Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2

[Figment]

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

FFS TLDR. Probably... depends.. I'm drunk but unbroken at the moment.

Tank drivers acting as the gunner. This is okay...... Besides COD and BF1 2 and 3.... many other games have cloned this.

None of those games have 2000 potential tankers per map. Games like BF and CoD have limitations to the extend you may not even drive one at all in a match. Comparing PS2 with explicit details of a bigger balancing system of those games is... kinda shortsighted. Tbh.

"In Command & Conquer NOD had nukes, so it's fine to use it in PlanetSide as an alternative to the OS, since CR5s already have the GDI Ion Canon!".

See what I did there? Comparing to a detail of the balancing system from the context of another game isn't always a recipy for success. Far from it.

S T F U...... If the fuckers that get PAID to do this every fucking day deem this a good idea in accordance with the game they are creating... Then SO be it...

Stop voicing your opinion first. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, though if you want to hold a debate with them, you better bring good arguments.

For some reason this thread and many others like it have gone to extents that far exceed their life in value because of debate that makes absolutely no sense. Us as gamers get it, we understand what WE want and understand the flaws WE see in Planetside 1. None of us completely agree on everything (except music ...)

Wait. We agree on music? Cool, orchestrated Zelda music it is!

*cough*

The point I'm trying to make it is, how many other communities have gotten together on a fan site like this and really shown interest to the point the DEVELOPERS get on and talk to us, like really talk to us, bullshit with us, listen to us..

None.

>_______________>

Including myself as one who has bashed SOE for some of the STUPID assed things they have done, I have faith in them this time. This time IS different.

It's only different if they on one hand listen to the players for feedback and then make their own evaluation using the whole picture and then make the right decision (which may or may not always agree with the players).

Problem with players is they may or may not always be right. Which goes for everyone, yours trully included.

So lets stop bitching about the AMS being gone, the MAX unit possibly getting a flame thrower, the lack of buggies, no free form inventory, class specific soldiers, instaknives, no artillery, MBTs being primarily operated by the gunner, the cash shop, the PC gamer beta key and cloakers getting sniper rifles...

SOE is going to do what SOE wants to do and I really believe they Will do it right this time.

Could you tone down fanboy mode? Nobody ever got better without getting constructive critique. Shutting off critique will be your own undoing. Both pure fanboying PS1 or fanboying PS2 as it arrives in beta will be PS2's downfall.

Critique should be constructive and well-argued, but most of all provided. The specific applications of AMS, MAX and other things are typically constructively argued and based on past experience, but, especially when they include warnings, should always be evaluatied and verified during beta. If these claims are correct, then SOE should rectify them. If not, fair game.

Only when it's a bash post for the sake of bashing or someone makes consistently verifiably stupid posts a 'STFU' is justified. Critique and listening to good critique on the other hand should be stimulated to ensure quality. STFU and blind faith lead to unrefined quality: they're only human.

Without critique an artist would never feel the need to surpass stick figures. Both conservation and innovation aimed critiques have their place. Innovation for the sake of innovating is as stupid as conserving something that's outdated for a new context. Everything needs to be fine tuned. Nothing is more important for a dev than to hear views from as many different angles as possible, especially if it disagrees with them next to the pat on the back for a job well done.

[dsi]

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

So lets stop bitching about the AMS being gone, the MAX unit possibly getting a flame thrower, the lack of buggies, no free form inventory, class specific soldiers, instaknives, no artillery, MBTs being primarily operated by the gunner, the cash shop, the PC gamer beta key and cloakers getting sniper rifles...

SOE is going to do what SOE wants to do and I really believe they Will do it right this time.

>Doing all of those things and doing them right



I hope SOE changes their mind when they see 1k tanks trying to fit into a courtyard. Or a lightning trying to speed over hills and stick with the air fight. Or people running out of ammo and not being able to do anything because they can't loot.

[SgtMAD]

after seeing the Vanny column going after the Prowler,I am even more convinced that the driver gunning a tank is a big friggin mistake

[Canaris]

I've been thinking about it, think I'll prefer the main gunner being the driver

[MrBloodworth]

This is a giant pander to the non-team work crowd.

It's called "Playing alone, together".

God forbid you need others to bring high firepower to the battle.

[Maarvy]

Originally Posted by ikon

id imagine even if they are zerging without gunners.

aircraft and anti armor weapons will pick them apart like nothing without secondary gunners.

so free kills for me ^^

This , a strong tank will still need a team . 1 driver/engineer/main gunner , 1 machine gunner and at/aa speced heavy assault .

Solo tanks will be free kills for any air in most cases .

[Coreldan]

Originally Posted by Maarvy

This , a strong tank will still need a team . 1 driver/engineer/main gunner , 1 machine gunner and at/aa speced heavy assault .

Solo tanks will be free kills for any air in most cases .

Yeah, Higlo made pretty short work of the Magriders when there was no AA on those magriders to fend him off in most cases.

And the infantry splash damage was indeed low enough for even a few anti tank guys to probably take down a Vanguard with no secondary gunner fairly easy.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Maarvy

This , a strong tank will still need a team . 1 driver/engineer/main gunner , 1 machine gunner and at/aa speced heavy assault .

Solo tanks will be free kills for any air in most cases .

Why does this shortsighted argument keep returning even if dismissed every other page?

Solo tanks will have a buddy specced with appropriate gun on appropriate unit for every gunner of own tank.

Stop pretending they are alone because that's the sole situation in which it is a worse scenario. But if they are alone, they couldn't have a gunner either even if they wanted to. Which means it's a completely moot point in this debate.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Coreldan

Yeah, Higlo made pretty short work of the Magriders when there was no AA on those magriders to fend him off in most cases.

And the infantry splash damage was indeed low enough for even a few anti tank guys to probably take down a Vanguard with no secondary gunner fairly easy.

Consider that next to none of those tanks seemed to even HAVE a secondary gun (neither Vannies nor Magriders), but still fastly outnumbered the local infantry. And strangely, there were no Lightnings around with AA as far as I could tell (have we seen one at all yet?), nor any aircav intercepting Higby. (Well... apart from that friendly Reaver that rammed him mid-air ).

Plus I suppose Higby being the demonstrator was not meant to be shot as often since he had to demo the game to the press.

Which means it's not entirely representative for actual in-game situations.

[Coreldan]

Originally Posted by Figment

Consider that next to none of those tanks seemed to even HAVE a secondary gun (neither Vannies nor Magriders), but still fastly outnumbered the local infantry. And strangely, there were no Lightnings around with AA as far as I could tell (have we seen one at all yet?), nor any aircav intercepting Higby. (Well... apart from that friendly Reaver that rammed him mid-air ).

Plus I suppose Higby being the demonstrator was not meant to be shot as often since he had to demo the game to the press.

Which means it's not entirely representative for actual in-game situations.

True, I did think about it many time whether Higlo managed to stay alive so long on the Reaver cos they didnt shoot him down on purpose

That said, the Vanguards we saw had top mounted machine guns of some kind, it's the first time we see it in the non-PS1 config.

And no, the story of Lightning was that it went back to the drawing board when T-Ray didnt feel the original design was good enough, thus we've yet to see one.

[Maarvy]

Originally Posted by Figment

Why does this shortsighted argument keep returning even if dismissed every other page?

Solo tanks will have a buddy specced with appropriate gun on appropriate unit for every gunner of own tank.

Stop pretending they are alone because that's the sole situation in which it is a worse scenario. But if they are alone, they couldn't have a gunner either even if they wanted to. Which means it's a completely moot point in this debate.

Im not saying solo tank like 1 tank alone in the wilderness , I mean a tank with 1 (solo) driver vs a tank with driver and 2nd gunner .

In almost every situation the one with the 2nd gunner is more powerfull and has a lot more options to call on that the tank with just 1 ( solo ) occupant .
From repairs to a added at rocket or aa missile right when u need it most .
I know you can kinda pick up all these things as a single crewed tank but when your relying on a 100 hp meat bag to deliver the goods its not the same .

[ThGlump]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

after seeing the Vanny column going after the Prowler,I am even more convinced that the driver gunning a tank is a big friggin mistake

Look at them in battle against VS. Mag were moving, vanguards just sit at one place and shoot as its hard to move and shoot at once. Those tank battles will be very often static.

[TekDragon]

I would rather tanks have 3 seats. Main gunner, secondary gunner, and driver. The driver can choose which seats to lock out. If the main gunner seat is empty, the tank driver can fire his weapon directly ahead, with a 10 degree vertical control.

If the driver wants to have full control of his tank's main gun he needs to switch seats. This should be done with a single button press, but should take at least 1 second to switch (since this is sci-fi we can imagine the pilot HUD rebooting into a weapon HUD). From the main gunner seat the main weapon can be completely controlled, but the tank can only move forward and back - no directional control.

It's only with 2 seats filled (main gunner and pilot) that the tank can have full maneuverability AND full turret control.

That's balanced.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by Maarvy

This , a strong tank will still need a team . 1 driver/engineer/main gunner , 1 machine gunner and at/aa speced heavy assault .

Solo tanks will be free kills for any air in most cases .

That's assuming there's nobody around with AA, which is a huge assumption. More likely there'll be guys in AA Lightnings, AA MAXs, AA infantry, other AA fitted tanks and so on.

There's already a solo tank called the Lightning, why do we need a second one?

[Ragotag]

Originally Posted by Baron

If you've ever been a secondary gunner for a Battlefield game:

1) It's pretty much a joke
2) Certain death

That's a pretty sweeping, an IMO, misrepresented statement. Gunning for a vehicle in BF3 places the gunner at no more risk than it does the driver (except for the helicopters).

Originally Posted by ikon

id imagine even if they are zerging without gunners aircraft and anti armor weapons will pick them apart like nothing without secondary gunners.

Using BF3 in comparison, yep -- exactly what happens. An MBT in BF3 without a gunner is highly susceptible to AT and C4 toting Infantry, which equates to a shortened life span especially in urban environments.

Originally Posted by kaffis

The logic does make sense, though. I cert the vehicle, I spend training time and resources on pimping it out, why should a random teammate get the gun? I'd rather see the gun and wheel separated, but have neither require the cert so long as one person in the vehicle is certed for it. That way, if you want to gun, you can pull your tank and climb in the gunner's seat and find a driver.

In the end, however, I actually prefer the idea of better armored tanks requiring more team-based coordination by having separate gunner/driver seats. I think kaffis is right on target here, allow the player with the certs to field (spawn) the tank, but then give him/her the choice of which seat they want to ride in.