frankly I would prefer the magrider had it's main gun on a turret, but I just don't believe they would gimp it that badly compared to the other two tanks and not have some sort of positive feature that makes up for it. Why would they do that? I know everyone loves to gimp the VS, but that would be insane. I don't think TRay would agree to design a vehicle that gimped for us. Unless he is a masochist. Hmmm, something new to speculate on

cellinaire · 2011-09-28, 10:52 PM

And to those who are continuously saying '1manned/2manned vehicle thing' is core gameplay mechanic(or system) and can't be changed forever, yeah it'll severely affect overall gameplay but I think it's not core-level. Between core-level and small feature, it's tucked in the middleground. Of course I know bad decision mustn't see the light of day from day one.

And to those who says this decision will totally annihilate, devastate teamplay nature of this game. well, I think it won't be that as severe as you guys might think. Just not that extreme. But we will see. I personally prefer PS1's way, though.

Azren · 2011-09-29, 03:02 AM

Originally Posted by Xyntech

The Magrider has always been the lightest armored MBT though, with it's faster speed, maneuverability, hovering and direct fire weapon making up for it. This is pure speculation (but what else can we do with so little information!), but what if they buff the strafing speed and the turning speed of the Magrider? Suddenly it is strafing the sides of superior armored tanks, keeping moving, it's gun trained on them and it's strongest forward armor pointing at them, all while the enemy tank is either stationary and turning to keep it's front armor facing the Magrider, or it's moving around with it's weaker sides exposed to attack.

If it strafes and turns too fast, aiming will be hard. Well as long as the magrider is concerned, I think that having the main gun for driver and AI gun on turret will be much more effective than the current setup is (main gun does not need that precise aiming, since the targets are much bigger). The issue with the other tanks is more problematic.

Kalbuth · 2011-09-29, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Xyntech

But the way I see it, they will all be one man tanks. The only difference is that they also act as mobile AI or AA sentry positions that someone else can happen to ride around in. This is significantly different than before, but may not be inherently bad or anti team work in and of itself.

Sorry, but this is a huge, huge change and it can be game-breaking.

Taking AA/AV vehicles situation as an example :
In the current situation, AA and AV jobs are separated, and can be dealt with separately. You can kill the AA easily with AV infantry as the armor is not great, and you can kill the AV easily with Air because the AV cannot retaliate. You cannot kill the AV easily with AV infantry because it takes much time and you are very fragile to him.
You can coordinate your AV infantry and Air to take out separately and in order first AA then AV

If in PS2, both jobs, through upgrades to tanks, are devoted to the same vehicle, you have to counter a vehicle that has great armor (ie, can't be countered by AV infantry, if I make it quick) and can deal with Air, all in one kit. This is a huge difference.
Giving interest to secondary guns by pushing all weapons on a single vehicle is going to bring huge balance issues in the battlefield, making armor the only viable solution in the field.

It is anti-teamwork in the sense that it breaks the teamwork used to counter it.
It is also going to lower variety in the field

Xyntech · 2011-09-29, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Kalbuth

Giving interest to secondary guns by pushing all weapons on a single vehicle is going to bring huge balance issues in the battlefield, making armor the only viable solution in the field.

Vehicles are the only real solution for open terrain combat as it stands and as long as you have a skyguard for support, there isn't much that can stop a tank in the open these days anyway.

Tanks should dominate open space, so I don't see the problem there. Aircraft should be able to pick them off freely if they have no AA support, but the skyguard already provides that option. This is pretty much just removes the superfluous driver position on the skyguard and puts the turret on a tank.

Mind you, the tank will need a gunner for that AA and it will not be able to mount an AI turret while doing so.

The machine guns on tanks in Planetside aren't so great. Due to the over powerd main cannons and the longish TTK's on the machine guns, it's generally more useful for the gunner to just spam some shells and one shot an infantryman or two. If they hope to balance the soloable tanks, they will have to make the main gun either weaker against infantry, or at least make it a choice between high AV damage or a large AI splash. This is speculation, but it is also totally viable.

So if the developers aren't completely inept, a tank with no AA gun will die easily to aircraft, a tank with no AI gun will die relatively easily to concealed infantry and, if there is an option to make the main cannon an AI cannon, a tank with an AI main gun and an AA secondary gun will die easily to other tanks.

So what you would end up with is either a bunch of tanks who are easy prey for one type of enemy or another, or with a little team work you would end up with a group of coordinated tanks, some solo, some with AI weaponry and a few with AA weaponry, who would dominate open spaces. How is this so different than a dozen tanks with a couple of skyguards today?

Different yes, but it could easily be balanced.