Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2 - Page 22

Sirisian · 2011-10-04, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Vash02

It is a bit contradictory that they are forcing team play for infantry but are encouraging solo play (literal one man tanks) for vehicles.

It's funny how you can shoot a gun with a single person and shoot a vehicle gun with a single person. I think it'll help to think of vehicles as armored infantry with the ability to add extra gunners to fulfill different roles.

Talek Krell · 2011-10-04, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

It's funny how you can shoot a gun with a single person and shoot a vehicle gun with a single person.

Agreed. I think it's funniest if you imagine that the driver is working the gear shift with his crotch.

Xyntech · 2011-10-04, 08:06 PM

I disagree with forcing team work. Team work should be heavily encouraged and heavily rewarded, but I'm hoping that a medic, an engineer, a rifleman, a MAX, a sniper, a tank driver, a fighter pilot, a galaxy pilot and an infiltrator, along with any other role in the game, will be able to play solo and still have fun and contribute to their empires effort. They probably won't be anywhere near as helpful as anyone in those same roles who is working with a squad or outfit, but that's because teamwork > solo play.

Why should you team up in CoD or any other random shooter? The map will be over in a few minutes and you will be moving on. Planetside is persistent. It lends itself to communication and forming groups.

Solo players will benefit by receiving missions from leaders they know nothing about with the new mission system, but most players are going to try joining a squad at least once and that is going to open their eyes to the value of squads and outfits.

At the same time, maybe a veteran player feels like logging in and just shooting some crap, without thinking about team work and other players too much. Why force them to go play another game? Stay in planetside and contribute to the numbers.

The zerg was in PS1 and it will be in PS2. Bring them on. They never destroyed the first game, shitty updates and diminishing populations did.

Vash02 · 2011-10-04, 08:28 PM

I'm not too bothered with a empire specific lightning style tank for solo players to play in. I just dont think they should use the flagship vehicles of Planetside to be used in this way to encourage solo play. Solo play isnt what keeps players coming back in my opinion.

Talek Krell · 2011-10-04, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by Vash02

I'm not too bothered with a empire specific lightning style tank for solo players to play in. I just dont think they should use the flagship vehicles of Planetside to be used in this way to encourage solo play. Solo play isnt what keep players coming back in my opinion.

Pretty much this.

Captain B · 2011-10-04, 08:41 PM

MMOs have taught us that if you allow solo play, you get solo play. If you enforce teamwork, you get at the very least people operating together or working on a particular objective (raids, bosses, coordinating tank aspects like driver and gunner, etc.) if not fully operational and highly organized units.

Azren · 2011-10-05, 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by Raymac

I see what you are saying in the rest of your post, but I quoted this part here because I'm not so sure about it. I know Higby has mentioned the Sunderer a few times, but I don't know if that was just as a PS1 example, or if it is going to be in PS2. I do know, however, that T-Ray confirmed that all the buggies from PS1 will return in PS2 "eventually".

My point exactly, they don't have the time to add them at start, so they will do so sometime along the road. However onces they add a skyguard, what will happen with the AA tanks? Really, they should just wait with the release and make the vehicles needed first.

Originally Posted by Raymac

Also, I don't think it's really fair to say the devs are rushing the development. They haven't announced a release date, or even a beta date. ("It will be released when it's ready.") Plus, we've basically been begging for some basic VS screenshots, but they've been holding them back presumably because they are still a work in progress. While part of me wants them to rush it, it seems they are taking the far better route of making sure they make the best product they can. So it really doesn't feel like "rushed development" to me.

How so? In march they were still only thinking about a visual upgrade for PS 1, and now they want beta at the end of 2011 or early 2012. You simply can't make a game with all the content PS 1 has and much more in under a year. They are rushing as fast as they can, cutting corners in the process. PS 2 MTB plan is the result of this.

kaffis · 2011-10-05, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Azren

How so? In march they were still only thinking about a visual upgrade for PS 1, and now they want beta at the end of 2011 or early 2012. You simply can't make a game with all the content PS 1 has and much more in under a year. They are rushing as fast as they can, cutting corners in the process. PS 2 MTB plan is the result of this.

While normally true, PS2 has some things going for it to allow for a pretty rapid development cycle.

They've got a fairly large team working on the game, as far as FPS games go.

Compared to MMOs, there's a lot less work to be done -- there's no AI to code, no PvE content (NPCs to place and script, quests to write, etc.) to be written. As a PvP only game, we provide a lot of the content that takes years to create for other MMOs.

Forgelight was already under development for EQ Next (and PS Next before it was PS2?), and appears to be in a relatively complete condition already. That's the second or third biggest portion of the work for most MMOs after the PvE content.

I'm assuming PS2 had a head start in the art asset department because of the PS Next project. that's the third of the big 3 labor-intensive aspects partially covered. While we know some tweaks have been done to art, the concept art for vehicles, armor, and weapons has already had a lot of work done at the very least.

Jimmuc · 2011-10-05, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by kaffis

While normally true, PS2 has some things going for it to allow for a pretty rapid development cycle.

They've got a fairly large team working on the game, as far as FPS games go.

Compared to MMOs, there's a lot less work to be done -- there's no AI to code, no PvE content (NPCs to place and script, quests to write, etc.) to be written. As a PvP only game, we provide a lot of the content that takes years to create for other MMOs.

Forgelight was already under development for EQ Next (and PS Next before it was PS2?), and appears to be in a relatively complete condition already. That's the second or third biggest portion of the work for most MMOs after the PvE content.

I'm assuming PS2 had a head start in the art asset department because of the PS Next project. that's the third of the big 3 labor-intensive aspects partially covered. While we know some tweaks have been done to art, the concept art for vehicles, armor, and weapons has already had a lot of work done at the very least.

i agree with you and would like to point to this article. it seems to me that they want to get the game to a point where the game works but not fully developed, basically so we can see how everything works first then go from there.

Xaine · 2012-02-18, 02:40 PM

So I've seen this brought up few times in threads, and I was generally jut wondering what the community opinion was on this change.

Personally, I remember seeing a tank in Planetsde on my empire and feeling reassured. They were powerful, pretty fast and sturdy - a properly crewed tank was a force multiplier and because it needed two people, tanks were not all that common compared to foot troops, Max's or even air cav. They were well balanced and in the right pair of skilled hands could be very powerful.

With the change to the driver also being the main gunner, I'm worried that tanks will be perfectly viable with just one person in them. Obviously the lightning is viable, but with all the power of the main gun of an MBT at the drivers hands - this could easily become world of tanks 2. Why go on foot or get in a lighting when you can jump in an MBT and have more firepower and more staying power.

The secondary gunner really should make the tank twice as effective. I just have this horrible feeling that everyone and their third cousin will be rolling around in a tank, because why the hell not. You have more armour, more range and more firepower.

I'm sure the Devs have thought this through, I'm just voicing my fears and seeing what everyone else thinks.

sylphaen · 2012-02-18, 02:44 PM

A lot of opinions were already stated there.
No point in asking again.

One of the threads about driver gunners:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/f...ad.php?t=38052

Edit: thanks to everyone else for linking to the older threads.

DOUBLEXBAUGH · 2012-02-18, 02:45 PM

Original thread on this

http://www.planetside-universe.com/f...+driver+gunner

Another thread on this

http://www.planetside-universe.com/f...+driver+gunner

and im sure there is more threads as well.

Firefly · 2012-02-18, 02:49 PM

I understand the reasoning for making the driver the gunner. I would also like to point out, for the TR tank to be effective you needed three people (which was fucking garbage when two people did the trick for other empires). In PS, you had to cert points for tanks and then, what? Really, what?

You drive around. Other people get the kills. It's definitely a support role. Whilst it does enforce a general level of teamwork and whilst it does resemble real life more, for video gamers real life isn't exactly what we should be aiming to replicate.

I do see the argument where it could potentially attract players in droves to want to cert tanks - lots of armour, move faster, bigger guns. I can see how this could be problematic, especially if the game devolves into base combat. But for the life of me, I can't see this being a real issue - "Oh my G'd there's a wall of tanks!"

I like it. I think I'll go put on my Space Marine helmet and fap.

Grognard · 2012-02-18, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Xaine

With the change to the driver also being the main gunner, I'm worried that tanks will be perfectly viable with just one person in them. Obviously the lightning is viable, but with all the power of the main gun of an MBT at the drivers hands - this could easily become world of tanks 2. Why go on foot or get in a lighting when you can jump in an MBT and have more firepower and more staying power.

The secondary gunner really should make the tank twice as effective. I just have this horrible feeling that everyone and their third cousin will be rolling around in a tank, because why the hell not. You have more armour, more range and more firepower.

I'm sure the Devs have thought this through, I'm just voicing my fears and seeing what everyone else thinks.

I am right there with you on this...

Tank Armor > MAX armor.
Main Gun > Heavy assault.
Tank speed > than running.

Plus you have the option of a gunner too...

I can only imagine that there is a cert dynamic where it is much easier, funner, quicker, something compelling that makes it more attractive to run infantry, than just the fact that you cant go in buildings, because, well... you can still get out of the tank... I am almost sure they have thought this through, because it is an obvious potentiality, and would cripple the outdoor flavor of the game, in my opinion. Its definately worth some speculation, and perhaps an answer from a developer at some point.

Firefly · 2012-02-18, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Grognard

and would cripple the outdoor flavor of the game, in my opinion.

In outdoor combat, the tank is the queen of battle. Artillery is the king of battle. Being a foot soldier is always the last and lowest echelon. It is natural that tanks would rule outdoor ground combat (except in the face of coordinated anti-armour). I can see close-air support being a threat, but that can be countered as well.