Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2 - Page 34

Bags · 2012-03-10, 03:08 AM

Originally Posted by getcarter

I dont think making two people man a heavy tank is going to promote team work. If anything people will just avoid using that particular tank. Although i am not completely against the idea i would however prefer it to be an option rather than a must.

Because there were so many lightnings in PS1~

Gandhi · 2012-03-10, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by getcarter

I dont think making two people man a heavy tank is going to promote team work. If anything people will just avoid using that particular tank. Although i am not completely against the idea i would however prefer it to be an option rather than a must.

That's part of the reason why you have 2-3 man tanks, to avoid the battlefield becoming littered with them. The solo tank option is the Lightning.

I'd be ok with the MBT driver getting a secondary weapon to control, like the old Magrider, but the main gun should need a gunner.

Warhound · 2012-03-10, 03:53 AM

I personally like the setup the currently have which is the driver acting as gunner. Then again I can say I'm biased since the only games I've really played with multicrew options were WW2O and aces high. I loved them both and both games at least made it somewhat viable to fly solo in tank, Aces high especially. Heck in WW2O multicrewing provided great benefits such as situational awareness. But I like how with this it seems more armor will be introduced into the field of battle, now with this setup the fights might surely be more static since its hard to multitask between the two roles(Driver and gunner.) I personally however would like the option of driving a tank solo with the option of multicrewing.

tl;dr: Gonna stay neutral on the subject I guess.

Fenrys · 2012-03-10, 07:54 AM

I hope bigger 3 person tanks are introduced in a later patch.

2 person tanks can be OK if the secondary gun is super effective AI.

Light tank (NS Lightning):
-1 seat
-fast
-weak armor
-small, rapid fire gun

Medium tank (ES Mag, Van, Prw):
-2 seat
-driver controls the main gun
-fast (but not as fast as a Lightning)
-medium armor
-small, rapid fire gun

Heavy tank (NS):
-3 seat
-dedicated driver
-slow
-huge, slow cannon
-heavy armor

megamold · 2012-03-10, 08:13 AM

super effective AI ?
how about : no secondary gunner = no secondary gunner

Mechzz · 2012-03-10, 08:23 AM

Read AI as Anti-Infantry rather than Artificial Intelligence.
Nowt wrong with the secondary gunner being AI in that case.

I would still like the option to swap gun positions over via a cert selection, however. So as the driver I can choose whether or not I want the big gun

megamold · 2012-03-10, 08:24 AM

lol, if its anti-infantry then ignore my comment

Figment · 2012-03-10, 08:28 AM

More does not always equal good.

One launch-BFR was not as big a problem as the 8-20 sitting next to eachother. No unit that is very powerful should be used en mass to the extend that other forms of combat suffer.

Two MBTs are a much bigger concern than two infantry units, so if both require two people, then there's an imbalance being created that leverages with the amount of MBTs added to that equation. Maybe one MBT is not a problem to handle by one or two infantry. Maybe. But what if it's 9? Will 9 infantry be able to stand their ground? No.

Units like the Mammoth MkII are limited to just one per map in C&C for a very good reason.

PlanetSide is like C&C balance in larger numbers and people who only think in FPS terms need to understand that this game is more than your run of the mill FPS where everything is equal to everything but has slightly different stats. Vehicles are not equals to infantry, to retain infantry combat in the field, the numbers of vehicles must be restricted.

One man vehicles that are more powerful than infantry run the risk of becoming a huge problem.

Why do you think games like Battlefield and Halo restrict the amount of vehicle units available to the masses? And why do you think it's therefore much less of a problem there? Because INFANTRY is at the core of the game there, infantry is incentified by not providing access to everyone for more powerful weaponry. In PlanetSide, you can have as much power as you can afford and choose to use. BIG, BIG difference. Hence you should NEVER execute vehicle controls like in BF.

EDIT: The Two-Men crew requirement and split between controls is a restriction of power per player and a numerical balance system. It's not about being boring or not, it's about allowing larger numbers of vehicles to be present without getting out of hand and dominating gameplay.

It is why I had hoped for aircav to be included into this balancing system for a change with two men Reaver crews. I've been quite sad to see the opposite happening where more versatile power is given sooner to the individual.

Mastachief · 2012-03-10, 09:37 AM

Waiting for beta to confirm my feelings however currently I feel for the good of the game that the Devs have it right (for the moment).

Now don't bite my ear off but there is a certain satisfaction to driving and gunning (it is the reason i had two machines and 2 accounts).

This said i do think there is a lot lost in terms of random teamplay. But in an outfit setting both guns are still likely to be gunned.

It current format will attract players in droves i think that its will be at least 30% of planetside attraction to new fps guys (what i can have my OWN tank and not have to wait for one of the 3 that are allowed on the map).

Provided the maps are designed well and the aircraft are as powerfull against armour (but really weak vs infantry) then i think it will balance the numbers out.

Really i just want to see 600 vanguards rolling across the desert.

sylphaen · 2012-03-10, 02:34 PM

To be honest, I'm planning to focus on aircav and soldier base fights in PS2. Those playstyle niches seem to be the most fun (since they were possibly given the most thought) and unless AA guns are as good as a skyguards, PS2 tanks role will be one of hunter, not hunter.

I have done enough tank/buggy/transport driving in PS1 to know I will feel bored driving/gunning my own tank in PS2.

PS1 was a large-scale game and its scale offered room for niches whose playstyle entertained many kinds of players. IMO, the action ground driver niche, which I loved is all but dead with driver=gunner. It's just... not the same thing.

Dodging rockets and missiles at full speed in the midst of a huge battle with the sound of my teammate's cannon firing... It was great memories. But what was their best part ?

They were shared with someone; to me, this gave meaning.

Azren · 2012-03-10, 03:24 PM

PS2 MBTs concept is flawed in it's roots. The devs ruined one of the best aspects of PS1. The game will not have any two manned tanks, unless its friends who decided to roll one togather via TS. Here are a few points in support of this:

- tank driver has control of the main gun
- seat positions can be changed with a push of a button
- the main gun was proven to be a very effective AI weapon
- for AA the driver can just press a button to access the secondary gun
- it is not humanly possible to effectively drive and aim at the same time. This results in A; stationary fireing (as seen in GDC video) and B; stupid situations (like tanks falling off cliffs, as seen in the GDC video)

The game is geared towards solo players and is no longer in favour of teamwork.

There is no instance where an MBT with a gunner is more advantegous than two MBTs with no gunners.

What the devs should have done instead is keep the original PS1 concept and let the soloers roll in the other vehicles; there are tons geared for soloers.

Azren · 2012-03-10, 03:29 PM

At any rate, anyone ever wonder why no dev ever replied to any of the threads on this topic? Besauce they don't even consider changing the concept and do not care about any negatory opinions on it.

Wargrim · 2012-03-10, 05:23 PM

If the devs have shown one thing pretty clear, it is that they really do care in general. But i would guess they want to see what existing veterans and new players will say about it after actually having played it in beta, instead of getting into an argument on a topic that generates so much heated debate.

Bags · 2012-03-10, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Wargrim

If the devs have shown one thing pretty clear, it is that they really do care in general. But i would guess they want to see what existing veterans and new players will say about it after actually having played it in beta, instead of getting into an argument on a topic that generates so much heated debate.

Higby even ocmplained about it during the demo, something about them acidentally driving off a cliff. If that doesn't change his mind, I doubt we will.

Wargrim · 2012-03-10, 05:27 PM

To be fair that sunderer was totally parked in the worst possible spot for the tanks to pass it.

And he complained about flying into trees, do you also think that means the reaver is to difficult to fly and gun at the same time?*

* Rethorical question, i dont think you think that. I dont claim to know what you think.