Driver/Gunners... NO! - Page 21

Littleman · 2012-07-11, 09:48 PM

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.

AV takes out tanks quickly striking from their sides and especially their rear. The front armor is highly mitigating, even towards other tank shells. This is mostly based off of Higby's stream. The Prowler looked like hell after taking a single shot from the vanguard to the rear, but it didn't seem fazed by a shot to the front.

The Vangaurd displayed the vice versa at the same time, nearly no damage from a shot to the front, and a lot when the prowler struck Higby's vanguard in the rear.

All in all, it doesn't seem to matter what you bring, attacking a tank's front is suicide, but flanking around and striking it's rear will bring it down near effortlessly. This knowledge on it's own encourages teamwork, either through close infantry support, the secondary gunner guarding against flanking infantry, or other tanks keeping watch from behind.

A lone tank would be easy pickings for an infil or LA with C4. Seems pretty much everyone but the medic has some anti-armor capability, even if some methods are riskier than others.

EightEightEight · 2012-07-11, 10:00 PM

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?

if you want a single person vehicle there is the Flash and the Lighting go nuts stay away from the prowler magrider and the vanguard those should be multi-player

mintyc · 2012-07-11, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by Littleman

AV takes out tanks quickly striking from their sides and especially their rear. The front armor is highly mitigating, even towards other tank shells. This is mostly based off of Higby's stream. The Prowler looked like hell after taking a single shot from the vanguard to the rear, but it didn't seem fazed by a shot to the front.

The Vangaurd displayed the vice versa at the same time, nearly no damage from a shot to the front, and a lot when the prowler struck Higby's vanguard in the rear.

All in all, it doesn't seem to matter what you bring, attacking a tank's front is suicide, but flanking around and striking it's rear will bring it down near effortlessly. This knowledge on it's own encourages teamwork, either through close infantry support, the secondary gunner guarding against flanking infantry, or other tanks keeping watch from behind.

A lone tank would be easy pickings for an infil or LA with C4. Seems pretty much everyone but the medic has some anti-armor capability, even if some methods are riskier than others.

C4 will only work as a trap or if the tank is stoped and the LA or cloker is dead if the tank sees them coming.

the simple fact is the devs want us to use vehicles they are not going to make them an easy thing to kill, no one would use them if they did. especialy against infantry. given that one guy is going to make mince meat of small groups of infantry as he is both driver and main gunner of a MBT.

if i am going to be demolished on foot by a MBT i at lest want a minimum of 2 guys working as a team to do it in a MBT. if you want to main gun your own tank, thats what the lighting is for.

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-11, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

1) If there was a poll, it would end up the same as nearly every single poll on here. Most people vote to keep things exactly as they were in PS1. If this game was being designed by the polls on this site, they would have just done the Planetside Next reskin that they originally planned.

Ummm.... If indeed that is true... That statement kind of speaks for itself. What happened to "majority rules"? Or does that only apply when it doesn't conflict with what YOU (not necessarily YOU you, YOU as in the reader) want?

I no longer care about the great debate, really. It is mostly out of our hands, and the mechanic has been settled on (1 man, with 2 as a certifiable option). I do find some of arguments to be idiotic, though...

-edit

I do think all the tank rambos to be quite laughable, though

maradine · 2012-07-11, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by mintyc

C4 will only work as a trap or if the tank is stoped and the LA or cloker is dead if the tank sees them coming.

There is empirical evidence that this is not the case. In Battlefield 3, where MBTs were driven and gunned by the same person, had a supplemental guy on the .50, and had an equip-able point defense motion tracker to boot, C4 was a deadly threat. If you were in tight quarters, you were inviting a steady stream of Support characters crawling out of the woodwork with plastic explosives in hand.

Yeah, you shot up more than half of them on the way in. They still got you if you kept close to cover.

Armor is dead in tight quarters - don't discount the boomers yet.

Arkanor · 2012-07-11, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

I do think all the tank rambos to be quite laughable, though

Can you explain what there is to do in video game tanks if you're *not* manning the driver's seat and the gun? They're simple to drive and simple to shoot with, it's not rocket surgery. Most people will be less effective not manning both positions, imagine playing as infantry but you can only WASD and someone else has to use your mouse?

I see far more tanks in games (that require 2x tank crew) just being driven off solo to prevent people from using "their gun". With people paying for their MBT's with resources I think we'll see more people try to hog tanks than use them with a crew. Given the very broad F2P audience that's probably as likely as anything.

If I had to purchase a tank only to be able to drive, you bet your ass I'd be in the Lightning every single time, at that point it's just going to be better than an MBT. Call me Rambo if you want but it's extremely inefficient to try to link two brains through a VOIP chat compared to running the limited processing required in just one. Maybe if they actually put enough to driving the tanks so that each person is OCCUPIED in their role instead of just idling 97% of their brain it would make more sense, but most people don't want Planetside to be a tank simulator.

wOOtbEEr · 2012-07-11, 11:34 PM

I'd like to have the option to give the main gun over to the gunner but i think too much of the design is already in place for the one man tank with optional secondary gunner. the Mag has a fixed gun now so no two man crew for the VS. And what are they going to do with the current secondary weapons? Give them to the driver?

I think our best bet is to hope for a nanite systems heavy tank sometime after release with a crew of 2 or more.

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-11, 11:47 PM

@Arkanor

The primary reason most people who don't like driver/gunners don't like them (for MBTs) is that the concept of one man MBTs (even if it IS a video game) is ridiculous. It also alters how things need to be balanced.

To use an example that does not "take sides" the concept I mean about balancing is as follows:

If you have a one man "tank", it needs to be balanced so that it is not OP against other things. If that tank goes up against one infantryman, or a small group of infantrymen (depending on the balance leaning they give it) it needs to perform so-and-so, that those infantry have certain "odds" of survival/success.

If you have a two or three man "tank, the way in which it is balanced is going to be quite different, because it no longer represents "one person's firepower" it now represents "three people's combined firepower", resulting in a completely different "formula" for the balance.

I also see many people saying "most people don't want this-or-that" (in your case "tank simulator") when there is a very heated debate here, of which at least 50% of the people take the opposite side of your argument. You can consider the other side "foolish" or "stupid" or "over complicated" or whatever you want, but you cannot claim a majority opinion here.

I'm on the exact opposite side of the debate (I think one man battle tanks are completely retarded no matter how they're balanced or what the reasoning is. The idea itself is stupid) but I have not claimed a clear 'majority' of opinion. Although, one of my opponents has suggested that if a poll was run, my side of the argument would win.

I see lots of people complaining for the sake of complaining, I'll concede, on both sides of the arguments. Some people will argue about ANYTHING (go say it's a nice day). I will say, that even stepping back and ignoring my personal opinion, the arguments AGAINST 1-man MBTs (the ones that actually have some substance besides NO YOU, that is) at least "make sense", whereas most the arguments FOR 1-man MBTs are generally "because I want to be able to solo a BIG tank, not just a little one". Although "personal desire" is a legitimate reason to want something, it is not itself a "sound argument".

The ones with the most substance for 1-man MBTs are generally complaints about the sometime awkwardness involved in finding "good help". While potentially annoying, this breaks down to "involve yourself with the community and make a friend or two, it is a MMO, afterall". Likewise people presenting the time constraint or casual player argument, this, again, breaks down to "it's an MMO! If you don't or can't interact with other people, then why are you playing an MMO?" Or being "forced" to interact with others, or join an outfit... Yeah... Imagine an MMO that involves a majority of design choices revolving around people playing together. It's much like order a burger from McDonald's then complaining that it's fattening. Of course... A lot of people do that, too. A lot... and they win lawsuits over it, too... Sad... But I digress.

I am biased and am not necessarily trying to present a "balanced" argument, because I don't consider it a "balanced" topic. I consider it a stupid topic. It's a feature I don't like and want gone. It's not PS1/PS2 thing... It's an anything thing. I think the idea is dumb. Anyway, I hope during Beta the one or two nonsense issues like this get ironed out by my angry tanker brothers around the world :P

CorvicM · 2012-07-12, 12:56 AM

RedOctober I think that was the most constructive and mostly neutral thing I have read here.

also do not get mad at me for this but those saying wait for beta, as a game design student myself and from the beta tests i have been in, thats the exact reason shit doesn't change. Because they then have everything "Set in stone" instead of listening to feedback and possibly changing things.

Also im all for the cert for it but from the sounds of it they kinda have said no to that....

Baneblade · 2012-07-12, 01:21 AM

Originally Posted by Soothsayer

Third person in a MBT wasn't good in PS1. Two people including driver was the better way unless you are adding a third person's worth of firepower to the setup. People shouldn't be penalized for operating within the role of the vehicle, the MBT being that of a two person crewed tank that chews through whatever it has turrets slotted for.

I'm going to keep repeating the stuff lots of people have said here, it doesn't have to be one or the other. It can easily be both.

There is no reason the MG gun can't be as good against infantry as the main gun is against vehicles. Especially since these are no longer practically immune to infantry like they are in PS1. The 15mm Prowler gun sucked, sure it was damage, but it was terrible for hitting infantry. So are the Van's 20mms. Now that tanks can't laugh at infantry like in PS1, they should be able to do damage against infantry without having to make the main gun necessary for it.

Then we will have no trouble getting two gunners.

Azren · 2012-07-12, 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by SgtExo

I do believe that soloers will consist of the majority of the population, and thus you should not punish soloers, but reward teamwork to encourage soloers to join an outfit.

Think of it like this, instead of forcing ppl to get a gunner which could lead to bad initial gaming session and turn off the interest of a new player who has not had the chance to meet anyone in the game. The tanks allow you to control the main gun and have an extra gunner that could potentially double your lethality and that is a better encouragement to continue playing with ppl and join an outfit.

So it will still be better to work with ppl, but it wont punish new players.

Rest assured, soloers will not be the majority, players will be dependent on support for repair and healing. It will get frustrating when you see healers running past you just because you are not part of their platoon and they wont bother healing you. Just one example, but this can be applied to other parts of the game aswell.

How is turing MBT into a driver/driver setup punishing soloers? Currently there is only one vehicle in game where the gunner gets the bigger role and that is the liberator, while the soloers get the attack aircraft, light tank, flash (will see how good that one is).

Here is the question not answered before: why turn the MBT into a solo vehicle when there already is a solo tank avaiable?

Raymac · 2012-07-12, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

Ummm.... If indeed that is true... That statement kind of speaks for itself. What happened to "majority rules"?

Fuck "majority rules" when it comes to designing something. I don't want a game (or anything for that matter) designed by committee. Now that doesn't mean you completely ignore what people have to say about design choices (i.e. Scythe vs. Dyson) but I'd rather see a book/movie/game that is a realized vision.

Now it may turn out that I'm wrong about the driver/gunner thing, but I see far more pros than cons, especially when you factor in the secondary gunner. I'm reminded of the impotence of prowlers with no chain gunner, and libs or gals with no tail gunner.

As great as Planetside is, and as much as I love the game, I'm thrilled that they are not just updating the graphics.

As for this particular issue, I think there is a middle ground to be found, and I'm certain the devs will take the players' opinions into account, just as they've done from the start.

Superbus · 2012-07-12, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by Raymac

Fuck "majority rules" when it comes to designing something. I don't want a game (or anything for that matter) designed by committee. Now that doesn't mean you completely ignore what people have to say about design choices (i.e. Scythe vs. Dyson) but I'd rather see a book/movie/game that is a realized vision.

Well said.

Ratstomper · 2012-07-12, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by Azren

Here is the question not answered before: why turn the MBT into a solo vehicle when there already is a solo tank avaiable?

I'll say that the ONLY reason I didn't cert for Vanguard in PS1 was because I knew that I would have to tote some random jerk around so he could get all the kills and shoot all the targets and have all the fun. That was assuming it wasn't a drooling retard that got in the gunner spot. Too much resource and effort for not enough of a payoff.

Just because the drivers have control of the main gun now doesn't make them one-man tanks. They're still clearly 2-man vehicles. The only difference between PS1 MBTs and PS2 MBTs is that now the majority of the benefit is going to the guy who spent the resources and certs on the tank and BOTH guys in the tank are now actively attacking, because PS1 MBTs required you to only use one gun at a time. This makes MBTs much more offensively viable (and more fun).

Highwind · 2012-07-12, 01:59 AM

Its really about having enough complexity the way I see it. Up to a point complexity adds challenge and depth to a game. Driver gunning adds positive complexity to tank driving by raising the skill cap required to operate a tank as best as humanly possible. In PS1 you could "max out" your driving skill easily I would say, learning all the ins and outs of the game and the game engine in not too much time. Then after mastering driving you are going to continue to drive that same way for 9 years and have fun? Maybe, but not for the majority of players.

All of this speaks only to the driver and HIS gun, but there will be the 2nd gunner TOO. Now taking into account the 2nd gunner and the driver as a team operating the tank there is now a much wider spectrum of skills to measure the tank's performance by. Under the new system a skilled TEAM of players both manning a tank and using good TEAMWORK can both utilize their skill at focusing targets and aiming, while also driving effectively to out perform any solo-tank out there and many 2 man ones through reliable skillful team play.

All of the rambo solo-tank talk is funny, because if the devs have done their job they have already provided an in game answer to it... making a skilled 2 man tank crush them, until they learn to get a gunner of their own.

My theory is classic PS1 drivers enjoy the simpler "driving only" game play and don't feel like rising to the new challenge of PS2 by adding a new trick to their skill set. Rise to the occasion guys and be positive... this is a chance for you to DO more, to PLAY more, and to show off your SKILL as a player while driving AND gunning. Teamwork isn't going away.