Driver/Gunners... NO! - Page 23

PredatorFour · 2012-07-12, 07:04 AM

What makes these fights interesting is that the 2 man tank (taking on 2 one man tanks) could have a rexo gunner with AV to jump out if needed, maybe the driver too. Or, the 2 one man tanks might both have AV drivers so they can bail near death and pound the enemy. This is a game changer, the `battlefield` mindset.

Azren · 2012-07-12, 08:29 AM

There has to be a delay after entering/exiting vehicles. Anything less would just be plain ridiculous.

And again, still nobody wrote why we need a second solo tank. There already is a tank with driver/gunner setup, it is called the Lightning, why destroy the fun of those who want to be dedicated drivers in favour of a second tank of the same type?

Sledgecrushr · 2012-07-12, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Azren

There has to be a delay after entering/exiting vehicles. Anything less would just be plain ridiculous.

And again, still nobody wrote why we need a second solo tank. There already is a tank with driver/gunner setup, it is called the Lightning, why destroy the fun of those who want to be dedicated drivers in favour of a second tank of the same type?

The lightning has an entirely different set of tactics than a mbt. Where the mbt is the hammer blow of an assault, the lightning is the skirmisher. In the field when it comes down to it, I believe commanders will call for three two man tanks rather than two three man tanks. It will come down to teamwork between vehicles.

KaB · 2012-07-12, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

In the field when it comes down to it, I believe commanders will call for three two man tanks rather than two three man tanks. It will come down to teamwork between vehicles.

I believe in the field the commanders will call for two experienced pilots able to make effective shots, and to drive away when the situation gets worse rather than one guy concentrated to shoot only, irritated by some infantry which could C4 his face, unable to speak, unable to drive away, unable to locate his teammates etc.
If you have a guy concentrated on having some far-distant shots, and another guy driving, looking around, speaking with commander/other players, able to get a look at the map etc., they'll be living longer than anyone solo tanks.

In the games where the players is driver and gunner, I actually never saw anyone playing cleverly in order to get many kills as possible and do the best to save his life. Everyone always rush like idiots, and in PS2, that will cost a lot of ressources...

Faarooq · 2012-07-12, 09:42 AM

@OP

Have you not played C&C Renegade or World of Tanks? Solo tanks work fine, however I oppose solo tanks in PS2.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-07-12, 09:50 AM

Of course the most efficient tank will have three crew members, what Im saying is that a two man tank is nearly as efficient operationally as a three man tank. So in the field why waste your manpower with theee man tanks.

Jonny · 2012-07-12, 10:04 AM

Maby the default tanks would be 1 man.

As you play you unlock with certs a new variation of your factions tank with more armour which has to be played with at least 2 crew. Visually these tanks could look a little more beefed up?

Just an idea.

Flaropri · 2012-07-12, 10:05 AM

I think it's perfectly acceptable to have higher skill ceilings for drivers. It isn't like you lose capability when both driving and using the main cannon, but rather that you're attention could be divided and thus more room for error. To me, that seems like a challenge, not an inherently bad thing. It means that the difference between a good driver and a decent driver is all that more important; that while things are accessible to everyone, not everyone will do a great job with them.

I also think it makes good business sense, so that drivers are more likely to get a tank even if they are just part of a Zerg and not necessarily able to get a gunner for whatever reason. The more popular everything is, the more people will want to Cert into them, and thus the more XP Boosts SOE can sell.

More skill-based play is good, more money for SOE (provided the game is as good as we all think it will be) is good, the only downside is slightly less required team-play within a given vehicle. But it isn't like those players aren't going to be around to work with if you want, they just won't be in your tank (instead, in their own tanks, or otherwise engaged).

I think spending a Cert and Mod slot to separate the Main Cannon from the Driver position is a decent way to do things, though I think that most people won't care for it (but hey, more side-grades is best side-grades). Just, I see no good reason to remove Driver/Gunners entirely, or even from the base design of the vehicle.

Doorbo · 2012-07-12, 10:21 AM

Hasnt it been stated before that the secondary gun will be nearly if not as powerful as the main gun? So if you put an AV gun for the secondary on a vanguard you essentially have two main turrets. Of course that looks silly so they have to make it look proper. The size of the gun doesnt equal how powerful it is.

So you still have a driver, and you still have a gunner who controls a powerful gun. The only difference is this time is the driver gets a cannon to shoot with as well. Will this decrease teamplay? For those who already will be playing with teamwork in mind, of course not. Though for those who will drive off alone thinking theyre hot stuff, im sure they will have a light bulb flick on when they die too much and see the full tanks dominating.

As for the magrider, i believe it will be OP. For the secondary weapon as seen in the PCG issue, you can equip it with the rail beam cannon, the same gun that was on the turret for the PS1 mag. That will give it an AV turret that can swivel, controlled by the secondary gunner, while still having mobility that the driver can focus on. Just for old times sake we can put an AI gun for the driver, and now you have a magrider true to PS1.

Landtank · 2012-07-12, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Doorbo

Hasnt it been stated before that the secondary gun will be nearly if not as powerful as the main gun? So if you put an AV gun for the secondary on a vanguard you essentially have two main turrets. Of course that looks silly so they have to make it look proper. The size of the gun doesnt equal how powerful it is.

They've stated this hundreds of times, people just choose to ignore information and bitch and moan about rational changes to the game.

There is pretty much no downside to being able to gun and drive, it takes more skill, allows for more tanks to be on the field, allows the tank to be more effective, and if people want they can cert for 3 man tanks.

Seriously, go play World of Tanks and tell me that driving and gunning doesn't work, because it sure as hell does, and it can be a lot more fun than tanking in PS1.

Phizuol · 2012-07-12, 11:08 AM

I'm primarily a Magrider driver in PS1 and I can say with certainty that having the driver gun really sucks. I spend most of my time making evasive maneuvers, avoiding collisions with friendlies (this is big), and trying to get the best angles for my gunner. Sometimes it's boring when the targets are easy so I can understand it's not for everyone.

The times that I have to do all that and aim the gun (when something is close enough that I have a prayer of hitting with the damn thing) my driving and situational awareness suffers. Some friendlies may have been hurt.

My point is that for me, I just want to drive. If other people want to one-man their tank that's fine. If it's just a option to give all the guns to the gunner that's cool with me. There's something really awesome when you get the great driver & great gunner combo going. That's the playstyle I enjoy the most.

I also like the Lightening and that's a great tank too if you know how to use it. There's nothing wrong with that playstyle if you want to solo. Two people in a MBT or two people in a Lightening can both be pretty effective.

Conclusion: All I ask is to have the option (even if it costs certs) to give all my Magrider guns to the gunner. That's really the thing I am looking forward to the most in PS2.

MrBloodworth · 2012-07-12, 11:17 AM

Driver gunner should be split. You should have to cert, at a high level in tanks, to operate the gun and drive. We already have the lightning.

Just because Battlefield does it, does not mean Planetside needs to.

wasdie · 2012-07-12, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Landtank

They've stated this hundreds of times, people just choose to ignore information and bitch and moan about rational changes to the game.

There is pretty much no downside to being able to gun and drive, it takes more skill, allows for more tanks to be on the field, allows the tank to be more effective, and if people want they can cert for 3 man tanks.

Seriously, go play World of Tanks and tell me that driving and gunning doesn't work, because it sure as hell does, and it can be a lot more fun than tanking in PS1.

Gaming communities, especially a small one like Planetside's, are usually very conservative. They want their games to be just like they remember with no changes at all. Even when all logic dictates that the changes are probably for the best.

People here keep forgetting that this isn't just some change they are making to an existing game. The entire game is being built around having MORE armor on the field. Bigger battles, more people, more tanks, more aircraft, more of everything.

Why can you fly and gun a reaper but can't drive and gun a tank? What makes the flyboys so special?

It's an easy fix. Let everbody drive and gun the tank while giving a lot of bonuses to people who decide to multicrew a tank. That's exactly what is going on here.

Deadeye · 2012-07-12, 11:28 AM

I think one fact has been completely overlooked in this discussion: these main battle tanks are going to cost us money. That is the balance right there. If I'm going to pay hard earned resources to drive a tank I want to drive and gun it myself and I want it to do a not insignificant amount of damage to "free" infantry before it dies.

In short, I want my money's worth out of the vehicles I pay for.

MrBloodworth · 2012-07-12, 11:29 AM

They cost in the original game too, before they removed the cost. A mistake that watered down many systems.