Driver/Gunners... NO!

[Sephirex]

Originally Posted by fvdham

PlanetSide 2 is free to play, so you don't have to pay anything.

You pay hard earned in-game resources for tanks.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Flaropri

It's optional, so if people don't like it, they wouldn't have to take it and it could ultimately be removed if no one wants to use it after giving it a fair shake.

...I was refering to his suggestion about having two three player tanks and one two player tank...

Optional my arse. There's no option there.

I don't see how it messes up balance*. It's a playstyle preference, it doesn't actually effect overall power per resource spent in any particularly important way**. Long term, it's not an issue for the same reason why 2 Solo MBTs against 1 multi-crew MBT isn't an issue.

Besides; a lot depends on whether players or resource points are the scarcer resource, and diminishing returns for a given area.


*(Referring only to Certing to allow more players, since "rough" balance is based on fewer. But balance isn't fully done yet so it could be rebalanced around more players required in MBTs [rather than just optimal], I just dislike that option.)

**(Which is why I don't think it needs to be changed from how it is currently, but I tend to err on the side of letting players do stuff as long as it doesn't force everyone else as well.)

It's not a playstyle preference. It's a manpower difference, ergo a player-power distribution balance issue.


Resources mean squat. Unless you're saying because the Vanguard would need three gunners for the "prefered" playstyle, the Magrider should cost 1.5x as much. Even though it will face tanks with one or two players as well?


You don't get it maybe, but there's a HUGE problem in manpower distribution there. It's the basis of all balance.

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

Well, not neccessarily. For the large outfits, definately. When you have 300 guys, and you all use voice chat to coordinate your operations, theres no problem.
But there will be lots of people who play and enjoy the game outside of major outfits.

We were a very small, but consistent outfit. Usualy had 3 to 15 people on.

We never had gunner obtaining issues. We just ran fewer units. Hell, we ran units with randoms if we had to (though more likely, friendly outfits), we never had any issue whatsoever. So no, it's not just good for huge outfits. It's excellent for tiny outfits.

The drivers would be coordinating, the gunners would follow our lead. And no, they usualy were not on TS. We simply gave proper instructions and usualy those randoms stuck around for the afternoon, so we didn't have to redo those instructions constantly.

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Odds are pretty good in my book that the secondary gun on a mbt will be more powerful that the main gun on a lightning.

Actually Higby mentioned the Lightning was (substantially iirc) better.

[Buggsy]

It's not a matter of teamwork, it's a matter of balancing vehicles vs. infantry. If 1 person can drive and gun, than vehicles will be weak like BF2/3 vehicles are weak.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Buggsy

It's not a matter of teamwork, it's a matter of balancing vehicles vs. infantry. If 1 person can drive and gun, than vehicles will be weak like BF2/3 vehicles are weak.

Not neccessarily. The idea behind resources is having players offset the ability to drive around powerful vehicles at the expense of some form of currency they've had to work for.

[Buggsy]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

Not neccessarily. The idea behind resources is having players offset the ability to drive around powerful vehicles at the expense of some form of currency they've had to work for.

Pay2Win resources?

[Sephirex]

Originally Posted by Buggsy

Pay2Win resources?

Resources can't be bought. They have to be earned by taking bases. Which you just dismissed as pointless in another thread. Good lord, are you just trolling?

[Buggsy]

Originally Posted by Sephirex

Resources can't be bought. They have to be earned by taking bases. Which you just dismissed as pointless in another thread. Good lord, are you just trolling?

Resources will be dropped before Beta ends. Wanna bet $10 in StationCash?

[Sephirex]

Originally Posted by Buggsy

Resources will be dropped before Beta ends. Wanna bet $10?

Trolling it is then. Done responding to you.

[Buggsy]

Originally Posted by Sephirex

Trolling it is then. Done responding to you.

I'm tired of your trolling, smell you later.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Buggsy

Pay2Win resources?

Even if they DID sell resources (I've heard mention of boosts), it's not like it's going to keep everyone else from getting resources as well.

[Littleman]

As if no one has noticed:

ALL vehicles in Planetside 2 are solo capable. Even the liberator, only you're probably going to run into something very hard if not fall out of the sky should you switch from the cockpit to the under belly turret. Hrm... though for the latter they could just set the speed to maintain altitude.

There's no way this is unintentional. I firmly believe SOE is balancing ALL craft around being "solo" capable as a result, with a clear edge for the multi-seaters should those extra seats get filled. I know balancing isn't complete but... it's a no brainer to leave out seat switching for the liberator if solo balance wasn't their intent.

And for the record, I'm imagining flying a liberator, getting a bogey on my tail, setting the flight speed/angle and hustling through the innards of the craft to get to the tail gun. Reminds me of the Black Cats mission in Call of Duty: World at War.

Originally Posted by Buggsy

It's not a matter of teamwork, it's a matter of balancing vehicles vs. infantry. If 1 person can drive and gun, than vehicles will be weak like BF2/3 vehicles are weak.

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

Not neccessarily. The idea behind resources is having players offset the ability to drive around powerful vehicles at the expense of some form of currency they've had to work for.

Actually, Buggsy is sort of right. We have to consider that it's simply the best course of action to strike a tank in it's rear, which as we've seen watching videos deals magnitudes of damage over striking the tank's front. A single shot from a prowler into a Vanguard took away more than 50% of the Vanguard's hit points, and the Vanguard is the more durable tank taking a hit from the tank with the weakest firepower.

There will be plenty of infantry out and about with either rocket launchers, AV turrets, or C4, and the guys carrying C4 have the methods to get in close a bit more effectively than other infantry could. And don't forget air craft... ugh. Would love to have a second guy manning the AA turret when they show up.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Littleman

Actually, Buggsy is sort of right. We have to consider that it's simply the best course of action to strike a tank in it's rear, which as we've seen watching videos deals magnitudes of damage over striking the tank's front. A single shot from a prowler into a Vanguard took away more than 50% of the Vanguard's hit points, and the Vanguard is the more durable tank taking a hit from the tank with the weakest firepower.

There will be plenty of infantry out and about with either rocket launchers, AV turrets, or C4, and the guys carrying C4 have the methods to get in close a bit more effectively than other infantry could. And don't forget air craft... ugh. Would love to have a second guy manning the AA turret when they show up.

Right, but I don't think that's a matter of balancing a vehicle vs infantry (not intentionally anyway). That's a matter of providing more tactical gameplay and offering SOMETHING to do vs tanks. We've also seen that infantry AV (at least the HA rocket launcher) is pretty lackluster and seems to be designed to be effective when multiple people are using them against single targets.

EDIT: I'll reiterate the point you just touched on, with the introduction of weakpoints on vehicles, the secondary gun has a MUCH more important purpose than it ever did in the original game. You'll want that guy focused on taking out infantry flanking you and planes shooting at you from the sky, not killing other tanks with the main gun; something the driver can do himself (cmon people, driving and gunning isn't THAT hard). As I said in an earlier post, tanks in PS2 are different creatures for a different game; much more offensively viable and much more subject to good tactics being used against it.

[SnipeGrzywa]

Originally Posted by Littleman

As if no one has noticed:

ALL vehicles in Planetside 2 are solo capable. Even the liberator, only you're probably going to run into something very hard if not fall out of the sky should you switch from the cockpit to the under belly turret. Hrm... though for the latter they could just set the speed to maintain altitude.

In order for aircraft to stay in the air, specially hovering, takes active piloting. No more floating camera, actually have to fly.


And everyone keeps going back to arguing about playstyle. Its not about how YOU want to play. Its about what's fair.

In what universe does it make sense that in a team based game, the first minute you play you can spawn the ground attack vehicle (sunderer is transport until certed otherwise) with the MOST armor AND shoot the MOST power gun (unless compared to same vehicle accept certed for higher damage)?

[Littleman]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

Right, but I don't think that's a matter of balancing a vehicle vs infantry (not intentionally anyway). That's a matter of providing more tactical gameplay and offering SOMETHING to do vs tanks. We've also seen that infantry AV (at least the HA rocket launcher) is pretty lackluster and seems to be designed to be effective when multiple people are using them against single targets.

EDIT: I'll reiterate the point you just touched on, with the introduction of weakpoints on vehicles, the secondary gun has a MUCH more important purpose than it ever did in the original game. You'll want that guy focused on taking out infantry flanking you and planes shooting at you from the sky, not killing other tanks with the main gun; something the driver can do himself (cmon people, driving and gunning isn't THAT hard). As I said in an earlier post, tanks in PS2 are different creatures for a different game; much more offensively viable and much more subject to good tactics being used against it.

We saw the rocket launcher slap the front of the tank. Even the prowler shrugs off the shots of a Vanguard when struck from the front. At least, there was no obvious change in the plumes of smoke rising from the prowler in the stream. I know the Vangaurd shrugged off the Prowler's frontal shot.

It does add dynamics to engaging a tank, but it also grants the tank a level of frailty without making them entirely frail, they just desperately need external support in the form of infantry and other tanks to be 100% effective, not just fully occupied positions within the tank.

Counter-EDIT!:

There could be a point in any given battle where one may very well want to make their tank the tank hunter. The second gun specializes the tank, the main gun is just a big gun with a set purpose.

Originally Posted by SnipeGrzywa

In order for aircraft to stay in the air, specially hovering, takes active piloting. No more floating camera, actually have to fly.

If we can set the throttle like we could in PS1, the craft may remain stable enough to switch seats and get something done, even if only for a handful of moments. I never said it was practical nor specified how practical, just possible.

And everyone keeps going back to arguing about playstyle. Its not about how YOU want to play. Its about what's fair.

In what universe does it make sense that in a team based game, the first minute you play you can spawn the ground attack vehicle (sunderer is transport until certed otherwise) with the MOST armor AND shoot the MOST power gun (unless compared to same vehicle accept certed for higher damage)?

It makes sense when the tank needs an external guard to survive long enough to be meaningful >.> Teamwork doesn't happen just inside the tank.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Littleman

We saw the rocket launcher slap the front of the tank. Even the prowler shrugs off the shots of a Vanguard when struck from the front. At least, there was no obvious change in the plumes of smoke rising from the prowler in the stream. I know the Vangaurd shrugged off the Prowler's frontal shot.

It does add dynamics to engaging a tank, but it also grants the tank a level of frailty without making them entirely frail, they just desperately need external support in the form of infantry and other tanks to be 100% effective, not just fully occupied positions within the tank.

Counter-EDIT!:

There could be a point in any given battle where one may very well want to make their tank the tank hunter. The second gun specializes the tank, the main gun is just a big gun with a set purpose.

I was actually talking about HA ordnance vs aircraft, which should be MUCH more fragile than tanks. Maybe even more so than the rear armor of said tank.

The whole game seems to be a shift toward HOW you prepare for and engage targets as opposed to the logistics of PS1, where you could just run your MBT into enemy territory and if you have 10 tanks doing that, you were good. It will make MBTs more fragile and force them to think before just moving into places they shouldn't be.

I already see the main gun as the anti-tank weapon. It's there specifically for anti-armor and maybe shelling enemy fortifications. Not that I disagree, but that would be a tradeoff.

Back on the topic, though, I don't think having drivers as gunners is going to impact the game in a negative way (just like classes haven't seemed to). It's just a different way of doing things.