Gameplay: Dedicated driver certification for MBT

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Azren

Such a change is not required. They worked out how to balance the MBTs in PS1, they can work it out in PS2 too. It has to do with change in firepower armor and speed.

Besides, strafeing is not all that useful as it sounds

Don't forget to have the above properties divided by required manpower.

Strafing definitely is a benefit, but for the Magrider it's mostly compensation for not having a turret and therefore being easy to flank as the deadzones of the tank are ginormous and you have to turn your hull and therefore lose a lot of potential directional movement while aiming "sideways".

Where other tanks can fire sideways at high forward speeds, a Magrider would become a completely stationary rotating turret without strafing. With strafing it gets to circle strafe at close range though.

[Flaropri]

My thoughts:

1. Asymmetric Balance is fine. While it might be a disappointment to some VS players, I don't think the Magrider NEEDS the option, and I could see it causing balance problems to implement on top of the extra animation/modeling effort. While balance could be resolved, it isn't necessary to go through those steps in my opinion. (Side note: I currently intend to play VS, so I'm not just saying this to limit a faction I don't like.)

2. One way of helping balance the Cert is to potentially reduce the resource cost (counter-intuitive though this suggestion is) of spawning the vehicle slightly. In this case, Manpower would be additional limiting factor to make up for that cost decrease and make it an attractive option. For example, a 15-20% cost decrease. EDIT: That may be too much of a discount of course, I fully expect it would be played with, and in the long term it's not perhaps needed, but it's the best way to make it a more attractive option in the short term.

3. I agree that the stats of the vehicle should not be changed from 2-3 crew variants.

[Ratstomper]

The issue with giving a 360 degree turret is that it would make it significantly better than the driver=gunner version of the tank. A hover tank with a rotatable gun means the main gunner has an advantage over a fixed gun variant for being able to move the gun quickly (since the main gun moves with the tank).

Maybe it wouldn't be a huge deal. Hard to tell without testing it out.

Originally Posted by Figment

That's the problem, you don't think things through that are obvious.

Yeaaaah. Imagine you'd have to work harder as a solist to compete with MBTs that are properly driven and give up individual power for group power.

I suggest you check your butthurt at the door, friend. I'm here to help brainstorm to make the idea work; something I don't even plan to use. You we're wrong in the other thread and your posts here are no less incoherent or immature.

[Azren]

Originally Posted by Flaropri

My thoughts:
1. Asymmetric Balance is fine. While it might be a disappointment to some VS players, I don't think the Magrider NEEDS the option, and I could see it causing balance problems to implement on top of the extra animation/modeling effort. While balance could be resolved, it isn't necessary to go through those steps in my opinion. (Side note: I currently intend to play VS, so I'm not just saying this to limit a faction I don't like.)

It would not cause any balance problems. That is how they work in PS1, where they are very balanced, it would work in PS2 too.

Let the devs worry about animation/modelling effort, this should not influence this suggestion.

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

The issue with giving a 360 degree turret is that it would make it significantly better than the driver=gunner version of the tank. A hover tank with a rotatable gun means the main gunner has an advantage over a fixed gun variant for being able to move the gun quickly (since the main gun moves with the tank).

Maybe it wouldn't be a huge deal. Hard to tell without testing it out.

Gunner operated guns do not move with the tank, they are independent. If the tank rotates around, the turret will still point in the same direction.

The balance compared to the basic "drivergunner" variant should not be a problem. Don't forget, you lose half your firepower by chosing to be the dedicated driver, only with a third player can you match a "drivergunner MBT"'s firepower. Even then the 3 manned vehicle could still lose if he makes a mistake or the driver of the "drivergunner MBT" is good enough. The skill of the gunners influences the outcome too of course.

The only diffrence between Magrider and the other tanks in my suggestion is that it can strafe left and right (probably slowly). It was not enough to avoid damage in PS1 (other empires did area damage, so even a miss hurt), I think it will be the same in PS2. It remains to be seen of course, but this can be balanced by reducing firepower for example.

[Flaropri]

Originally Posted by Azren

It would not cause any balance problems. That is how they work in PS1, where they are very balanced, it would work in PS2 too.

Let the devs worry about animation/modelling effort, this should not influence this suggestion.

In PS1 there are also asymmetrical crew numbers for vehicles as well, I don't see the need to force a change that would require a lot more work in this case.


In any event: It's not how they currently work. The game is not yet balanced, of course, but the basics are in place; it requires more work to redesign the functionality and then rebalance even what they've got so far. You have to decide if the MC being turret is only good for 3-crew variants, and how to balance that with 2-crew variants.

While armor/firepower can certainly be helpful to adjust, it is still a lot of "intangibles."

I just don't think it is important enough to make the change to have them go through that effort when they could be working on new vehicles for example instead.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Azren

Gunner operated guns do not move with the tank, they are independent. If the tank rotates around, the turret will still point in the same direction.

The balance compared to the basic "drivergunner" variant should not be a problem. Don't forget, you lose half your firepower by chosing to be the dedicated driver, only with a third player can you match a "drivergunner MBT"'s firepower. Even then the 3 manned vehicle could still lose if he makes a mistake or the driver of the "drivergunner MBT" is good enough. The skill of the gunners influences the outcome too of course.

The only diffrence between Magrider and the other tanks in my suggestion is that it can strafe left and right (probably slowly). It was not enough to avoid damage in PS1 (other empires did area damage, so even a miss hurt), I think it will be the same in PS2. It remains to be seen of course, but this can be balanced by reducing firepower for example.

So long as the gun moves independently from the chassis, then it should work. It'll take some of the uniqueness away from the magrider, but oh well.

I'm not sure number of players in a vehicle should have into account when balancing the vehicle as a whole. The whole reason people get in a vehicle in the first place is for kills. When you put three people in a tank, they're statistically more effective than going alone. That's the point of vehicles; to do what footsoldiers cannot. Add onto that whatever synergy you get from having 3 dedicated, focused spots as opposed to the split two and I think they'll come out even without making any upgrades to the 3-gunner variant.

[Figment]

Manpower is THE most limited and scarce resource on Auraxis. Wasting it like you are all suggesting with this setup makes the option completely uninteresting as it is completely underpowered.

Loss of 33% firepower and 50%-66% endurance for 10%-20% better maneuvrability is completely unacceptable.

Hey Ratstomper, if Manpower doesn't matter as you claim, why do we even bother balancing units against each other both for individuals and groups of players?

It is at the very basis of game design.

@Flapropi: You never heard the sarcasm jokes about the TR design philosophy? If you say it was no problem in PS1, then you really missed how it was felt and perceived by its users. TR hated always requiring more men to fill a whole unit. Even if it was to add functionality, even if Prowler doesn't need the dual 15mm to out-dps a Vanguard. They hated that both Van and Mag could fire at the sky while they could not, while spending equal manpower.

It is an issue. A HUGE issue even. Don't dismiss or ever underestimate manpower requirement balance or you will design the next Raider.

[Accuser]

Originally Posted by Figment

Manpower is THE most limited and scarce resource on Auraxis. Wasting it like you are all suggesting with this setup makes the option completely uninteresting as it is completely underpowered.

So you're saying the OP is giving people the option of an underpowered setup, and even though many people like it, that's a problem? That's kind of silly. Like saying that a great sniper who's a bad pilot should never fly because he's depriving the team of a talented sniper. That Infil may still want to fly sometimes, even if his team would be better served by his rifle.

And I really don't think this would give the Magrider any advantage. The Magrider can already maneuver and fire at a target while keeping it's strongest armor pointed at the enemy. If you give the gunner a 360° turret for the main gun, it's still better for the Magrider to face in the direction of the enemy anyway. If anything, this would give the Prowler and Vanguard an advantage, since it will allow the driver to maneuver effectively while the gunner fires, instead of being forced to aim the main gun while trying to maneuver around terrain.

Hell, the VS in me almost wants to be against this awesome change just because it will level the playing field so much where the Magrider had a mobility advantage.

[EisenKreutzer]

I'm all for making this option into a Certification. Seems like a sizeable part of the community (or at the very least a vocal minority) want this to be a thing in PS2, and I see no reason to deny them this. It would alter very little in terms of mechanics, and though a two/three-manned vehicle with a dedicated driver would have a minor advantage in terms of spotting and mobility, I don't think it's game-breaking in any way.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Accuser

So you're saying the OP is giving people the option of an underpowered setup, and even though many people like it, that's a problem? That's kind of silly.

The OP is not giving an option, he's giving the idea of an option that people who want something that is similar to it cling to in the hopes of at least having it.

But considering it's a downright bad execution of what people actually want but don't expect out of SOE anymore because SOE's design philosophy pretty much precluded it, it's not worth it no.

Like saying that a great sniper who's a bad pilot should never fly because he's depriving the team of a talented sniper. That Infil may still want to fly sometimes, even if his team would be better served by his rifle.

Way to miss the mark, marksman. It's more like saying a sniper should be satisfied with a range extender of 10% on a regular rifle and then half the firepower and then saying "See! We got you a sniper rifle!".

Oh and please don't call infils snipers. It pains me enough that these two completely opposite roles (melee distance and long distance) have been put in the same suit.

And I really don't think this would give the Magrider any advantage. The Magrider can already maneuver and fire at a target while keeping it's strongest armor pointed at the enemy.

As long as it isn't flanked.

If you give the gunner a 360° turret for the main gun, it's still better for the Magrider to face in the direction of the enemy anyway.

Sure. Keep that enemy in front of you. Shame they outnumber you so you can't face all tanks at once and you can't make use of your speed if you're being circled and have to keep your front oriented at the enemy that's circling you (while eventually exposing side and rear to your other opponent that's still "in front").

Hooray for two one man tanks completely outmaneuvring a teamvehicle with fixed forward gun.

If anything, this would give the Prowler and Vanguard an advantage, since it will allow the driver to maneuver effectively while the gunner fires, instead of being forced to aim the main gun while trying to maneuver around terrain.

If you think of one on one situations, yes. In the bigger picture, you cut away a quarter to a third of the enemy units by combining them into one with the same hitpoints as one standard unit.

So that advantage isn't really a big advantage and pretty moot as long as the whole vehicle isn't balanced for three crew members instead of one or two.

Hell, the VS in me almost wants to be against this awesome change just because it will level the playing field so much where the Magrider had a mobility advantage.

Magrider has a mobility disadvantage due to having a fixed gun and a mobility advantage due to being able to strafe (and if we ever get water again, float over water). On the whole, they're weaker in mobility than the Prowler as it makes them more rail-turreting, semi stationary platforms than fast moving tanks that require tanks to stay far ahead of them so they can snipe them without them getting to their side or rear (at which point they're at the mercy of other tanks).

[Azren]

Originally Posted by Figment

The OP is not giving an option, he's giving the idea of an option that people who want something that is similar to it cling to in the hopes of at least having it.

Obviously I can not give you an option, I am not the director of SOE afterall... What I can do though is bring this topic to SOE's attention which can result in it being implemented.

Originally Posted by Figment

But considering it's a downright bad execution of what people actually want but don't expect out of SOE anymore because SOE's design philosophy pretty much precluded it, it's not worth it no.

If you think it is a "downright bad execution" of having dedicated gunner, feel free to share your opinion on how it could be done right.

If you think it should be more powerful or that you lose half your firepower, you are half right. The two guns on MBTs are situational, for example if you don't have to fight an aircav and tank at the same time, you don't gain much by being able to use both turrets. More than that, if you consider how much more situational awareness the dedicated driver tank has, it balances out nicely. Yes, it would lose in a head on fight, if it only has one gunner, but it has a greater chance of outmanuvearing it's opponent so it won't get into those situations in the first place. At range and tricky terrain the dedicated driver has the obvious advantage.

At any rate, this would be an option you can turn on and off when you spawn the MBT, there is no loss to overal game experience this way.

Originally Posted by Figment

Sure. Keep that enemy in front of you. Shame they outnumber you so you can't face all tanks at once and you can't make use of your speed if you're being circled and have to keep your front oriented at the enemy that's circling you (while eventually exposing side and rear to your other opponent that's still "in front").

Your main advantage would be on range and hard terrain (forests, ect). These situations ensure that you will not be circled in, if you don't let them.

It is bad to come to conclusions based on only one situation.

Originally Posted by Figment

If you think of one on one situations, yes. In the bigger picture, you cut away a quarter to a third of the enemy units by combining them into one with the same hitpoints as one standard unit.

You don't cut away anything. It is their choice to use that setup. If it would be disadvantageous they wouldn't use it in the first place. So either it works and is overal better than drivergunner setup and many players will use it, or if it does not work good enough, only those who really want that kind of experience would use it.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Azren

Obviously I can not give you an option, I am not the director of SOE afterall... What I can do though is bring this topic to SOE's attention which can result in it being implemented.

What I meant was if implemented as described, it'd still not be an option, but a token solution.

If you think it is a "downright bad execution" of having dedicated gunner, feel free to share your opinion on how it could be done right.

Simple. Don't compromise. Balance the unit completely on the basis of dedicated driver, dedicated gunner, rather than use the balance of one or two gunners.

More than that, if you consider how much more situational awareness the dedicated driver tank has, it balances out nicely. Yes, it would lose in a head on fight, if it only has one gunner, but it has a greater chance of outmanuvearing it's opponent so it won't get into those situations in the first place. At range and tricky terrain the dedicated driver has the obvious advantage.

The problem is that situational awareness doesn't give you more hitpoints and firepower. You will not be as optimal in use as any other combination of separate units.

Take a PS1 Lightning. Imagine you cut up the controls. You think a single enemy unit has more issues with two Lightnings or one?

It can only engage one at a time. The other doesn't HAVE to move and can fire freely, but if you're both in the same unit with the same hitpoints, he only needs to chase down one and maybe he'll miss 20% of the shots needed, great. If you were with two, he'd still need 80% more shots to kill the second tank...

Now if your tank also had 100% more hitpoints, you'd be getting somewhere in terms of balance and maneuvring advantage.

At any rate, this would be an option you can turn on and off when you spawn the MBT, there is no loss to overal game experience this way.

It sounds like it at first glance, if you look deeper you'll realise it's a non-solution because it's the exact same, unchanged, tank.

Your main advantage would be on range and hard terrain (forests, ect). These situations ensure that you will not be circled in, if you don't let them.

It is bad to come to conclusions based on only one situation.

Which is why I don't base it on one situation... ANY given situation. ANY situation is better with two of the same units if they have equal firepower because their endurance will always trump your endurance.

You don't cut away anything. It is their choice to use that setup. If it would be disadvantageous they wouldn't use it in the first place. So either it works and is overal better than drivergunner setup and many players will use it, or if it does not work good enough, only those who really want that kind of experience would use it.

Exactly. Meaning it's not a good compromise if only the stubborn keep using it because they sentimentally want to pretend it's still better despite the execution proving them wrong. Thanks for clarifying this to yourself.

Now, I WANT separate roles, badly, but I can't accept giving up manpower, firepower nor endurance per player for it.


The only acceptable solutions for a tank with the same role and built are when manpower, endurance/firepower (damage over time) for X* tanks are equal to the unit where X crew is a requirement. Because only THEN is maneuvrability an added advantage for your group of three.

*Note, X should never rise above three, unless the unit design has exploitable, built-in flaws. Otherwise you create units that are played with less than intended players to maximise endurance per player.

[fod]

Originally Posted by Figment

Manpower is THE most limited and scarce resource on Auraxis. Wasting it like you are all suggesting with this setup makes the option completely uninteresting as it is completely underpowered.

manpower is the least limited resource imo - with 666 players on your side its going to be easier to get a gunner than ps1 which had 400 players TOTAL on a cont

so im guessing you are against a separate driver and gunner? its hard following your posts and what you exactly mean

are you against it because you think its weaker than a 1 man tank? and if you are then why? you can always go and get a single man tank yourself - you dont have to force us to do the same, if you think 2 man tanks are weaker then why argue? just use 1 man tanks yourself all the time then

[Figment]

Fod, can't believe you think after so many posts I'd be pro-solo. I'm simply saying that this solution makes you - as a squad with limited manpower - make a comparison between pro's and cons of the available options.

Under the circumstances of this compromise, within the context of being able to solo the exact same unit (hitpoints etc) nobody would waste their manpower on this option. The advantage must be more distinct and require full manning to obtain.

Players optimise their choices and tend to secure choices: independency from others (nobody that can fail you but you). Thus, to get them to work together there has to be an advantage that is at the very least equal to other options players can have to optimise their fighting strength as a group. If not better.

So if you want to have two in one vehicle, it must rival all options for two separate units, not just best one separate unit.

[fod]

Originally Posted by Figment

Fod, can't believe you think after so many posts I'd be pro-solo. I'm simply saying that this solution makes you - as a squad with limited manpower - make a comparison between pro's and cons of the available options.

Under the circumstances of this compromise, within the context of being able to solo the exact same unit (hitpoints etc) nobody would waste their manpower on this option. The advantage must be more distinct and require full manning to obtain.

Players optimise their choices and tend to secure choices: independency from others (nobody that can fail you but you). Thus, to get them to work together there has to be an advantage that is at the very least equal to other options players can have to optimise their fighting strength as a group. If not better.

So if you want to have two in one vehicle, it must rival all options for two separate units, not just best one separate unit.

ahh now i think i understand - its been confusing with all the huge posts different people post it makes it hard to exactly follow whats going on, its probably nobodys else fault but my own but oh well (also i think i was starting to get different people confused)

so you believe (something like this anyways) that there should be more of an advantage to putting more people into tanks? im not sure i would agree with that but why dont we try and get the ability first then we can sort out afterwards how it should be balanced?

personally i think it will be an outfit/friend/choice/personal preference thing and they wont really care if 2 tanks are better than 1 with more people because they just want to team up with outfit/friends