Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2 - Page 25

sylphaen · 2012-02-18, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by NewSith

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.

I do not see the link between preventing tanks to shoot soldiers in very close-proximity and the jammers.

I agree that if tanks are that easy to pull, someone would rather bring a tank to a tank fight (or alternately, he may bring a reaver). However, for soldier players who want to grunt it all the way, what will always keep tanks away are the jammers followed by some hard AV hits.

Now if there are 15 tanks to deal with, I kind of agree that it's time for that soldier player to choose something else and stop insisting on footzerging.

ThGlump · 2012-02-18, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by nomotog

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.

Dont worry drivers will move as best for you both to shoot - that means not at all. Theyll find a nice place and shoot, if needed they move to some other spot and shoot. No agile tanks driving around like in ps1 this time. Remember BFR? It had 2 states - moving or shooting. This is tanks in ps2.

NewSith · 2012-02-18, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by sylphaen

Now if there are 15 tanks to deal with, I kind of agree that it's time for that soldier player to choose something else and stop insisting on footzerging.

Exactly... But the whole point is 15 is going to be a usual amount of tanks with Drive-Shoot system.

Still, obviously, I'm quite biased due to being a to-the-bone grunt and a pessimist.

Aurmanite · 2012-02-18, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by ThGlump

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.

Your numbers are completely made up and add nothing to this conversation. You can't say that after 1-2 months everyone will have anything. No one has this sort of information yet.

Also, you aren't thinking about some critical elements, like cover, and terrain. Half a dozen guys in the trees or on high ground with AV supporting their armored line will have a place on the field. Just think about that canyon we saw the Vanguards in. What will 20 Vanguards do down there, while 200 troops stand over them firing every sort of AV they can?

You also don't know how the secondary gunner will work. Neither do I. It is a fact though, that one vehicle being able to fire at one target is not as powerful as 1 vehicle being able to fire at 2.

Hamma · 2012-02-18, 04:40 PM

Threads merged.

NewSith · 2012-02-18, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

Also, you aren't thinking about some critical elements, like cover, and terrain. Half a dozen guys in the trees or on high ground with AV supporting their armored line will have a place on the field. Just think about that canyon we saw the Vanguards in. What will 20 Vanguards do down there, while 200 troops stand over them firing every sort of AV they can?

It's a good message to devs. One interesting way to block the beepbeepimmatank constant gameplay style is to make objects like that canyon or archaeological site strategically significant...

Because if they're useless, then people (those with common sense) will just hop in their tanks and run a long way around with them, just avoiding the canyons etc and Aurmanite's theory fails.

Originally Posted by Hamma

Threads merged.

My first thought seeing your sig without reading the post:

"WTFLOCKEDWHY?"

Aurmanite · 2012-02-18, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by NewSith

It's a good message to devs. One interesting way to block the beepbeepimmatank constant gameplay style is to make objects like that canyon or archaeological site strategically significant...

Because if they're useless, then people (those with common sense) will just hop in their tanks and run a long way around with them, just avoiding the canyons etc and Aurmanite's theory fails.

It's not really theory. In Planetside infantry using AV on high ground or in the trees really messed with tanks.

But yeah, terrain should be a large consideration for a tank driver. Choke points and 'death ground' (read up on your Art of War) should be somewhat unavoidable.

nomotog · 2012-02-18, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by ThGlump

Dont worry drivers will move as best for you both to shoot - that means not at all. Theyll find a nice place and shoot, if needed they move to some other spot and shoot. No agile tanks driving around like in ps1 this time. Remember BFR? It had 2 states - moving or shooting. This is tanks in ps2.

So long as it's not like the old days. I could hop in the gunner seat and be sure that I would spend most of my time behind a wall well the driver tried to dodge fire. Or If I was the driver I could be assured that the gunner would never hit the side of a barn or even fire there weapon.

Things became so much more fun when games stared letting me drive and shoot at the same time.

ThGlump · 2012-02-18, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

Your numbers are completely made up and add nothing to this conversation. You can't say that after 1-2 months everyone will have anything. No one has this sort of information yet.

Also, you aren't thinking about some critical elements, like cover, and terrain. Half a dozen guys in the trees or on high ground with AV supporting their armored line will have a place on the field. Just think about that canyon we saw the Vanguards in. What will 20 Vanguards do down there, while 200 troops stand over them firing every sort of AV they can?

You also don't know how the secondary gunner will work. Neither do I. It is a fact though, that one vehicle being able to fire at one target is not as powerful as 1 vehicle being able to fire at 2.

They mentioned about a year to learn most of the certs. Base tank cant be too deep so there is room for modifications.

20 tanks vs 200 AV grunts? What about 200 tanks vs 200 grunts? It will all depend how strong will AV be. In ps1 AV had shorter range and took a lot of time to kill a tank. And remember that grunts have more limited ammo than tanks so it will be really hard for them to kill all of tanks.

And still you comparing 1 solo maned vehicle to 1 vehicle with gunner. Compare 2 solo vehicles to 1 vehicle with gunner and then tell me where is advantage and what is more powerfull?

sylphaen · 2012-02-18, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

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.

Then why did you propose to make "main cannons [...] have trouble aiming low enough to hit infantry at a certain distance" ? As far as I know, it was already the case in PS1 if you were close enough.

I just read C4 so here is a question to better understand what you mean by strong mechanics:
do you mean mechanics where tanks would blow up to one set of explosives from one (almost) invisible cloaker ?

I had my share of RDX hopping in BF2142 (on the receiving side) and it was definitely not a fun mechanic. Or at least, let's just say that I found it lame and disliked it very much... You can look for it in youtube if you dont know what I refer to.

Edit:
Disclaimer: in case you never read some of my previous posts so you may better understand the context of my posts, I was a driver in PS1 and I am for separated driver/gunner functions (no, it does not mean I will spit on PS2 dev tank choices even though I am clearly disappointed).

Aurmanite · 2012-02-18, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by ThGlump

They mentioned about a year to learn most of the certs. Base tank cant be too deep so there is room for modifications.

20 tanks vs 200 AV grunts? What about 200 tanks vs 200 grunts? It will all depend how strong will AV be. In ps1 AV had shorter range and took a lot of time to kill a tank. And remember that grunts have more limited ammo than tanks so it will be really hard for them to kill all of tanks.

And still you comparing 1 solo maned vehicle to 1 vehicle with gunner. Compare 2 solo vehicles to 1 vehicle with gunner and then tell me where is advantage and what is more powerfull?

If you have 20000 tanks in a canyon vs 200 infantry on high ground, it still doesn't turn not particularly well for the tanks while they're in that canyon.

Perhaps the secondary AV gun will be extremely powerful against armor, making that single tank capable of doing massive amounts of damage to enemy tanks. We don't know how it will work, so we can't say.

Not only that, but having 1 tank that has a secondary gunner allows that empire to take advantage of soldiers who don't have a tank to pull. Suddenly we have the same number of tanks, but with secondary gunners in ours.

It's just how it works.

ThGlump · 2012-02-18, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by nomotog

Things became so much more fun when games stared letting me drive and shoot at the same time.

Yea that can work. But not at planetside scale. In games with driver/gunner tanks, those are heavily limited in numbers so only few can get them, or are completely focused on tank play. In planetside it can ruin other styles of battle (except air).

ThGlump · 2012-02-18, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

Not only that, but having 1 tank that has a secondary gunner allows that empire to take advantage of soldiers who don't have a tank to pull. Suddenly we have the same number of tanks, but with secondary gunners in ours.

Most of them will have tank. Drivers wont wait and look for gunners when they can go solo - how many mags there were without gunner and mag gun was a joke. Imagine when they have strong gun, why bother to look for gunner. And gunners will be hard to get - theyll rather pull their own tank.
They would have to do entering vehicle like if BF. Instant and while tank is moving to give random gunners enter it, because drivers wont stop for them. And if they do this im out.

Aurmanite · 2012-02-18, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by ThGlump

Most of them will have tank. Drivers wont wait and look for gunners when they can go solo - how many mags there were without gunner and mag gun was a joke. Imagine when they have strong gun, why bother to look for gunner. And gunners will be hard to get - theyll rather pull their own tank.
They would have to do entering vehicle like if BF. Instant and while tank is moving to give random gunners enter it, because drivers wont stop for them. And if they do this im out.

Who cares what the scrubs do. My outfit is going to do things right, and we will bust scrubs all day.

Too much of what you're thinking doesn't take into account how things actually play out.

Figment · 2012-02-18, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

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.

Or... People pull what's most effective. En mass. Not because it's most fun. Two words: Plasma spam. Oh so enjoyable.

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.

So two tanks with two driver/gunners can only fire at one target? Riiight. Though if they do, they're far more effective (double armour).

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.

The Lightning weaponry has been confirmed to be stronger than gunner weaponry on a MBT. This means you'll prefer a Lightning partner over a MBT gunner partner (stronger gun + you are two targets + you got more hitpoints).

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

And two good drivers are going to utterly annihilate one driver with a gunner.