Driver/Gunners... NO! - Page 24

KaB · 2012-07-12, 11:40 AM

I don't know how much it will, but if the tank will cost a lot, I won't ever buy it until I can share it with other players, whether they're good or not.

And actually ... after reading some people here, something's telling me that only the good players will potentially be fine to share a tank with someone else, so I guess I shouldn't have any worries about this.

Klockan · 2012-07-12, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by KaB

I don't know how much it will, but if the tank will cost a lot, I won't ever buy it until I can share it with other players, whether they're good or not.

And actually ... after reading some people here, something's telling me that only the good players will potentially be fine to share a tank with someone else, so I guess I shouldn't have any worries about this.

All heavier tanks have at least a machinegunner slot which isn't a bad place to be, in later BF games people usually rush to take those slots even if they didn't get the main vehicle. Thus very few heavy tanks should be manned by just one guy since someone is probably sitting at the machinegun as well.

SgtExo · 2012-07-12, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Klockan

All heavier tanks have at least a machinegunner slot which isn't a bad place to be, in later BF games people usually rush to take those slots even if they didn't get the main vehicle. Thus very few heavy tanks should be manned by just one guy since someone is probably sitting at the machinegun as well.

But it wont just be a machine gun, it can be anything you want to spec into, so its like having an extra gun on there. Higby said you could have Tow missiles, which would double the lethality towards armor. If you just want to drive, just get someone in a AV top gun and don't use the main gun then, problem solved.

Klockan · 2012-07-12, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by SgtExo

But it wont just be a machine gun, it can be anything you want to spec into, so its like having an extra gun on there. Higby said you could have Tow missiles, which would double the lethality towards armor. If you just want to drive, just get someone in a AV top gun and don't use the main gun then, problem solved.

Just pointing out that having a heavy machinegun with sniperlike accuracy is still fairly strong so people want it. A tank is fairly vulnerable to infantry and air without the machinegunner.

KaB · 2012-07-12, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Klockan

Thus very few heavy tanks should be manned by just one guy since someone is probably sitting at the machinegun as well.

I disagree with you on that fact because BF doesn't have such a huge map that has PS2.
So unless some idiots decide to use heavy tanks to fight in closed areas (which are supposed to be associated by Light tanks), I don't see how people could get some fun at being on the machinegun because the only thing they'll have to do is : report enemy tanks location (hoping the driver/gunner accept to communicate, which doesn't seem to be the case for everyone), and kill some infantry trying to put C4 on the tank. How fun !

Klockan · 2012-07-12, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by KaB

I disagree with you on that fact because BF doesn't have such a huge map that has PS2.
So unless some idiots decide to use heavy tanks to fight in closed areas (which are supposed to be supported by Light tanks), I don't see how people could get some fun to be on the machinegun because the only thing they'll have to do is : report enemy tanks location (hoping the driver accept to communicate, which doesn't seem to be the case of everyone), and kill some infantry trying to put C4 on the tank. How fun !

They have almost perfect accuracy so you can kill infantry at long range with it. Also it is good against air so you will get vehicle kills with it as well, from E3 it looks like you could get more points with that than the actual maingun as long as there are some air flying around.

SgtExo · 2012-07-12, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Klockan

Just pointing out that having a heavy machinegun with sniperlike accuracy is still fairly strong so people want it. A tank is fairly vulnerable to infantry and air without the machinegunner.

I know that machine guns are a must. In fact I'm wondering if the main gun has a coaxial machine gun too? Because that is usually my primary weapon in games cause there are always more soft targets than heavily armored targets that the main canon. But that's beside the point here.

Klockan · 2012-07-12, 12:29 PM

Watching E3 again it seems like the machinegun has heavy enough calibre to kill tanks as well so it is even better than I thought. It basically works against every target out there making that spot extremely necessary. Here is the E3 part:

If anyone tells me that the machinegun position is bad after that they must be insane. The damage it deals is insane. He kills a galaxy with just a clip for example and he made the magrider go smoking without any help, he even destroyed the tank that the maingunner was shooting at nabbing the kill.

KaB · 2012-07-12, 12:37 PM

It looks more like a DCA mounted on a tank. Weird. I really wonder if this game has really been balanced. Anyway we'll check it out in the beta.

Flaropri · 2012-07-12, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by KaB

It looks more like a DCA mounted on a tank. Weird. I really wonder if this game has really been balanced. Anyway we'll check it out in the beta.

Alpha was not balanced, and neither is Tech Test. Balancing and especially fine-tuning will be done during Beta. "Rough" balancing (such as general guidlines, base-line of desired power, etc.) was done, but only in a general sense.

SgtExo · 2012-07-12, 12:49 PM

The game isnt balanced yet, thats why beta is going to start, so they can balance it.

maradine · 2012-07-12, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by KaB

I disagree with you on that fact because BF doesn't have such a huge map that has PS2.
So unless some idiots decide to use heavy tanks to fight in closed areas (which are supposed to be associated by Light tanks), I don't see how people could get some fun at being on the machinegun because the only thing they'll have to do is : report enemy tanks location (hoping the driver/gunner accept to communicate, which doesn't seem to be the case for everyone), and kill some infantry trying to put C4 on the tank. How fun !

The maps in BF2/3 certainly aren't as big globally, but the size of a map like Caspian Border or Operation Firestorm is roughly the size of a PS2 engagement - indeed, large enough that there are multiple geographic hotspots and terrain masking is in play.

Playing the secondary gun in BF wasn't merely fun and reasonably kill-heavy, it was also highly necessary to deal with all the things the main gunner didn't have the attention for or the right tools to deal with.

I strongly suspect you're going to warm up to what's been designed for us. And if not, well, I will.

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-12, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

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.

I still don't like the concept, but of all the certs stuff I've heard, this makes a lot more sense. Starting as a multi-crew vehicle and CERTING it into being one-man a makes more sense than the other way around.

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.

It's not IGNORING it. It's NOT LIKING it. Big difference there. Most the people talking here are well aware of the mechanics in place, and what the reason is behind them. WE DON'T LIKE IT.

@WasDie

"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."

Wrong again. It's not wanting it "just like it was". It's we think the changes being implemented are stupid. Just because you personally like it, does not mean "it's for the best", which is a subjective opinion, at best (just like ours, in many ways).

And it is not about whether or not the secondary gun is worth a shit. What part of this do you people not grasp? We don't like the concept of a one man battle tank! It doesn't make a difference if it has a powerful secondary gun that is best to use. We're saying a one man battle tank should not be an option, period! It's just STUPID! The whole reasoning behind the secondary gun being the way it is, the durability of the tanks, the resource cost etc, are all aimed at attempting to balance the one man tank thing. That's fine, it may work as advertised. That's not the point. WE DON'T WANT A ONE MAN BATTLE TANK! It doesn't matter how it's balanced or anything else. We don't like it! That is core of the argument and what it boils down to.

It is not PS1 mentality, just because PS1 happened to have this feature. So do many other games, and RL for that matter. I've only been playing PS1 about a week, I have no bias based off this playtime. If the tanks as is have some rough edges that need to be worked on, fine, but we do not think the solution to these problems is creating Rambo tanks!

And with that, I am officially exiting the thread. We're all arguing in circles, anyway. Not only is the mechanic probably laid out, but it's not like we're exactly convincing one another of anything. Not that anyone tends to listen to anyone else, anyway.

Azren · 2012-07-12, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by wasdie

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.

Well, I don't know, why does the liberator have gunners, why isn't it manned by one guy like the MBT?
See what I did there?

You compare the MBT with the "reaper" (it is called Reaver btw), while you should be comparing the lightning with it.

The Lightning is the solo ground tank, while the MBT is meant to be the one with dedicated gunner. Just as it is the case with the bomber.

Originally Posted by Deadeye

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.

It is overlooked for good reason; there is no way it will cost a lot of money. I am pretty sure you will get it's value worth by sitting around for 5 minutes and letting the territory control resources flow into your pocket.

The game is fast paced, the vehicles are meant to be one use items now, no way something that weak (look at the videos for reference) will cost more than a few minutes worth of gameplay.

Also, even if it would cost a lot, it does not change a thing. I would gladly pay 10x the value for a driver/driver tank, because I know it is worth that much more. Solo vehicles die like flies due to a multitude of reasons, all which can be traced back to the sheer number of enemies you will have to keep a track off.

Originally Posted by Klockan

All heavier tanks have at least a machinegunner slot which isn't a bad place to be, in later BF games people usually rush to take those slots even if they didn't get the main vehicle. Thus very few heavy tanks should be manned by just one guy since someone is probably sitting at the machinegun as well.

You forget to mention that they only jumped in the mashinegun slot so they can steal the tank the second you got out to repair.

Nice motivation right there, something we do not really need in PS2 imo.

At an rate, this is for everyone who wants dedicated driver MBTs;
no way it is happening. Looking at the dev's communication regarding this issue to this date, you can be assured that they have no plans whatsoever to change this. They never bothered to give us a real reason why they chose this setup (you will not feed me that crap about "enjoying the benefit of putting my certs into the vehicle". That was just a lame marketing text, nothing more. Just for that note; enjoyment to me is related to either driving or gunning a tank, not both). The real reason is probably to attract more CoD kiddies, nothing more.

Raymac · 2012-07-12, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Bobby Shaftoe

Why would you bother having 1 tank with 2 people when you can be 'skillful' and have 2 tanks with a person each?

Please tell me how well do you think your secondary armament is going to match up to another whole tank?

All this is doing is shifting 'teamwork' from within a single vehicle (ie Driver AND a gunner), to 'teamwork' starting at multiple vehicles (Driver/gunners)

It's bizarre how people rationalise the driver now being the main gunner too with PS1 anecdotes of never being able to find primary weapon gunners and now bizarrely think you're going to get people swarming your driver/gunner vehicles now to sit in the piddly secondary weapons position in PS2. You also somehow think your 'awesome teamwork' skills are going to match up to 2 people just pulling 2 solo MBTs.

You guys.

I know you were responding to someone else, but I'll answer those questions too. Obviously this is just my point of view, so you can take it with a grain of salt (or even less lol).

One reason you would have a secondary gunner instead of a second tank is the ease of coordinating. While obviously it is possible to coordinate between mulitple tanks, when you get into the chaos of a huge battle, that coordination can get impeded and you can get split up. If you are both in the same vehicle, the coordination because much much easier because, well, you are literally stuck together. It's similar to the PS1 logic behind pulling 1 Deliverer w/ 2 gunners as opposed to 2 Delis w/ 1 gunner. Yes I'm aware of the additional person, but there would also be "double the hit points".

Also, there is the issue of the cost of the tanks, but little is known about that at this point, so it is hard to say how effective that will be.

You are absolutely right when you say it shifts some of teamwork from 1 vehicle to mulitple vehicles, but I personally don't see that as a huge negative. Plus, you will still have lots of people choosing to use a secondary gunner (assumption based on my experience with how outfits coordinate), not to mention the other vehicles like the Sunderer, Lib, and Galaxy that will still be there for mulit-person vehicle teamwork.

Finally, to your last point, I think it can still be difficult to find random zerglings to jump in the secondary gunner position, and organized outfits won't have any trouble at all. Basically, I think in allowing the MBT driver to control the main gun, it opens up the iconic vehicle to the more casual player who doesn't play the game at the higher level of coordination that we are so used to. Basically, I think the casual player should be allowed to play with this tank.

Of course, the response to that is "that's what the Lightning is for" but I think the Lightning is a different tool. I see it as the same between choosing a max suit or Heavy Assault.

You may call that point of view "bizarre", but I think it's clear, simple, and most of all more fun for more people.