Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2 - Page 24

sylphaen · 2012-02-18, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Xaine

I agree, but with respect to solo players. This is a teamwork focused game. [...]

Just FYI, some players associate solo tanks to some infantry game with different properties and ruleset. Their argument is that the team-play element with solo-driving-gunners comes from multiple solo vehicles playing in coordination together.

Kind of like how infantry players play in coordination to form a team/squad.

While I still have trouble with this argument because I believe soloing will prevail, their argument is technically valid.

ThGlump · 2012-02-18, 05:03 PM

Driver/guner is worst change to planetside.

There will be tons of tanks, and nothing much else, in open field and almost no infarnty.
Battles will be more static shooting from distance, so you can focus on one thing, than trying to drive and shoot. You cant drive blindly (gun facing to side/back), near enemy or behind their lines, as first obstacle will stop you and you are dead. And near friendlies you would teamkill more than kill. So tanks will be short ranged artillery.

Most of those tanks will be solo. There is no incentive to have gunner, over to bring second tank or specialized lighting. Gunner would have 2x stronger gun than driver (so 2manned tank can do 3x damage of solotank), so tank with gunner is on par with 2 tanks. What i understand gunner will have weaker gun.

There wont be limit in certs (youll learn everything in time, and change class in nearby terminal), not even resources (actually base tank will be free, secondary weapons will cost resources). Only limit will be line at vehicle terminal.

Only way they could balance this is that tanks will have survivability of lightings in ps1, so many would refuse to be in that deathtrap, and that would be even worse solution.

Aurmanite · 2012-02-18, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by ThGlump

Driver/guner is worst change to planetside.

There will be tons of tanks, and nothing much else, in open field and almost no infarnty.
Battles will be more static shooting from distance, so you can focus on one thing, than trying to drive and shoot. You cant drive blindly (gun facing to side/back), near enemy or behind their lines, as first obstacle will stop you and you are dead. And near friendlies you would teamkill more than kill. So tanks will be short ranged artillery.

Most of those tanks will be solo. There is no incentive to have gunner, over to bring second tank or specialized lighting. Gunner would have 2x stronger gun than driver (so 2manned tank can do 3x damage of solotank), so tank with gunner is on par with 2 tanks. What i understand gunner will have weaker gun.

There wont be limit in certs (youll learn everything in time, and change class in nearby terminal), not even resources (actually base tank will be free, secondary weapons will cost resources). Only limit will be line at vehicle terminal.

Only way they could balance this is that tanks will have survivability of lightings in ps1, so many would refuse to be in that deathtrap, and that would be even worse solution.

I disagree with a lot of this.

First of all, and most importantly, people are going to do what they want to do. People who like to snipe, or fly, or use heavy assault aren't suddenly going to start driving tanks. People play what they like, they are not going to dedicate training time/cert points unlocking tanks over other things they actually want.

Second, there will be incentive to have a gunner. Being able to fire at 2 targets at the same time is a huge advantage by itself. We don't yet know how strong the secondary guns will be so we can't really comment on how useful they may or may not be.

Finally, more strategical tank play is better. Good drivers are going to destroy the shit out of bad drivers.

ThirdCross · 2012-02-18, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

The main turrets on the tank are likely to work the same way they did in the original. The secondary guns, however, have been confirmed to be customizable.

Damn, beat me to it.

To expand upon this, how I'm picturing MBTs working in PS2 is the main gun is effective against vehicles but ineffective against infantry. It should take around 2 direct hits to kill light assault. This means that infantry still have to avoid tanks but have plenty of time to escape after the first shot.

Where the secondary gunner comes into play is that it can protect against infantry and air threats to the tank or expand upon the tanks AV. Without a secondary gunner the tank becomes a sitting duck to air and infantry.

sylphaen · 2012-02-18, 05:15 PM

The Mag-rider will change... The VS know: it's like Lasher 2.0 balance all over again but on a much slower pace.

They'll put the turret back on top in PS3 !

nomotog · 2012-02-18, 05:16 PM

I honestly think this topic has been taken as far as it can for now. Really the only thing left to do is wait to see what happens in beta. There are just so many knobs and setting and different ways they can do things. We can't predict things and beta is so close. I believe the best course of action is to just wait till beta and then comment on how things work.

That said, I think that giving the driver a gun is a good thing because it gives a reason for the driver to drive in a style that allows attacks. Rather then a driver driving crazy because they don't view the battle in the same way you do.

NewSith · 2012-02-18, 05:17 PM

My only concern is the game turning into world of tanks, but I'm saying it because I'm a sniping fan.

Aurmanite · 2012-02-18, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by ThirdCross

Damn, beat me to it.

To expand upon this, how I'm picturing MBTs working in PS2 is the main gun is effective against vehicles but ineffective against infantry. It should take around 2 direct hits to kill light assault. This means that infantry still have to avoid tanks but have plenty of time to escape after the first shot.

Where the secondary gunner comes into play is that it can protect against infantry and air threats to the tank or expand upon the tanks AV. Without a secondary gunner the tank becomes a sitting duck to air and infantry.

Main tank shells should 1 shot infantry (Magrider included.) It's silly for it to be any other way.

The term has escaped my brain for the moment, but the main cannons should have trouble aiming low enough to hit infantry at a certain distance. At that point the secondary gunner would be able to defend against infantry.

Graywolves · 2012-02-18, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

First of all, and most importantly, people are going to do what they want to do. People who like to snipe, or fly, or use heavy assault aren't suddenly going to start driving tanks. People play what they like, they are not going to dedicate training time/cert points unlocking tanks over other things they actually want.

People want to feel like they're winning. Seeing how there actually are going to be areas designed to encourage vehicle battles in the more open areas, of course plenty of people are going to have air cavalry and tanks. If the tank is powerful of enough then yeah plenty of people are going to drive tanks.

There is going to be a big increase in tanks on the field this time. There is a goal to have vehicle based battles in greater number and size.

Saintlycow · 2012-02-18, 05:20 PM

low spash, high damage

high splash, lower damage.

Tank shots should instakill infantry if it is a direct shot

sylphaen · 2012-02-18, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

The term has escaped my brain for the moment, but the main cannons should have trouble aiming low enough to hit infantry at a certain distance. At that point the secondary gunner would be able to defend against infantry.

I disagree.

That survival game mechanic should be left with infantry. Tank players should not have their toys nerfed.

IMO, in PS1, Jammers were a good mechanic to keep tanks away.

Edit: in PS1, players could also choose to take those jammers with them or not ! No one else to blame but themselves if they went running outside by themselves without any.

Aurmanite · 2012-02-18, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by Graywolves

People want to feel like they're winning. Seeing how there actually are going to be areas designed to encourage vehicle battles in the more open areas, of course plenty of people are going to have air cavalry and tanks. If the tank is powerful of enough then yeah plenty of people are going to drive tanks.

There is going to be a big increase in tanks on the field this time. There is a goal to have vehicle based battles in greater number and size.

Sure, I can dig this. Tank enthusiasts will definitely love this.

People who don't want to tank will have plenty of other places to fight. Just like it was in Planetside.

NewSith · 2012-02-18, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by sylphaen

IMO, in PS1, Jammers were a good mechanic to keep tanks away.

But yet again, tanks were designed for two people... With one guy doing all the job, people will prefer to pull their own tank for higher winning chances instead of doing the jammer thing.

EDIT: Some people (like me) actually enjoy driving a tank and let others do the killing...

Aurmanite · 2012-02-18, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by sylphaen

I disagree.

That survival game mechanic should be left with infantry. Tank players should not have their toys nerfed.

IMO, in PS1, Jammers were a good mechanic to keep tanks away.

Edit: in PS1, players could also choose to take those jammers with them or not ! No one else to blame but themselves if they went running outside by themselves without any.

Jammers would allow infantry to close that distance, get in tight, and C4/AV the hell out of the tank.

It's not about nerfing anything, it's about designing strong mechanics that will bring out excellent game play.

ThGlump · 2012-02-18, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

First of all, and most importantly, people are going to do what they want to do. People who like to snipe, or fly, or use heavy assault aren't suddenly going to start driving tanks. People play what they like, they are not going to dedicate training time/cert points unlocking tanks over other things they actually want.

Second, there will be incentive to have a gunner. Being able to fire at 2 targets at the same time is a huge advantage by itself. We don't yet know how strong the secondary guns will be so we can't really comment on how useful they may or may not be.

Flyers there will be thats for sure. Snipers? Not a lot. You dont see them in the field anyway, and they must have some targets. If infantry will be mowed by tanks just by their numbers, there wont by anything to feed snipers.
As for cert limitation. Sure at start those who prefer other styles wont bother with tanks, but after 1-2 months everyone will have them, and for soloing you only need base tank. So you dont need to spend time/certs for secondary gun upgrades.

Fire at 2 target is an advantage? Over what? Over 2 tanks which everyone can shoot their target, that have 2x armor than you do, that can flank you and hit more vulnerable spot? Thats really big advantage.

Part of why they did this is they feel its not right that you spend certs and dont use the big gun. So they most probably dont give gunner stronger gun. It will be strong but weaker than main gun. Giving gunner 2x stronger weapon? they would be right wehre they started - you spend certs and use some weakling.