Gameplay: Dedicated driver certification for MBT - Page 3

Accuser · 2012-07-18, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Take a PS1 Lightning. Imagine you cut up the controls. You think a single enemy unit has more issues with two Lightnings or one?

You're absolutely right, 2 lightnings would be more effective than one with divided controls.

But (assuming the lightning had the same health as a -real- tank) would people still use the divided controls version? Hell yes they would. And that's the point. It's not the most effective use of manpower (just as having the team's best sniper and worst pilot flying a Mossy) but some people will still want to do it.

And as a side note, some Infiltrators are snipers and can be called such, whether you like it or not.

Figment · 2012-07-18, 01:16 PM

More then wanting to do that, they should be encouraged. They should be stronger.

Ratstomper · 2012-07-18, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Hey Ratstomper, if Manpower doesn't matter as you claim, why do we even bother balancing units against each other both for individuals and groups of players?

It is at the very basis of game design.

I never said that manpower doesn't matter. I said there's already enough advantage for 3 guys to use a massive gun platform. You don't balance individual units against each other in a game like this, you balance team structure against other team structures because the game is designed around large battles with multiple people.

Now, splitting up all the positions over a gunner=driver system is, in my opinion, giving an advantage to the 3-manned tank. I'm ok with that because 1) I'm not a nitpicky asshole 2) there's a slight tradeoff for the small fact you might get three kills instead of two if you kill it.

Your crappy driver and gunner setup isn't even viable in PS2 and would only screw MBTs over.

Originally Posted by fod

ahh now i think i understand - its been confusing with all the huge posts different people post it makes it hard to exactly follow whats going on, its probably nobodys else fault but my own but oh well (also i think i was starting to get different people confused)

Not necessarily. Figment is usually incoherent and likes to talk out both sides of his face. It makes it difficult to understand what he's saying when he isn't blatantly insulting you for having a different veiwpoint.

Talek Krell · 2012-07-18, 02:23 PM

I think you've made a mistake by keeping the same stats. While I applaud your apparent desire to appeal to various playstyles, if all you do is offer them lip service then they're only going to end up unhappy with you. And since the variant you're suggesting is statistically inferior to the base MBT lip service is precisely what this would be.

We have enough units that we can use them to appeal to all playstyles, I see no reason to shaft one group in favor of the other.

Figment · 2012-07-18, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

I never said that manpower doesn't matter. I said there's already enough advantage for 3 guys to use a massive gun platform.

But one guy in a massive gun platform with the hitpoints of 3 guys in a massive gun platform has no advantage at all. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Certainly not if they can bring three.

Oh man, you're funny.

You don't balance individual units against each other in a game like this, you balance team structure against other team structures because the game is designed around large battles with multiple people.

Then why are you so adamant on balancing ONE unit against ONE other unit based on the power of ONE man? Because that is what you are doing.

Now, splitting up all the positions over a gunner=driver system is, in my opinion, giving an advantage to the 3-manned tank.

No, it's giving the advantage to the lone gunner.

I'm ok with that because 1) I'm not a nitpicky asshole 2) there's a slight tradeoff for the small fact you might get three kills instead of two if you kill it.

1. Indeed, you're an ignorant asshole and a hypocrite.
2. A slight trade-off

Your crappy driver and gunner setup isn't even viable in PS2 and would only screw MBTs over.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You support a weak "team"-solo unit, where you put a theoretical option for three crew in, make it viable for ONE crewmember and also give him access to changing position inside the tank. Then you pretend someone would actually fill it up with three (where two is already unlikely), continue to call it better than a single other unit without having any evidence, nor maths to suggest that it COULD even theoretically tackle multiple enemies (and just presume from the fact there's more guns that this is magically enough to make them useful, which is an utterly retarded assumption if you look at the maths even if you assume horrible efficiency of other tanks).

You do realise that in a perfect TTK, two single crew tanks fighting one tank with two gunners have the equivalent firing live of three tanks due to numerical leverage, right? Meaning that in a perfect two crew TTK on the other units, the other two would already have to perform at 66% efficiency each AND NOT MAKE USE OF ANY POSITIONING AND FLANKING advantages that multiple crews have? Meaning that if the two crew misses some shots or the gunner of the two crew loses tracks, the other two tanks would have to have a an efficiency each of below 40% in order to lose?

Oh wait, you don't have any argumentation to support your stance, you just have "wet finger in the air to see where wind is blowing" first impression opinions.

RIIIGHT. You're just interested in solo power so you can personally abuse it and kill two or three at once. Admit it. Stop being selfish. And if you're not, then you're just acting a hypocrite, possibly on purpose. And if not that, you're just being stubborn because you hate me enough to not let me "win" a debate from you. One thing is for sure, you don't have an educated opinion.

Pick one. Come on.

But you were saying that my design philosophy screws over team-vehicle players? Let me get back to laughing.

You do realise you are saying that EVERY PS1 unit that requires more gunners is SCREWED OVER as like in MY version of driver + gunner they equal the power of the equal amount of solist users and then have a slight teamwork advantage in maneuvring over said units.

Instead, you have the "compromise version" YOU MIGHT SUPPORT, where they are LESS than the equal of the equal amount of solist users and are thus substantially WEAKER than in my variant.

And then you have YOUR version, where they don't really need to exist at all!

RIIIIIIGHT. I am the one screwing teamwork over! Clearly! Stop making up stupid arguments, it makes you look utterly stupid. And this isn't an insult, it's fact.

For the record, the design philosophy I propose was applied extremely succesfully on balancing the fast majority of PS1 multi-crew combat units.

Even if it took some buffs and nerfs (particularly to buggies, which had to be made substantially more powerful to compete with multiple solo air units in particular).

Plus, it's funny in light of PS1 balance between units:

Examples of vehicles in PS1 that are balanced in the way the compromise here suggests: Prowler (token second gunner), Harasser (way too weak), Raider (outperformed by Deliverer, Aurora and Thunderer as they require less crew for virtually same power), Marauder (only Mortar interesting, 12 mm is rather worthless most the time), but also: Bassilisk (too weak compared to infantry (!) to be attractive).

Examples of vehicles in PS1 that are balanced in the way you suggest: Mosquito, Reaver. There'd be no balanced team vehicles as everyhing would be a solo vehicle first by far. At most there'd be a few with unrecommended, optional crew second. If there were, they'd be akin to the above units. All PS2 vehicles aside from the Sunderer, Liberator and Galaxy fall under this, only the Liberator could be seen as a combat unit at this point, while the others are discardable units.

Examples of vehicles in PS1 that are balanced like I suggest: Skyguard, Enforcer, Tresher, Vanguard, Thunderer, Deliverer, Lightning (post-buff since it was far too weak compared to team-vehicles to be near competitive, but two still can't take on a single MBT without working together really, really hard for it), Magrider (because the driver has a much weaker gun than the gunner and a second Magrider-driver can't out-"damage-over-time" a Magrider gunner even with the added endurance - which is not true for PS2 solo MBTs because they got equal capacity guns!), Liberator. Note also that, if you couldn't switch seats, the PS2 Liberator falls under this.

So.... I'm screwing over multi-crews? Riiiight. I doubt you will comprehend what I'm saying though and even if you would, you'd never admit it.

Not necessarily. Figment is usually incoherent and likes to talk out both sides of his face. It makes it difficult to understand what he's saying

What makes it difficult for you is your incapacity to keep track of what scenario I'm talking about, because there are so many I run. Including the scenarios of the "opposition" and the "compromise" group. I'm NOT incoherent, each and every argument I've made are in the context of the discussion of that moment and all relate to why there's IMO only one option out of the four possible implementation scenarios (note, these are not the hundreds of combat scenarios I've gone through - which your side keep reducing to one scenario because it's too complex for them).

That's the irony because it means they're just incapable of understanding the argument made. They can't even see which context or argument is being made.

You saying I'm incoherent is just typical of your side. You're either not capable or willing to think complex enough to have a thought-out argument. You're uncapable of placing yourself in the position of other players that are unlike yourself, are uncapable of admitting your solo-prefered side has been catered wealthily too and want a 100% solo-side game with some token team units that you can just ignore unless you find yourself alone against them.

Which shouldn't happen much unless you're a dumb, anti-social player that's incapable and unwilling to work with other players. Hmm... Incapable of finding gunners and wanting each unit to be usable on your own...

Not insinuating anything, but...

when he isn't blatantly insulting you for having a different veiwpoint.

Not at all. I'm coherent, you just see paradoxes that aren't there because you don't understand the design philosophy and are apparently uncapable of following the discussion in the context of each argument.

You know how often I've had to re-explain something to you by showing the consequences to YOUR side of the argument, then going back to how I'd do it.

So yes you're ignorant. That's not an insult, that's a fact. A frustrating one. So yes, I'll ridicule your ignorance till you do better. You're worse though, you're just dismissive of things you don't comprehend because you can't admit you might not be smart enough to follow it, OR simply ask for clarification: you just assume I must be wrong without understanding why, or even what I'm saying.

For you still don't, even if you pretend you do.

I'd even say you're probably unwilling to understand it because you don't like me personally. I take the time to carefully layout what's what. That's all the courtesy you will get from me when you act dumb and tbh, it's more than you deserve most the time.

Lumberchuk · 2012-07-18, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Fod, can't believe you think after so many posts I'd be pro-solo. I'm simply saying that this solution makes you - as a squad with limited manpower - make a comparison between pro's and cons of the available options.

Under the circumstances of this compromise, within the context of being able to solo the exact same unit (hitpoints etc) nobody would waste their manpower on this option. The advantage must be more distinct and require full manning to obtain.

Players optimise their choices and tend to secure choices: independency from others (nobody that can fail you but you). Thus, to get them to work together there has to be an advantage that is at the very least equal to other options players can have to optimise their fighting strength as a group. If not better.

So if you want to have two in one vehicle, it must rival all options for two separate units, not just best one separate unit.

The ability to fire on the move with increased precision is one advantage. Being able to concentrate on driving while your gunner concentrates on gunning will cause both of you to preform your respective tasks better. Also tanks have 2 seats anyway, so does that mean there is no point in finding a secondary gunner since he could just grab his own tank?

Figment · 2012-07-18, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Lumberchuk

The ability to fire on the move with increased precision is one advantage. Being able to concentrate on driving while your gunner concentrates on gunning will cause both of you to preform your respective tasks better.

Nobody disagrees with that, the extend to which this is an advantage is disagreed upon.

The pro-SoloSide who don't really feel for team units and at most the suggested compromise that gives players no additional edge over them, thinks they're excellent solo drivers and wont suffer any significant disadvantages.

Meanwhile, they also claim what to them is a minor driving efficiency difference would completely balance everything if the other get more firepower and endurance for the same amount of players. Apparently that's not an advantage on multiple counts that directly affects TTK?

A very inconsistent and indefensible point of view if you ask me.

To your other point: Under the circumstances of the current PS2 system and this "compromise", basically that's what I'm saying, yes. Under the system I'd want, obtaining gunners would be far more valuable because the units are based on requiring gunners and would be endurance and firepower wise on par and THEN get the teamwork dedication bonus (rather than being half in either or both endurance and firepower to the alternative).

In my vision, either a multi-crew unit cannot effectively be used solo (very weak and restricted gun like PS1 Magrider or on their own trumped by other units like the PS1 Liberator), OR a multi-crew vehicle while running solo gets much worse endurance statistics.

Talek Krell · 2012-07-18, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Lumberchuk

The ability to fire on the move with increased precision is one advantage. Being able to concentrate on driving while your gunner concentrates on gunning will cause both of you to preform your respective tasks better. Also tanks have 2 seats anyway, so does that mean there is no point in finding a secondary gunner since he could just grab his own tank?

That's pretty much the issue, yes. While allowing the crew to specialize increases their performance, it doesn't increase it enough to compete with 2 people single crewing equivalent vehicles.

Not only does that second option have twice the hitpoints, it can also flank the single tank, packs as much or twice as much AV power, and carries more power or more options in secondary weapons as well.

Lumberchuk · 2012-07-18, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

Not only does that second option have twice the hitpoints, it can also flank the single tank, packs as much or twice as much AV power, and carries more power or more options in secondary weapons as well.

On paper yes it has more damage potential, but in practice it could be completely different. For example coming from battlefield 3 (the tanks seem to be based off this game) to PS1 the first thing I noticed about tank combat was that it was much more mobile and happened at longer ranges. Why? Because of the separate driver gunner combo, if you could solo a tank in battlefield like you do a Vanguard in PS1 you would destroy enemy tanks without them getting a shot off on you. Not to mention it will be cheaper on resources (though we don't really know how much that will matter).

To be clear I think it would also make complete sense to give the 2 player tanks a stat boost as well, so I do agree with your suggestion, I just think its less likely for that to happen, as more has to be changed. Simply allowing the secondary gunner to control the main gun is an easier fix and IMO is very useful IF you have a gunner you can communicate with effectively. Which is why the option should be there.

Ratstomper · 2012-07-18, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

But one guy in a massive gun platform with the hitpoints of 3 guys in a massive gun platform has no advantage at all.

Having three guys in a tank manning all stations means that tank has more efficiency than a gunnerdriver and gunner tank. The same amount of duties are being split among 3 people instead of two. That's an advantage. It's offset by the fact that if you want 3 guys in your vehicle focused on one thing each, then if the tank blows up, they all may die. That's a fair tradeoff.

Then why are you so adamant on balancing ONE unit against ONE other unit based on the power of ONE man? Because that is what you are doing.

I'm comparing the variants of the one vehicle, not against anything else. If we're talking an optional sidegrade to separate gunners and drivers, then the optional sidegrade shouldn't have substantial benefits over the original.

I'm not reading the rest of your BS wall of text. Learn to keep up with the discussion and then maybe I'll take you seriously.

Figment · 2012-07-18, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

Having three guys in a tank manning all stations means that tank has more efficiency than a gunnerdriver and gunner tank. The same amount of duties are being split among 3 people instead of two. That's an advantage. It's offset by the fact that if you want 3 guys in your vehicle focused on one thing each, then if the tank blows up, they all may die. That's a fair tradeoff.

Only if it has equal power to THREE people in other roles.

You keep comparing TO ONE VEHICLE. Stop acting so obstinate. You heard if 500 times and you keep refusing to balance 3 vs 3, but continuously whine that 1 vs 2 is in favour of 2 and 1 vs 3 in favour of 3.

OF COURSE IT IS. We never argued it wasn't. We're argueing about OTHER SCENARIOS YOU REFUSE TO ADMIT EXIST AND REFUSE TO BALANCE FOR. Like I said many times before, you're a horrible balancer due to your shortsightedness and incapacity and even refusal to draft various scenarios.

But 2 vs 2 should be in favour of the two in one unit.

And 3 vs 3 as well.

Because both times those two and three in one unit have less separate units and thus less other advantages.

How often do we need to tell you that before you realise you're the one who can't think out of ONE SINGLE SCENARIO, which is one unit (with x players) vs one of the SAME unit (with y players)?

While ignoring x units (with one player) vs one unit (of x players)

I'm comparing the variants of the one vehicle, not against anything else. If we're talking an optional sidegrade to separate gunners and drivers, then the optional sidegrade shouldn't have substantial benefits over the original.

Manpower "sidegrades" aren't the same as changing the gun. It's a sidegrade that REMOVES ANOTHER UNIT FROM THE FIELD.

It's completely non-comparable!

You're just unwilling to see this.

I'm not reading the rest of your BS wall of text. Learn to keep up with the discussion and then maybe I'll take you seriously.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You're the one not keeping up Ratstomper. You're really shortsighted about what a sidegrade is (changing unit stats for the individual player) and what manpower balance is (changing unit stats for a group of players).

fod · 2012-07-18, 06:28 PM

i havnt been fully following the conversation about 1 man tank vs tank with 2 men inside (one with main gun) but have you considered that the gunner of your tank might not have any tank certs? or want to spend his certs there?

that is my situation - my gunners are usually pure infantry that dont drive tanks themselves

so if i never had my gunner (main cannon gunner) then there simply wouldnt just be another tank out there solo, just another infantrymen

Figment · 2012-07-18, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by fod

i havnt been fully following the conversation about 1 man tank vs tank with 2 men inside (one with main gun) but have you considered that the gunner of your tank might not have any tank certs? or want to spend his certs there?

Everyone will have access to every vehicle in game, be it standard or certed. So that's a non-issue. Sidegrade and certs will only give a minor advantage and mostly are about tweaking them to your personal preference.

They do not make you utterly pwn all of a sudden, plus even if you don't drive a tank, you can grab something else or even as infantry you'd be another unit with own firepower and hit points. So yes, it's been considered from multiple perspectives.

This wouldn't be such an issue if there'd be less available units to players, because then they'd get stuck on timers sooner and wouldn't all be able to afford these units.

that is my situation - my gunners are usually pure infantry that dont drive tanks themselves

so if i never had my gunner (main cannon gunner) then there simply wouldnt just be another tank out there solo, just another infantrymen

Nobody is pure infantry in PlanetSide 2 even if they wanted to. In PS1 it's possible yet extremely unlikely. Though I don't think I know anyone who doesn't have any vehicles in PS1. (Besides, you get ANT free these days.)

Most players have personal transport as it's really cheap to get and sustain.

On top of that, you can't determine general balance on the premise of an extremely small minority not having their own vehicle (which as said, doesn't even exist in PS2 because you get access to all basic units and classes from the start, just not all their tweaking abilities).

fod · 2012-07-18, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Nobody is pure infantry in PlanetSide 2 even if they wanted to. In PS1 it's possible yet extremely unlikely. Though I don't think I know anyone who doesn't have any vehicles in PS1. (Besides, you get ANT free these days.)

Most players have personal transport as it's really cheap to get and sustain.

in my own situation that exactly what it is - i have every vehicle /engineering and unimax where as my gunner has all the abilitys (medic/hacking/engineering) with most of the weaponry in PS1

Ratstomper · 2012-07-18, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Only if it has equal power to THREE people in other roles.

I don't think you understand what different roles means. It's not just about 3 guys can do this, so all 3-manned vehicles should be able to do the exact same amount of good (how the hell do you expect to figure that out?). If you have an enemy line that is holding against your footzerg, that's exactly when you roll tanks. The purpose of the vehicles is to allow soldiers to do what they cannot normally.

If putting 9 guys into three tanks to flank an enemy hardpoint works, then it's worth losing those 9 guys and 3 tanks because you've actually gained ground. You're saying all the value in the game comes from having everything balanced to an absolutely OCD level. I'm saying you're missing the point of a war simulator and that type of balance is impossible due to so many roles in the game. You aren't taking all factors into account.

You keep comparing TO ONE VEHICLE. Stop acting so obstinate. You heard if 500 times and you keep refusing to balance 3 vs 3, but continuously whine that 1 vs 2 is in favour of 2 and 1 vs 3 in favour of 3.

WTF are you talking about? You're the one who is doing this, not me. I made that point in the other thread (and it was right).

OF COURSE IT IS. We never argued it wasn't. We're argueing about OTHER SCENARIOS YOU REFUSE TO ADMIT EXIST AND REFUSE TO BALANCE FOR.

Like what? How many goddamn lightnings it takes to screw in a lightbulb? How often are your little hypotheticals in a vacuum going to actually happen? Effectively never. How many times are things like uneven numbers, positioning and other outside factors going to throw a monkey wrench in that math? I'm saying those "other scenarios" are nearly useless to even talk about due to the sheer numbers of factors involved.

Even if it DID serve a purpose, It's not the purpose of this thread. The purpose of this thread is to find out a way to make balanced and tenable, 3-manned variants of the MBTs so that some people can play the way they find most fun. You HAVE to get the idea working before you start worrying about anything else.

Like I said many times before, you're a horrible balancer due to your shortsightedness and incapacity and even refusal to draft various scenarios.

See above regarding scenarios.

But 2 vs 2 should be in favour of the two in one unit.

And 3 vs 3 as well.

Because both times those two and three in one unit have less separate units and thus less other advantages.

What exactly are you talking about here? You have given NO context for what you're trying to say. This is why you're so difficult to decipher.

Did we not agree on the 2v2 and 3v3 thing? An MBT with 2 players inside will be vastly superior to 2 single-manned MBTs. Can two single-manned MBTs take out a single 2-manned MBT? Probably, but this isn't Tankside and those single manned MBTs are less effective overall. Thats what the whole other thread was about, but not this one. So, lets stay on topic, huh?

How often do we need to tell you that before you realise you're the one who can't think out of ONE SINGLE SCENARIO, which is one unit (with x players) vs one of the SAME unit (with y players)?

While ignoring x units (with one player) vs one unit (of x players)

That's the purpose of the thread, asshole. How about we get our ducks in a row before we start balancing the tank we haven't even hammered out how to change for people yet. You can't make one variant of the tank have substantial advantage over the other variant. If you do that, you may as well just make a different tank for people.

Manpower "sidegrades" aren't the same as changing the gun. It's a sidegrade that REMOVES ANOTHER UNIT FROM THE FIELD.

It's completely non-comparable!

You're just unwilling to see this.

For the purpose of making that tank more efficient and letting people play the way they want to. I fail to see how that's an unfair trade.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You're the one not keeping up Ratstomper. You're really shortsighted about what a sidegrade is (changing unit stats for the individual player) and what manpower balance is (changing unit stats for a group of players).

Really? Because it sounds like you're just babbling and not really saying anything. Maybe you ARE saying something, but I have a hard time trying to figure out what you mean by your vague references, non-sequiturs and algebra in a vacuum...