Gunning Certification - Page 2

FredTomson · 2012-04-11, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Goku

Something along the lines of a advanced gun that can only be used by a tue dedicated gunner would be nice. I'm talking being far more powerful then what you find on either the secondary or primary guns.

That's more or less what Higgles told us was going to be in the game on Saturday night.

SKYeXile · 2012-04-11, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Xyntech

I think gunners being required to cert in it is bad. It will just reduce the number of gunners. Ideally, we should be promoting more gunners, dedicated driver or not. More gunners equals more team work. I'm not against solo MBT's, but I do also want to encourage team work as much as possible even if not outright demanding or requiring it.

Tank drivers will cert in dedicated gunner certs because they either A) want to focus all of their attention on driving (plenty of drivers out there would want this) or B) they just want their gunner to have the most powerful gun possible (the more selfless kind of driver). Possibly both.

Either way, this is a choice the driver needs to make. A driver who wants to control the main gun shouldn't have to put up with just driving because their gunner pulls out their dedicated gunner cert. Nor should a driver be forced to control the main gun just because their gunner wanted to take a standard AA turret.

One of the biggest reasons PS2 has driver controlled main guns is because they devs wanted the drivers to get a lot of return on their investment (that and catering to the CoD and BF crowd). In my mind, those who want a dedicated gunner slot will be getting more than their fair return for their investment in the cert, just in the fact that it is giving them the playstyle they want.

Gunners are just along for the ride. I like the idea of being able to cert in some abilities that give you slight enhancement to gunning, but it would be small stuff at most. It's not their tank. They are glorified passengers.

Yea screw them, they want to gun my shit they can pay me resources for the privilege of doing so.

Tapman · 2012-04-11, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Goku

Something along the lines of a advanced gun that can only be used by a tue dedicated gunner would be nice. I'm talking being far more powerful then what you find on either the secondary or primary guns.

Situationally stronger. You can't have something that is unbalanced but there should definitely be trade-offs you can make on a logistical basis to potentially give you an advantage based on intelligence and whatnot.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Yeah, I spent a lot of time in the gunner seat of a tank, and it would have been nice to be able to focus on that activity more, be able to advertise 'Gunner LFW: Can do this and this and this". In PS1 the only thing you needed to be an optimal gunner was advanced targeting and a glue gun.

You needed something else, a damn good driver. Vehicles are constantly targeted and with the additional population I'm sure that the need for a good driver will only be increased. It also helped if you and your driver were advanced engineers.

I don't think gunners should have any say in an accuracy upgrade, if that exists at all it should be from a driver speccing it in their load-out and sacrificing something else to get it. The point of being a good gunner is that you wouldn't need your driver to spec into accuracy so they could get a more fitting sidegrade like damage-per-hit.

sylphaen · 2012-04-11, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

Yea screw them, they want to gun my shit they can pay me resources for the privilege of doing so.

On the other hand, they may just say: "Keep playing alone with your fuckin' toy!"

Everyone wants to handle the big guns.

Reginald · 2012-04-11, 07:07 PM

So how is the dedicated gunner cert going to work with the Magrider? Assuming it still has a fixed forward cannon, it will still be the drivers job to aim on the horizontal axis.

sylphaen · 2012-04-11, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by Reginald

So how is the dedicated gunner cert going to work with the Magrider? Assuming it still has a fixed forward cannon, it will still be the drivers job to aim on the horizontal axis.

Xyntech described it. Driver forfeits his gun and the secondary gun (located on top) is transformed into a new main gun.

Blackwolf · 2012-04-11, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Xyntech

I think gunners being required to cert in it is bad. It will just reduce the number of gunners. Ideally, we should be promoting more gunners, dedicated driver or not. More gunners equals more team work. I'm not against solo MBT's, but I do also want to encourage team work as much as possible even if not outright demanding or requiring it.

Tank drivers will cert in dedicated gunner certs because they either A) want to focus all of their attention on driving (plenty of drivers out there would want this) or B) they just want their gunner to have the most powerful gun possible (the more selfless kind of driver). Possibly both.

Either way, this is a choice the driver needs to make. A driver who wants to control the main gun shouldn't have to put up with just driving because their gunner pulls out their dedicated gunner cert. Nor should a driver be forced to control the main gun just because their gunner wanted to take a standard AA turret.

One of the biggest reasons PS2 has driver controlled main guns is because they devs wanted the drivers to get a lot of return on their investment (that and catering to the CoD and BF crowd). In my mind, those who want a dedicated gunner slot will be getting more than their fair return for their investment in the cert, just in the fact that it is giving them the playstyle they want.

Gunners are just along for the ride. I like the idea of being able to cert in some abilities that give you slight enhancement to gunning, but it would be small stuff at most. It's not their tank. They are glorified passengers.

I never suggested that a driver be forced into giving up his primary gun just because someone has a gunner cert. Instead I suggested ways of making a gunner with the cert a viable addition to the drivers crew, in order to promote driver/gunner tanks rather then gunnerless tanks.

If a driver wants a dedicated gunner slot, more power to the gunner that certs for it. Now he has more toys to play with and a driver who won't be distracted, making the tank a far more effective combat vehicle over all. If not, then the tank will have more firepower spewing out at a given moment because both driver and gunner have equally powerful weaponry.

Also, it would be 1 cert for the basic ability to gun for all vehicles. Requiring that cert means the gunner spots can be justifiably stronger (a little, mostly to equalize the difference between primary and secondary gun spots on tanks), and gives players more potential options for how strongly they want to spec themselves out as gunners. I can't remember if transport vehicles would allow passengers to shoot from gun ports or not, if not then they could be exempt from requirements and benefits of the gunnery cert entirely.

Again the idea isn't to force the driver into situations. It is his tank after all. It simply gives the driver an incentive to take on a gunner who is experienced and can improve the performance of the tank overall, not just with his ability to shoot stuff.

Reginald · 2012-04-11, 07:20 PM

If that is the case then it should always be like that. If not it puts the Magrider at a disadvantage in normal situations (driver vs. driver) with the gun located lower on the chassis.

SKYeXile · 2012-04-11, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Reginald

So how is the dedicated gunner cert going to work with the Magrider? Assuming it still has a fixed forward cannon, it will still be the drivers job to aim on the horizontal axis.

it would have to become a 360deg turret then if a gunner is operating it, and the Forward facing gun become a PPA again or something.

sylphaen · 2012-04-11, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

Again the idea isn't to force the driver into situations. It is his tank after all. It simply gives the driver an incentive to take on a gunner who is experienced and can improve the performance of the tank overall, not just with his ability to shoot stuff.

This paragraph is where I see an issue. Gunners man the turrets and the bonus of having a gunner is about having a turret manned (i.e. what you call the ability to shoot stuff). There is no need for extra power on the guns.

When you make a gun more powerful because gunner A has a cert for it and not gunner B, you are only boosting the power of a gun. But it won't really change anything because dedicated gunners would always have that cert anyways. You are only penalizing non-dedicated gunners and I do not think it's a good idea.

In PS1, gunners did not add power to the vehicles; they just manned the guns. How come I happened to have the same gunners 95% of the time ? It's simply because when you have good gunnners you know how to play with, you do not pick any other gunners.

And if you have to choose between an outfit member and a non-outfit member, the non-outfit guy gets the kick.

What will happen when you make that "gunner +10% gun damage" cert for the gun user? I think we will end with a situation just worse for the casual (or new) gunners. You only create a barrier of entry to trying and enjoying a new gameplay. Why ? Simply because any dedicated gunner would take it and it would render non-optimized tank teams not competitive.

What tank players want is more tanks on the field and large battles. What's the point of having an uber-tank in a sea of subpar tanks just there to be farmed ? Target practice is a boring gameplay and especially for the prey. If people cannot compete, they will not play the tank game. In this case, it would mean that only uber-tanks would be out there just like only BFRs were out there when BFRs came out. It does not improve the game, it just decreases its diversity.

Forcing gunners to get a cert in order to stay effective is not a fun mechanic and, imo, will not improve the game. It may also make competitive gunners more difficult to fight.

If you want a reserved spot in a tank crew, get to meet people, take time to know them and have fun together ! Good aim is secondary and can always be improved. There's no need to spec for uber-gun to find a good group of people.

Edit: and yes, I believe it's different for tank owners. They own the tank, they get to pimp it out and they know what they're getting into. And above all, they do not want to be forced into a gunner choice because guy A has more optimal certs than guy B.

Xyntech · 2012-04-11, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

Yea screw them, they want to gun my shit they can pay me resources for the privilege of doing so.

It's greedy attitudes like this that make you better suited for aircav. It's why I prefer aircav at least

SKYeXile · 2012-04-11, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by Xyntech

It's greedy attitudes like this that make you better suited for aircav. It's why I prefer aircav at least

I agree!

Xyntech · 2012-04-11, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Reginald

If that is the case then it should always be like that. If not it puts the Magrider at a disadvantage in normal situations (driver vs. driver) with the gun located lower on the chassis.

The entire Magrider is a turret. Assuming the devs properly balance it, the Magrider will probably turn it's entire body at a similar speed to how quickly the other tanks turn their turrets.

Think of it like this: Instead of imagining the Magriders gun to be in a fixed position, imagine that the magrider has a protective shell extending from it's free swiveling turret. The only discrepancy in this analogy is that your directional controls for moving the tank will be based on which way your gun is facing, not which way your treads are facing. That and the extra ability to strafe.

I believe the Magrider is still the lightest armored tank. What this allows is for the Magrider to keep it's most protective front armor facing in the same direction as it's main gun.

If they FUBAR the Magriders turning and/or aiming, I agree that it will be extremely underpowered, but it will also be very easy for them to tweak it. All it needs to be able to do is to aim as well and as easily as either of the other tanks and the rest will take care of itself.

Obviously this won't work at all with a dedicated gunner, for obvious reasons. That's why a dedicated gunner would have to be on their own swivel turret. The strafing nature of the Magrider would still be critical though, considering that the Magrider would still have the weakest armor and thus the driver would still want to strafe to keep their best armor facing the most dangerous directions. They would just be focusing all of their attention on it, instead of splitting their attention trying to shoot stuff as well.

Blackwolf · 2012-04-11, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by sylphaen

This paragraph is where I see an issue. Gunners man the turrets and the bonus of having a gunner is about having a turret manned (i.e. what you call the ability to shoot stuff). There is no need for extra power on the guns.

When you make a gun more powerful because gunner A has a cert for it and not gunner B, you are only boosting the power of a gun. But it won't really change anything because dedicated gunners would always have that cert anyways. You are only penalizing non-dedicated gunners and I do not think it's a good idea.

In PS1, gunners did not add power to the vehicles; they just manned the guns. How come I happened to have the same gunners 95% of the time ? It's simply because when you have good gunnners you know how to play with, you do not pick any other gunners.

And if you have to choose between an outfit member and a non-outfit member, the non-outfit guy gets the kick.

What will happen when you make that "gunner +10% gun damage" cert for the gun user? I think we will end with a situation just worse for the casual (or new) gunners. You only create a barrier of entry to trying and enjoying a new gameplay. Why ? Simply because any dedicated gunner would take it and it would render non-optimized tank teams not competitive.

What tank players want is more tanks on the field and large battles. What's the point of having an uber-tank in a sea of subpar tanks just there to be farmed ? Target practice is a boring gameplay and especially for the prey. If people cannot compete, they will not play the tank game. In this case, it would mean that only uber-tanks would be out there just like only BFRs were out there when BFRs came out. It does not improve the game, it just decreases its diversity.

Forcing gunners to get a cert in order to stay effective is not a fun mechanic and, imo, will not improve the game. It may also make competitive gunners more difficult to fight.

If you want a reserved spot in a tank crew, get to meet people, take time to know them and have fun together ! Good aim is secondary and can always be improved. There's no need to spec for uber-gun to find a good group of people.

Edit: and yes, I believe it's different for tank owners. They own the tank, they get to pimp it out and they know what they're getting into. And above all, they do not want to be forced into a gunner choice because guy A has more optimal certs than guy B.

Posts like this are usually why forums give me the urge to bang my head against walls. I typically assume anyone following the thread would have read everything I wrote. So I tend to not repeat myself.

Summarization:

1: Gunner cert would give you the ability to access the gunner spot on any given vehicle. No cert, no boom boom. It would be a 1 point cert, not a whole lot to ask for.

2: Sidegrades to the cert would give you additional boons such as trajectory calculation (a spot on the hud that shows where you should shoot in order to hit a moving target with the currently available armament, which only factors in the targets current direction and speed against the speed of your projectile), tighter CoF (if CoF is used), the ability to make quick repairs while inside the vehicle, the ability to pass some of your other gunnery sidegrades to the driver (if the driver has a gun of his own). Most (if not all) of these can be compensated for by a skilled gunner, and aren't absolutely needed "to be competitive".

3: None of these sidegrades would impact something that is directly affected by sidegrades the driver would have (such as damage boosts).

4: Driver sidegrades would likewise not affect any of the things the gunnery sidegrades would affect.

This system would give an incentive (not a major advantage) to driver/gunner teams, that compensates for the simple fact that 2 tanks with 1 working gun each will always be better then 1 tank with 2 guns. I doubt the system would overcome the mathematical odds absolutely, but gunners with sidegrades would definitely improve the lone tank's odds when out armored and equally gunned.

And seeing as there isn't a single dedicated combat vehicle that doesn't have a driver operated gun (that I know of), I see little problem with requiring the cert in the first place. On the other hand, if you are pulling a piece of equipment that might otherwise be vulnerable without gunners, you should already have a working plan of how to get gunners.

In response to your vaguely personal attack type comments. I don't often gun myself. I usually drove the tank in PS1, and rolled with 2 different outfits to any degree. I never had a problem getting into a gunner seat, or finding a gunner for that matter.

sylphaen · 2012-04-11, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

Posts like this are usually why forums give me the urge to bang my head against walls. I typically assume anyone [...] personal attack type comments. I don't often gun myself. I usually drove the tank in PS1, and rolled with 2 different outfits to any degree. I never had a problem getting into a gunner seat, or finding a gunner for that matter.

First of all, sorry if I make you bang your head against the wall, it's sincerely not intended. Concerning the vaguely personal attack type comments, they seem vague because I never intended my post to be a personal attack. I often use "you" liberally when I'm unable to explain an idea better than putting "in situation". However, I did attack your idea because I disagree with it.

With your new post, I think I understand better your synergy idea to make 2-man tanks viable (it is a desire of many) when 1-man can look like a no-brainer. However, I still do not understand why you would want it tied to a "gunner cert" and not have everything tied with the driver instead.

In the end, I feel like it will only discriminates between available gunners or that there will be sidegrades on the gunner cert that should have been on the tanks in the first place and chosen by the driver.

Either way, I genuinely do not understand the appeal of the gunner cert idea and I'm sorry if you felt offended by my other post. Maybe I do not understand your idea well enough to view its value or maybe it's because we have different way to view things that make us disagree on the matter.