Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2 - Page 26

nomotog · 2012-02-18, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by ThGlump

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).

I am not sure how I feel about your response cherry picking from my post.

That said, I doubt that it will ruin other styles of combat. We have to wait till beta to make sure though.

Aurmanite · 2012-02-18, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

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

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).

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).

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

All of this I have addressed in subsequent posts. You're thinking too small. Things don't end up playing out the way they do in the vacuum of your head.

Figment · 2012-02-18, 05:22 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.

Gun depression only comes into problematic ranges at melee combat ranges.

Considering you are about ten times as fast as infantry, putting enough distance to negate that gun depression should be a simple matter.

Remember also that if you got and use splash, you can still hit objects. Jacked CY Prowler against a wall can easily kill those that came out of it by hitting the wall instead of directly aiming at the player.

Driver/gunner will make vehicle camping quite easy again (negating the nerf of door shields to some extend), as you don't even need to get out of your driver and into your gunner spot, forcing you to either stand still and fire, or drive and not fire. Now you can do both or have two tanks camp.

And of course even if one can fire through a door shield from within, that just means you have to position yourself such that you force them to pop out in order to fire at you.

People who think having hundreds of tanks sounds great and that vech should dominate, should realise that SOE lost a lot of subscribers over something similar in PS1. A lot of gamers who came from FPS games hated that infantry was virtually inviable outdoors due to the many advantages of vehicles.
The main complaint was about aircraft and one shot killing ground vehicles. I never felt the case for ground vehicles was as big as aircraft, since EMPs and AV were quite effective if used properly. Where aircraft of course was especially in the first and in the last years (pre-Wasp/AA Wall Turret and Flaklet and post-Gunship/Reaver buff) a really big issue. Still, IF implemented wrong and gameplay domination becomes a reality, tanks may become that hated thing for those mainly interested in infantry. Have to be really careful about that.

Gameplay domination by specific units is never a good thing: some people will feel left out or get frustrated and it reduces the viability of other choices and with it variation. And low variation is bad in the long run, obviously.

Figment · 2012-02-18, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

All of this I have addressed in subsequent posts. You're thinking too small. Things don't end up playing out the way they do in the vacuum of your head.

Your argumentation in those other posts is incredibly weak. And I mean, INCREDIBLY weak and based on very situational (and avoidable) assumptions.

I'm not thinking small, I'm thinking practical. You're thinking in an idealised and utopic way and sadly in a rather irrealistic reality.

EDIT: Oh and reading back, you haven't adressed most of that. At all. Your reply to Glump doesn't cover things like two tanks hitting two targets. At least acknowledge that having a gunner does NOT bring the advantage of hitting more targets at once? Cause what you did there was sidetrack and avoid Glumps argument, instead of adressing it.

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

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.

See, what you argued with was make us have one person to spend on seats, while you had two persons to spend on seats. You are deliberately rigging the argument in your favour (because you know you're not right) by trying to set us up with a weaker vantage point!

Newsith is absolutely right, you knew it and you tried to dodge the argument.

Always assume equal manpower and certs available for both arguments, or you're just acting a fanboy troll instead of being constructive, critical thinker.

As for some of your other remarks, you keep bringing up "we don't know" AS A DEFENSE (it's never a defense, it's ignorance that can mean either is right - as long as it's unknown and both have a good argument). That's not true in this case. It was already confirmed that the main gun is BETTER at AV than the secondary AV gun. It was confirmed that you won't be extremely limited by resources for vehicle or weapon acquisition. It is confirmed that the Lightning has superior weapons over a secondary gunner, which makes it the prefered choice of customized weapons next to main MBT gun by default. You completely ignore that and try to use that ignorance as a defense for your, rather unlikely scenarios.

It's also funny where you accuse NewSith of making up numbers (looks like an educated guess), which you then follow up with your own argument of 20 tanks vs 200 infantry on high ground. Funnily, your fully manned tanks would be killed off faster in this case as the infantry would be able to concentrate fire more in your scenario. you presume a 10:1 UNIT ratio in both cases (at least you apply fair and realistic numbers to balance things... Oh wait, no.). Yet though in neither case they'd last very long, you again try to get away with YOUR twenty tanks having a full crew and our 20 tanks having half crew.

But if there's 20 vehicles, that means either 40 or 20 troops. And then we have to use two scenarios: 40 troops or 20 troops and THEN thinks look completely different!

Because in your situation, it'd actually either be 10:1 (40 people in 20 separate vehicles) OR 20:1 (20 people in 10 vehicles). In our situation, it'd be 10:1 (20 people in 20 seperate vehicles) or 5:1 (40 people in 40 seperate vehicles). Do the maths, our tanks would have a bigger chance of getting through the canyon by sheer endurance.

Sorry, but you'll have to do much, much better than this poor excuse for argumentation.

Aurmanite · 2012-02-18, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Your argumentation in those other posts is incredibly weak. And I mean, INCREDIBLY weak and based on very situational (and avoidable) assumptions.

I'm not thinking small, I'm thinking practical. You're thinking in an idealised and utopic way and sadly in a rather irrealistic reality.

EDIT: Oh and reading back, you haven't adressed most of that. At all. Your reply to Glump doesn't cover things like two tanks hitting two targets. At least acknowledge that having a gunner does NOT bring the advantage of hitting more targets at once? Cause what you did there was sidetrack and avoid Glumps argument, instead of adressing it.

See, what you argued with was make us have one person to spend on seats, while you had two persons to spend on seats. You are deliberately rigging the argument in your favour (because you know you're not right) by trying to set us up with a weaker vantage point!

Newsith is absolutely right, you knew it and you tried to dodge the argument.

Always assume equal manpower and certs available for both arguments, or you're just acting a fanboy troll instead of being constructive, critical thinker.

This is a lot of tripe. "I'm right and your wrong, your argument is weak." If you're going to call someones position weak, try using supporting arguments.

I agreed with NewSith. I dodged nothing.

Really this discussion is about tanks on the field and how it will play out in the larger sense of the game. This song ain't about you an me. Try as hard as you want, but I'm not going to play that game.

The fact is that we have several years of Planetside to look at and extrapolate. We also have decades of online gaming to look at as well. Even though driver/gunner could lead to the proliferation of tanks (which I already expressed my concern about), I'm fairly certain that "people will do what they want" remains undeniable. If you're interested in reading some articles about how gamers behave, look up some of Richard Garriot's work.

Figment · 2012-02-18, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

This is a lot of tripe. "I'm right and your wrong, your argument is weak." If you're going to call someones position weak, try using supporting arguments.

How can you quote that edit and claim not a single argument is made?

You're full of it and again you're dodging the argument by ignoring it. Also, the edit had already been updated to include some more of your erroneous assumptions.

EDIT: Btw, my mistake, you quoted Glump right after a NewSith post. Still, then Glump is absolutely right.

Grognard · 2012-02-18, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Firefly

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.

The "flavor" I meant was... having too many foot (previously) soldiers certing into tanks just to stay alive longer/hit harder, so that there is not enough mix of combined arms in the field. Then, to compete, others doing the same until there is an out-of-proportion sea of tanks.

Aurmanite · 2012-02-18, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

How can you quote that edit and claim not a single argument is made?

You're full of it and again you're dodging the argument by ignoring it.

I'm ignoring your attempts to turn this into one of your classic post-dissecting flamewars where you get all weird and start arguing with a ridiculous amount of fervor and emotion. I didn't kick your dog, yo.

You can accept the fact that your fears about how vehicles will turn out are based upon a very limited amount of information, or not. You can be realistic and have a measured reaction or go all chicken-little with your theory-crafting. You look a little foolish, but I doubt you see it.

Tanks might become a problem in Planetside 2. Tweaks might have to be made. Right now, any argument beyond "This could happen, but we don't know yet." is asinine.

Experience. When you have it, you tend not to look at things in extremes.

Figment · 2012-02-18, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by Grognard

The "flavor" I meant was... having too many foot (previously) soldiers certing into tanks just to stay alive longer/hit harder, so that there is not enough mix of combined arms in the field. Then, to compete, others doing the same until there is an out-of-proportion sea of tanks.

Basically what happened post-BR40 with MAX units.

Figment · 2012-02-18, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

I'm ignoring your attempts to turn this into one of your classic post-dissecting flamewars where you get all weird and start arguing with a ridiculous amount of fervor and emotion. I didn't kick your dog, yo.

You can accept the fact that your fears about how vehicles will turn out are based upon a very limited amount of information, or not. You can be realistic and have a measured reaction, or go all chicken-little with your theory-crafting. You look a little foolish, but I doubt you see it,

Tanks might become a problem in Planetside 2. Tweaks might have to be made. Right now, any argument beyond "This could happen, but we don't know yet." is asinine.

Experience. When you have it, you tend not to look at things in extremes.

Stop your bloody dodging and answer the question:

Can 20 people in 10 tanks fire at as many targets as 20 people in 20 tanks? (Note that 20 tanks are defined as Lightning/MBT combinations, so type of target does not matter)

Aurmanite · 2012-02-18, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Stop your bloody dodging and answer the question:

Can 20 people in 10 tanks fire at as many targets as 20 people in 20 tanks?

Is your desire to 'be right' so strong that you've boiled down over 1000 words of conversation into this try-hard attempt to corner me in with a question that has almost no relevance to this discussion?

You're doing it again chum.

Figment · 2012-02-18, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

Is your desire to 'be right' so strong that you've boiled down over 1000 words of conversation into this try-hard attempt to corner me in with a question that has almost no relevance to this discussion?

You're doing it again chum.

You're dodging again. Chum.

And it's the centerpoint of the driver-gunner discussion. If you hadn't noticed.

Aurmanite · 2012-02-18, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

You're dodging again. Chum.

And it's the centerpoint of the driver-gunner discussion. If you hadn't noticed.

The Vanguard and the Magrider required 2 soldiers, where the Prowler required 3.

Did it ever play out that the TR were truly at a 1/3 disadvantage?

No.

Because things happen differently in game than they do on the forums. This is something that should be common knowledge among gamers.

Figment · 2012-02-18, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

The Vanguard and the Magrider required 2 gunners, where the Prowler required 3.

Did it ever play out that the TR were truly at a 1/3 disadvantage?

No.

Because things happen differently in game than they do on the forums. This is something that should be common knowledge among gamers.

*facepalm* Are you kidding me?

1. Vanguard has ONE gunner. ONE.

2. Magrider was frequently in a two to one numerical advantage over Vanguard, but since the driver only had a weak gun (NOT the top gun that could fire at any angle) wouldn't get a huge advantage.

3. With a crew availability of 6, Prowler's rolled in threes, because if they rolled in pairs (full complement), they'd be out numbered by Magriders or Vanguards (3 tanks vs 2 Prowlers or 3 tanks vs 3 Prowlers). So no, 3:1 never was the case, because that ratio is not relevant: 3:2 ratios happened more often till people simply ignored the dual 15mm gunner position.

The only reason to fill the second gunner slot on a Prowler was if you had an uneven crew number at your disposal: couldn't roll another tank. In PS2, you can. If you had an uneven crew as VS, you'd grab a Magrider without gunner. An uneven crew as NC was just one spare who'd have to get another type of unit.

How dare you claim experience if you can't even comprehend what we already saw in PS1? There's so much wrong with your argument and you STILL don't answer a very simple question:

Do 20 gunners in 10 vehicles target the same amount of targets as 20 gunners in 20 vehicles?

Answer it, or I'll assume you admit you were wrong, but are too proud to admit it.

Aurmanite · 2012-02-18, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

*facepalm* Are you kidding me?

1. Vanguard has ONE gunner. ONE.

2. Magrider was frequently in a two to one numerical advantage over Vanguard, but since the driver only had a weak gun (NOT the top gun that could fire at any angle) wouldn't get a huge advantage.

3. With a crew availability of 6, Prowler's rolled in threes, because if they rolled in pairs (full complement), they'd be out numbered by Magriders or Vanguards (3 tanks vs 2 Prowlers or 3 tanks vs 3 Prowlers). So no, 3:1 never was the case, because that ratio is not relevant: 3:2 ratios happened more often till people simply ignored the dual 15mm gunner position.

The only reason to fill the second gunner slot on a Prowler was if you had an uneven crew number at your disposal: couldn't roll another tank. In PS2, you can. If you had an uneven crew as VS, you'd grab a Magrider without gunner. An uneven crew as NC was just one spare who'd have to get another type of unit.

How dare you claim experience if you can't even comprehend what we already saw in PS1? There's so much wrong with your argument and you STILL don't answer a very simple question:

Do 20 gunners in 10 vehicles target the same amount of targets as 20 gunners in 20 vehicles?

Answer it, or I'll assume you admit you were wrong, but are too proud to admit it.

Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

You know I meant 1/2 gunner(s).

Your comment on crews and stuff is garbage because its theory-crafting, again, after it was clear that I wouldn't stand for any of that crap.