Driver/Gunners... NO!

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Sephirex

I'm not allowing/disallowing anything, just quoting arguments that strike me as false on both sides as I see them.

Fair enough.

But I'm willing to wait to see actual full scale natural battles, not pre-prepared E3 battles.

The E3 battles were telling mostly about primal and intuitive player behaviours.

Basically the majority of zerglings. As E3 progressed there was some evolution in the fighting's complexity. But all in all it was abysmal, certainly. That said, it gave tons of information about the weaponry, TTKs, endurance, weapon and capture systems and most importantly, terrain.

Even more information that's less prepared we've seen in around 20 hours of other footage.


The basics of all systems are more than known. To pretend we're oblivious to anything and everything like some people keep doing here is absolutely retarded. There's no other word for it.

Originally Posted by Raymac

I suggest you use your debating skills and try a thought experiment by genuinely arguing in favor of driver/gunner. Maybe that way you will be able to see my point of view instead of just saying I'm a mindless stupid lemming.

Oh like I've never done that before. Cheers. <3

Like here, in this thread on page 10?

Originally Posted by Figment

Alright... here we go AGAIN...

I absolutely hate the idea of a driver/gunner in PlanetSide and will ALWAYS support driver + REQUIRED gunner over the first.

Wrote a huge rant about it, but the argumentation is known.


Basically the argumentation of the people in favour of solo MBTs:

• "Just driving is not fun!"
  BULL! Speak for yourself, not for everyone else! You're a tiny minority! I don't know anyone who I play with who thinks driving is boring. That's over 150 PS players on my list! Not one of them thinks it's boring! Weird, because the few supporters always try to make it seem an universal known fact.
  
• "I can't find gunners!"
  BULL! You just don't know where to look! HINT: NOT at the end of the vehicle terminal and stop driving Raiders! Don't wait behind a vehicle pad, but on the path from base to vpad! Because everyone assumes no ride is available and thus will first go for the term and by then they already summoned their own vehicle! If the base/CY is almost empty, look near towers, look near AMSes near the edge of a battlefield! Those people are in need of transportation and LOVE gunner positions because they don't have to go back and get their own vehicle!
  
• "People from other games want solo vehicles!"
  BULL! If that was true, we wouldn't be having this discussion! We're all originally from solo play games and we all grown accustomed to it! And we like it so much we have very heated, passionate debate over it!
  
• "But multicrew vehicles will still be better when you got a gunner!"
  BULL! Because why would you get a gunner, if you can get double the hitpoints by getting another tank with instant switch-multirole weapons that are even more powerful?
  
• "But multicrew vehicles will be able to fend of aircraft better!"
  BULL! Because in PS2 it appears you can instantly switch between driver and secondary gunner position! Which means that despite having to stand still, you have equal AA power if you brought the custom gun and if you brought another tank you have double the AA power, while both a single and multicrew tank die equally fast to hits, meaning two tanks is better again as when one dies the other still continues to fire.
  
• "But the resource system will balance that!"
  Probably bull! By the above argumentation, teamwork vehicles drain faster because they're underpowered in comparison to groups of solo-vehicles.

I've not heard a single even slightly convincing argument in favour of multicrew vehicles being driven solo.



Personally, I'm almost under the impression the entire goal of the change is to encourage people to drive as many vehicles solo as possible for three reasons:

1. The devs think in zerg play more than team game play and therefore intend to have as many vehicles out there as possible.

2. The more vehicles are out there, the more people will buy customized parts and skins.

3. More tanks means a larger drain on resources, so it might be in the hope that people go through their resources faster and thus either buy some boosters or have to gun or grunt after all.

None of those three arguments appeals to me.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...&postcount=145

I think you missed them due to this:

I'm not even going to engange in the rest of your typical wall of text rant

So just because you do...

"NANANANANANANAANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"

...as per usual, you get to say I never say anything on the topic. Right. Got ya.

[SnipeGrzywa]

Originally Posted by Raymac

4) As for "there isn't 1 vehicle in the world"...how about the A-10?

we were talking about tanks in this thread, thought it would be obvious i was referring to ground vehicles . . . No one is bitching that the attack aircraft are 1 seaters.

And also, all its guns are in fixed positions, he moves the plane, not the weapons, to do attacks. Or targeting for guided missiles/bombs, but again, that's the ammunition moving, not the guns. So my safety net disqualifies it anyways.

[Aberdash]

Why exactly are some people fine with aircraft only requiring 1 person but throw a hissy fit when a ground vehicle only needs 1 person?

[Figment]

4) As for "there isn't 1 vehicle in the world"...how about the A-10?

Oh yeah that single purpose niche vehicle that makes tons of design decisions based on one specific role. You mean the exact opposite of what the PS2 devs do. Gotcha.

Originally Posted by Aberdash

Why exactly are some people fine with aircraft only requiring 1 person but throw a hissy fit when a ground vehicle only needs 1 person?

Who says we're all fine with that? I'm not fine with a solo jack of all trades aircav at all and a lot of others aren't either unless it makes serious concessions (is a true single purpose vehicle) and is significantly weaker than multi-crew vehicles. You probably missed the massive debates about the Reaver in PS1 (and aircav benefits in general)?

[Aberdash]

Originally Posted by Figment

Who says we're all fine with that? I'm not fine with a solo jack of all trades aircav at all and a lot of others aren't either unless it makes serious concessions (is a true single purpose vehicle) and is significantly weaker than multi-crew vehicles. You probably missed the massive debates about the Reaver in PS1 (and aircav benefits in general)?

I didn't say everyone was fine with it. From what I've read, if I see call of duty or battefield I just move on to the next post, nobody is complaining about mosquitoes, reavers, or scythes requiring only 1 person. Those are certainly more effective than any ground based vehicle.

[mintyc]

Originally Posted by Aberdash

Why exactly are some people fine with aircraft only requiring 1 person but throw a hissy fit when a ground vehicle only needs 1 person?

one is a lightly armoured aircraft that can be taken down by a couple of missles the other is a tank with a large amount of armour and a gun that can kill troopers in one hit and makes any ground vehicle that isent a MBT, wet themselves.

everyone who played PS1 when BFR's got put in knows what can go wrong when you give a driver powerful wepons and large ammount of armour.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Aberdash

I didn't say everyone was fine with it. From what I've read, if I see call of duty or battefield I just move on to the next post, nobody is complaining about mosquitoes, reavers, or scythes requiring only 1 person. Those are certainly more effective than any ground based vehicle.

Depends on the job. Certainly seems they're easier to take out or goat into a tree or rock with reduced TTK and more focus on keeping it airborn (loads of crashes on the slightest mistake).

I think that's why most aren't too worried about it. Plus the transportation role which was their main power is overruled by the new mission and respawn system: that's far more effective to relocate troops instantly to friendly held territory (right now, too effective, probably).

I'd be more concerned with that. Spec. Ops suffer on all counts.

[Aberdash]

Originally Posted by mintyc

one is a lightly armoured aircraft that can be taken down by a couple of missles the other is a tank with a large amount of armour and a gun that can kill troopers in one hit and makes any ground vehicle that isent a MBT, wet themselves.

I'm thinking you didn't see those rocket volleys during E3.

Originally Posted by Figment

Depends on the job. Certainly seems they're easier to take out or goat into a tree or rock with reduced TTK and more focus on keeping it airborn (loads of crashes on the slightest mistake).

Crashing seemed to be a problem for the NC more than anyone one else. TR and VS were typically shot out of the sky by other aircraft. As for being easier to take out if you get a lock on them they can just use their flares.

[mintyc]

Originally Posted by Aberdash

I'm thinking you didn't see those rocket volleys during E3.

no i did see it. did you see how fast they droped out of the sky when someone pulled an AA max or decided to do a little dog fighting?

[Aberdash]

Originally Posted by mintyc

no i did see it. did you see how fast they droped out of the sky when someone pulled an AA max or decided to do a little dog fighting?

Guess what. AV takes out tanks pretty fast too.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Figment

Oh like I've never done that before. Cheers. <3

Like here, in this thread on page 10?

Yeah. I actually did miss that. Thanks for taking the time to repost it. It's fair to say I disagree with all of your "Bull..." statements, but that's not a shock. What you did in that post wasn't exactly what I meant. I meant give it an honest chance instead of simply acknowledging the bullet points. Maybe you did give it an honest chance, I don't know. I know I'm not going to change your mind, but I don't think you are an idiot for having your point of view. I just don't think you should believe that people who disagree with you are idiots either.

[mintyc]

Originally Posted by Aberdash

Guess what. AV takes out tanks pretty fast too.

and do you think its going to stay that way after testing?

keep in mind players are going to be spending recorces on geting tanks out.

[TheDAWinz]

Originally Posted by Figment

Oh yeah that single purpose niche vehicle that makes tons of design decisions based on one specific role. You mean the exact opposite of what the PS2 devs do. Gotcha.



Who says we're all fine with that? I'm not fine with a solo jack of all trades aircav at all and a lot of others aren't either unless it makes serious concessions (is a true single purpose vehicle) and is significantly weaker than multi-crew vehicles. You probably missed the massive debates about the Reaver in PS1 (and aircav benefits in general)?

You're gay go die lolololololol

-Decent argument. Thank you, thank you. +10 intewebz to me.

Thats all i hear when you try to debate.

[Aberdash]

Originally Posted by mintyc

and do you think its going to stay that way after testing?

keep in mind players are going to be spending recorces on geting tanks out.

With explosives, engineers AV turret, AV maxes and HA they'd have to make tanks stupidly overpowered to hold up for long against them. And that isn't including any air based AV.

[mintyc]

Originally Posted by Aberdash

With explosives, engineers AV turret, AV maxes and HA they'd have to make tanks stupidly overpowered to hold up for long against them. And that isn't including any air based AV.

you are right that is exactly what they will have to do or else no one is going to use tanks, why would they if they cant actualy survive for a reasonable ammount of time after spending recorces to get the damn thing in the first place. this is a combind arms game afterall, the devs will want us to use tanks.

so now we are in the position of haveing a stupidly overpowered tank with its most powerfull wepon all under the controll of one guy.