Driver/Gunners... NO!

[Flaropri]

Originally Posted by Figment

...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.

The suggestion, IIRC, was that there would be an optional Certification that some tanks could be modded to have 3 crew instead of 2. That's where the option is. People don't need to use that Cert/Mod and thus whether or not they put more manpower into those tanks is optional.

No one would be forcing people to use the 3-crew variant of their MBT, choosing to use it is the playstyle preference (by this suggestion, obviously, there are some people, such as the OP, that don't want optional but that's not what you were responding to at the time).

If the situation calls for it, just use the 2-crew variant.*

Resources mean squat.

I can't say how you can be sure of that. So far, we've seen Alpha footage with access to debugging tools and admin commands, and E3 (also Alpha) footage where everyone was given a bunch of resources. Even considering that though, there were several terminals that ran out of resources on the first day.

Ultimately, whether resources (both incomes and costs) are balanced or not will play a lot into whether or not vehicles in general are balanced, and the importance of efficiently using vehicles vs. using a lot of vehicles.

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?

There's no reason to alter cost because of an option on other tanks. My point, which you perhaps missed as it relates to my previous posts in this thread, is that specifically in the long term the resources make a difference. The more players that pull MBTs the fewer resources that group will have towards other vehicles or MBTs at a later time... assuming resources do have meaning like the Devs seem to want them to.

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

And what I guess you don't get is that most people are suggesting that the 3-crew variant for a given tank should be optional. Manpower distribution is important, it's why I don't think a cert to decrease required players is the way to go for example, but...

I also think that people are undervaluing resources as a means of balance. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if resource gains were modified based on relative Empire population in a similar way to XP gains in PS1. Likewise, the more places you control, the more resources you'll get, but also the more area you'll have to defend, so those resources still get split up (relatively at least).

In any event... as long as it's optional, there isn't any real harm to it.


*(I think the 2-Crew Variant will be by far the most used even if this cert. method was used. However, I can understand people wanting to play in a specific style, and there are some situations where fitting more people into less armor is a good choice... but not enough situations to care whether or not VS would get that choice.)

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Flaropri

The suggestion, IIRC, was that there would be an optional Certification that some tanks could be modded to have 3 crew instead of 2. That's where the option is.

And as I said, that's not an OPTION.


Between the alternatives of that "option", it's NOT an option. The Raider is an "option" in PS1 because it's available to the player, yet it's not a viable option available to the player. And it's not a fair option either, because the other two empires need two gunners less for their units optimal state*. Capiche?

*Yes, the Raider when fully manned has the highest firepower of all Deli Variants by a margin of around 10%-20% (so say 110-120% total), but when you consider you need 5 people then each of the four Raider gunners accounts for 27.5%-30% of the unit's effectiveness, while each gunner on another Deli variant is worth 50% of the damage. Meaning their actual effectiveness as a group of five is extremely low! Hence it's not an option to use your manpower as such, when considering the available alternatives! This is the exact same for when you could "cert a third crewmember for style". It's a ridiculous option no self-respecting, competitive player would use.


PS: the remainder of your reply is based on your misinterpretation of the above difference between an available option, fair option and viable option. The three are not the same.

[Flaropri]

Originally Posted by Figment

And as I said, that's not an OPTION.


Between the alternatives of that "option", it's NOT an option. The Raider is an "option" in PS1, yet it's not an option. Capiche?

I'm vaguely familiar with some of the meta-game mechanisms of PS1, but I've never actually played it, and couldn't say what all the vehicles are.

However, I'm guessing your point is that no one would choose that option. I'm perfectly okay with that. I think that there are some people that would, because they play "casually" or their side already has (at the time) an overwhelming player advantage, or because they are weirdos. I don't know, I don't care. There's no harm in the option existing even if it is (very) rarely used.


Obviously, there are some people that want it (and not just because they want to force it and nerf MBTs in general, which I disagree with vehemently). They might be foolish to want it, but that's their choice.

[Methonius]

Originally Posted by Vanir

PlanetSide 2 Community Interview with Matt Higby - YouTube
Go to time index 15:35 on the video to hear the most recent thing that Higby has said about tank drivers controlling the main cannon.

Personally I'm in favor of an optional cert that will unlock an optional main gunner seat in the tank will give the driver the option of giving control of the main cannon to another player. Thus allowing up to 3 people in the tank. The driver, the main gunner, and the secondary gunner.

I will love the devs forever if they do this. If not I will be very disappointed.

[Figment]

Ah, no experience with PS1, well read the edit above, it should make things clear.

In the case of the MBTs, we're talking 3 people for 100% of the firepower, where for other tanks you need two people. Meaning driver=gunner would be 50% of the firepower each, while with a crew of three, you actually reduce the potential firepower per player by 33%, because you'll have 100% where 150% was possible (plus 100% armour too). It's just not a choice anyone should make. The little bit of maneuvrability you gain is not worth it if your peers do not make that choice.

Mind, as an individual tank facing individual other tanks, it would perform better and the combat would be better if you look purely on a single tank performance basis. But since you require more manpower, it's just not better than its alternatives.


Also note that if instead of two gunners, handing the main gun over to your secondary gunner would simply half your firepower and isn't a "viable option" either, if others do not hand over their gun and do not suffer from it (Magrider in particular won't suffer from this). So it's simply not fair either. Hence it should be either all solo tanks (no gunners needed, but at the cost of dynamic and skilled tank combat) or uncompromising team work tanks. It's simply the best way to ensure balance between alternatives and fairness between empires.


THAT is why to me the only good design option is MBTs with split drivers because it's fair, balanced and ensures best game play.

Screw those people that can't find gunners. Let them go play PvE railshooter games or something if they're that incompetent, lazy and easily bored.

[Sledgecrushr]

Ok so if we get a 3 man tank variant, how will this work with a fixed gun magrider?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Ok so if we get a 3 man tank variant, how will this work with a fixed gun magrider?

Not.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Figment

First off, you haven't adressed the unfairness of the Magrider with regards to "certing to give away the main gun. Nice ignoring of the argument there.

They could make it work. They would have to tweak it, but they could do it. I don't think they should, something you've failed to realize about what I'm saying. I think the tanks are fine as they are.

Yeaaaaah because gunners can suddenly aim at 360 degrees targets AT ONCE. No, gunners get flanked too. Don't pretend they're ideal and awesome at suppressing infantry. They'll be equally screwed as any one man tank if they get flanked by infantry, tanks, aircraft or otherwise.

Secondary guns are there specifically for this reason. They can turn quickly, 360 degrees, and lay down alot of suppression fire. If they could constantly be looking 360 degrees, that'd be a little OP, wouldn't it? Tanks cannot be invulnerable like you want them to be.

And don't ever pretend that solo tanks are alone. You know what's even better for suppression angle? Someone who can shoot at targets that are below your gunner's depression angle: someone in another tank.

As if ANYONE is going to be alone. You'ge got an ARMY of people fighting over a continent. you know what's better than two single-manned MBTs? Two fully-manned MBTs. This hypothetical, 1v1 battle in a peachery dish argument is bullcrap. You and the enemy are going to be constantly surrounded by people in any sizable conflict. The times when you're going to go up against two solo-manned MBTs as a fully-manned MBT are so rare, no one will (or should) give a rats ass.

Instead of a gunner, I'd always bring a Lightning tank. Gunners are crap if you can have two tanks instead of one. Don't ever pretend a gunner is magically as good as or even better than a wingman unless that gun is 3 times as strong as the gun on a Lightning or MBT and we already know it's about equal to a MBT as AV and worse than a Lightning at AA. So it's crap.

Again, when are you only going to have 2 people vs 2 people? As someone stated above, this isn't world of tanks and this is such a niche situation that it's not even worth arguing. You CANNOT compare the tanks, you have to compare it in realistic situations (i.e. in battlefield scenarios, where you will have multiple factors trying to kill you at any given point).

Which also means that you're better off with a Lightning AA/AI unit (which happens to exist in PS2) and on TOP OF THAT, you can have TWO people with AA now because the tank driver can switch guns! So no, that secondary gunner would only get in the way as you'd have half the hitpoints, half the AA power, half the vantage points and half the flanking options.

That's what the lightning is designed for anyway. A lightning won't be able to stand up to an MBT shelling. That's what the MBT main gun is designed for. An AA/AI lightning has those capabilities, an MBT that is fully manned is prepared for the vast majority of situations it runs into. The same cannot be said for a lightning. Again, think in terms of effectiveness in a battle, not towards each other.

blah blah blah

...You don't even acknowledge that that "infantry targeting guy" may not even target infantry at all and you don't acknowledge that you have no idea how easy it will be to actually target and kill infantry. Because from what I've seen, they'll jetpack over your tank, you lose track of them as you're at 180 degrees from them and then they boomer you....

Which is exactly why you need a decent goddamn secondary gunner on the top of your fucking tank, because the main gun is USELESS in that situation. That's why secondary gunners are important and why good secondary gunners will dramatically improve the lifespan of your vehicle. If the gunner sucks, it doesn't matter what he is gunning, does it? Which is exactly why a lot of people don't want some random person controlling all the offensive power on their tank!

blah blah blah hyperbole blah blah

...that the gunner is at all times pointing in the right direction and never assisting his main gunner against that tank (especially while using an AI or AA gun...).

YES! Because a good gunner will have his own targets to be attacking.

I agree that seat switching must be adressed. But hey, if you do that, some people will argue the same thing again: "WE DON'T WANT TO RELY ON A GUNNER WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH MOMMMY THE BAD MAN MAKES ME PLAY WITH A FRIEND!" and "BUT PEOPLE FROM BF3 AND HALO ARE USED TO INSTANT SEAT SWITCHING!"...

Sounds familiar....

Yay. (And if it's suddenly more important that seat switching is addressed then that says enough about the viability of the argument that "people are used to something, thus it can't ever change" - which ironically is not at all the line of argumentation used by people refering to PS1 MBT combat, even if that's what some people want you to believe).

You're also horribly underestimating two solo-MBTs. Horribly underestimating them. I'll have you know that two tanks working together in a random match in World of Tanks can easily rake in 7-12 kills in two teams of 15 (one life per tank).

Who the eff cares, dude? This isn't world of tanks. PS2 is a mixed arms game. What works in that game will not necessarily work in this one.

Why? Coordination. If you saw the strength of the main gun in PS2 from the footage sofar, it'll be piss easy to kill infantry with it.

Bullshit. Your main gun moves slow as hell and infantry are constantly moving from cover to cover. Besides that, we know the main gun for a tank only has so much ammo for it. Are you really going to waste those rounds trying to one-shot a single infantry?

Regarding the strength of the Lightning, go back to I think it was the fourth or fifth interview. It was an AGN broadcast.

I'm not going back anywhere. You're the one who brought it up, you go find it. I refuse to believe that a lightning has just as much anything as an MBT. the ONLY thing a lightning has on a MBT is speed, because it's designed for a completely different purpose than the MBTs are.

As far as your critique on my posting style, I fully comprehend the argument you make, I simply utterly disagree with it as you may have noticed. Your claims are based on nothing but wild assumptions of the strength of a gunner's gun, even though it's been said it's not going to be better than a MBT's main gun and a Lightning's guns will be more powerful, while Lightning armour would be approximately the same to a MBT (only slightly less iirc).

And you're saying I am making wild assumptions??? Every video I've watched and interview I've seen has shown the MBTs to be superior in every way to lightnings, except for speed. That means armor. That means firepower. that means ability to react to situations.

Hence I don't see why you'd get yourself a gunner if you can get yourself a Lightning wingman who can suppress infantry much better and doesn't die when you die.

Because, once again, this is a battlefield setting. You aren't only going to be fighting 2 guys vs 2 guys. There will be more than enough people for your gunner spot. Could someone be a solo-gunner MBT and have a lightning escort instead of a gunner? Almost certainly. The lightning owner will have to spend resources to pull it and babysit the MBT, but it's possible. If they get seprataed for some reason, the MBT may well be screwed. If there are line of sight issues for gunning because the lightning is a totally different vehicle than the MBT, the MBT may well be screwed.

Don't you see that you're making up complex hypotheticals that will hardly ever, if ever at all, happen?

[Flaropri]

Originally Posted by Figment

Ah, no experience with PS1, well read the edit above, it should make things clear.

I think I understood your point in that post well enough actually, and I have a better grasp of choices vs. false choices than you realize.

I don't think that all Certs/Mods need to be competitively important. "False choices" could be considered a newbie trap, but otherwise I don't think they are a problem as long as they are a very, very minor presence.

Plus there are (very rare) situations I could see 3-crew MBTs having (minor) advantages over 2-Crew MBTs of otherwise similar firepower.

1. You need more people inside vehicles and are as a group low on resources. Not as efficient as a Sunderer but it is a way to transport more people for fewer resources, and especially for a smaller group a Sunderer isn't always the best option.

2. The driver can exit while the gunners maintain full firepower. Instead of sacrificing 50% firepower (or 50% and mobility) you can sacrifice mobility as an option. (Note, I think that popping out of vehicles in the middle of a battle-field will not nearly be as effective as some people claim it will be in Entry/Exit threads.)

3. Your driver sucks at multi-tasking. Which, really, they should just get better honestly but...


Those situations are so rare as that they won't justify using the Cert probably at least 95% of the time. But I'm sure someone, somewhere, uses the Raider because it's what they need at the time, or because they think it'll be fun, and those kinds of options I'm okay with, even if they aren't used most of the time.

Of course, looking at it from SOE's perspective, I understand it might be too much work for how few people use it. Fortunately for myself, I'm also okay with that option not existing (I'm leaning towards VS, and don't seem myself being attracted to it regardless personally). Just, as a player, I don't mind more options existing for others to mess around with. Much like I don't have a problem with people using a Reflex sight on their Sniper Rifle or whatever. It's not optimal, but if they're having fun... *shrug*

[Azren]

Originally Posted by Methonius

I will love the devs forever if they do this. If not I will be very disappointed.

As a VS player, I do not find that acceptable. They just need to create a second tank model for magrider where it has a turret, so based on the cert you either get the normal locked main gun one, or one with a turret (only for gunner).

[fvdham]

Advantages of just driving and letting others gun:
- Drivers are less likely to hit a tree and come to full stop if they focus on just driving.
- Gunners are extra eyes to find enemies.
- Gunners can help repair. Meaning the tank is shorter time out of action.
- Gunners can not repair but cover the driver while he is repairing.
- Playing with friends in the same car is easier if the driving/gunning skills are different.
- Roleplaying of being a tank driver.

Since I drive Lightning 99,99% of the time, it must be that I do not find these advantages enough.

[Figment]

@Ratstomper, I will reply when you have one sentence that makes sense in terms of balancing instead of you acting completely obstinate. You don't understand game design and game balance. You have nothing constructive to add to this discussion and spekking to you is therefor a waste of time.

@Fla: I don't get how you can say that and then conclude it is okay to forego balance for the reason that people love lots of uncompromised power over others. Because that's why they like driving an mbt alone: lot of power and no need to share it or work for it. That is bad MMO design and if you can't conclude that then I suppose this discussion is over.


You can't make something a one man tank and then call this okay because "in theory a playstyle that is not competitive in a game where competition is everything is provided as a subpar game play style".

You don't do these players justice and only cater to the solo players, who already get all but three other units, two of which are transports. You give a token design option that doesn't help promote teamwork and since you don't care you think that suffices.

That's a horrible design attitude. But unfortunately PSU is full of people who are more concerned with buffing themselves and their personal fighting capacity than with good team game play.

[sumo]

realism vs fun as usual.
this is a sci-fi game and therefore not based in reality. they could just make up some technobabble that tank driver now have a nano helmet of some sort that help them to drive and shoot a tank and at the same time.

i never played ps1. but i do know that in bf3 noone want to take the driver position in the all so powerful and heavily armored troop transporter.

[Klockan]

Originally Posted by Figment

You don't do these players justice and only cater to the solo players, who already get all but three other units, two of which are transports. You give a token design option that doesn't help promote teamwork and since you don't care you think that suffices.

That's really biased talk. Half the vehicles are team vehicles and half are solo. Flash, lightning and aircav are strictly solo vehicles while Galaxy, Liberator and Sunderer are strictly team vehicles. The MBT is a mix, it works with a solo guy but its effectiveness is ~doubled with a guy on the top gun so both are viable.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Klockan

That's really biased talk. Half the vehicles are team vehicles and half are solo. Flash, lightning and aircav are strictly solo vehicles while Galaxy, Liberator and Sunderer are strictly team vehicles. The MBT is a mix, it works with a solo guy but its effectiveness is ~doubled with a guy on the top gun so both are viable.

As I said, two of the units you name are transport vehicles and therefore do not qualify as combat vehicles. And as I've illustrated many times before, the MBT cannot be considered a unit worth manning with two or three people if it is balanced for the possibility of driving it solo.

Which it is.

It's not biased, it's a conclusion you refuse to draw.

Originally Posted by sumo

realism vs fun as usual.
this is a sci-fi game and therefore not based in reality. they could just make up some technobabble that tank driver now have a nano helmet of some sort that help them to drive and shoot a tank and at the same time.

i never played ps1. but i do know that in bf3 noone want to take the driver position in the all so powerful and heavily armored troop transporter.

Realism? No. Game play design which is far more fun because the combat is of higher quality (more dynamic), but only if you don't entice people to prefer static combat by having more endurance without losing firepower (ie. getting more tanks or other units to cover instead).

We're discussing the heaviest of tanks here. BIG difference. Considering you haven't played PS1 nor any other games where you have dedicated drivers in a combattive tank role and therefor have no idea about the level of fun we're talking about, your opinion is pretty moot on what is fun. Your APC reference btw is akin to the original Sunderer in PlanetSide one, but falls flat for any other team units in PS1.


And you name a troop transporter in BF3 where the alternative options are flying jets solo or driving tanks solo. Meaning you give a perfect example of why solo vs team work has to be balanced properly and not based on one person doing everything.