Gameplay: Dedicated driver certification for MBT

[Azren]

Maybe you should not argue about the balance between the two variants. There are too many variables to come to a conclusion on that without actually seeing them in game.
What we should try to achieve is to get this cert in a form how it can be implemented. The balance in power can be addressed later.

[Figment]

Ill just put you on ignore Ratstomper, because you are just an insulting troll who refuses to understand the scenario is not just between empires but within empires as well the moment players have a choice what units to grab. Meaning everytime you grab a unit and your two buddies can as well it is relevant. It is a scenario that is not hypothetical, but absolutely critical every time you run with a group. If it's worse than the other ALTERNATIVES (alternatives being the other options in combinations of vehicles for players to pull), it's NOT a valid alternative. And since it's advantage is crap because you get to be outnumbered without endurance advantages in contrast to the other situations, you're not going to pick that alternative. Meaning it directly discourages use of teamwork vehicles by design!


Meanwhile, your scenario of one vs three is rarer in game than 3 vs 3. You are completely inept in analysis and just an insulting troll at this point. Ironic cause you always accuse me of that.

You don't get that. Looks like you never will. Even if it's spelled out for you. You don't realise this was true for every day PlanetSide use and will again be true for PS2 because the only difference in context that's relevant in gameplay is how you CAN use a team vehicle: solo. You are therefore a horrible balancer. And I mean absolutely horrible.

Nobody should ever listen to you Ratstomper. You can't honestly imagine I'm right simply by denouncing anything I say as hypothetical? Evolution is "just a theory" to you as well, right?

[Lumberchuk]

Originally Posted by Figment

Meaning everytime you grab a unit and your two buddies can as well it is relevant. It is a scenario that is not hypothetical, but absolutely critical every time you run with a group. If it's worse than the other ALTERNATIVES (alternatives being the other options in combinations of vehicles for players to pull), it's NOT a valid alternative. And since it's advantage is crap because you get to be outnumbered without endurance advantages in contrast to the other situations, you're not going to pick that alternative. Meaning it directly discourages use of teamwork vehicles by design!

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 two people operate 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). There are some scenarios (close range could be one) where 2 individual tanks could be more useful, however at longer ranges on more open fields I fully believe that a gunner driver combo could easily take out (or at least keep at bay) 2 enemy tanks.

3 people to operate a MBT seems a little unnecessary (see prowler from PS1) to me but I would love to see the addition of heavy tanks later that require more people to operate with increased fire-power and lower speed maybe.

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 effectively. Which is why the option should be there. If you think that it is a useless cert, then you don't have to get it. That is the beauty of certs and side-grades, they allow for different play styles.

[Figment]

Well the main point of difference between us is how big the advantage is. I agree the option should be there, but I find it far too easy to say "okay it's there, we don't have to look into its balance further".

Personally I'd think one of the easiest ways to handle it would be to add shields to the vehicle per gunner entering it (shield starting at zero and charging out of combat up to 33-50% of the tank health per gunner, exact balance can be tweaked there).

[Lumberchuk]

Originally Posted by Figment

I find it far too easy to say "okay it's there, we don't have to look into its balance further".

Ya, that's a good point, but if we can get the cert in early, there will be more time to balance it. Right now I don't think the cert exists in game.

Originally Posted by Figment

Personally I'd think one of the easiest ways to handle it would be to add shields to the vehicle per gunner entering it (shield starting at zero and charging out of combat up to 33-50% of the tank health per gunner, exact balance can be tweaked there).

Ya I like that idea, it should also work for if you have driver-gunner a secondary gunner too, since it sounds like that will be under used as well since you can just pull a MBT and a lightning instead.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Azren

Maybe you should not argue about the balance between the two variants. There are too many variables to come to a conclusion on that without actually seeing them in game.
What we should try to achieve is to get this cert in a form how it can be implemented. The balance in power can be addressed later.

I thought we already had an idea to make it work and we were weighing out how it stacked up against the standard variant. Introduce the third guy to act as a second gunner. The issue would be giving the magrider a movable turret without giving the standard magrider one. Again, what good will it do to make the new variant substantially better than the original?

THIS is the perfect time to hammer the idea out, imo. Also, I like the sidegrade idea form the other thread. No need to cert it, just have it a standard option on all MBTs from the get-go.

Originally Posted by Figment

Ill just put you on ignore Ratstomper

Thank god.

Meanwhile, your scenario of one vs three is rarer in game than 3 vs 3. You are completely inept in analysis and just an insulting troll at this point. Ironic cause you always accuse me of that.

Again, missing my point.

You don't get that. Looks like you never will. Even if it's spelled out for you. You don't realise this was true for every day PlanetSide use and will again be true for PS2 because the only difference in context that's relevant in gameplay is how you CAN use a team vehicle: solo. You are therefore a horrible balancer. And I mean absolutely horrible.

Whatever you have to tell yourself.

Nobody should ever listen to you Ratstomper. You can't honestly imagine I'm right simply by denouncing anything I say as hypothetical? Evolution is "just a theory" to you as well, right?

Does this mean we aren't friends anymore?

Originally Posted by Lumberchuk

Ya, that's a good point, but if we can get the cert in early, there will be more time to balance it. Right now I don't think the cert exists in game.

The issue with balance is that we won't be able to do it properly until it's put in game and we see how it stacks up. The best course of action is making sure the implementation is solid, isn't taking away from the current game and isn't adding things that are unnecessary. That's the first step.

Ya I like that idea, it should also work for if you have driver-gunner a secondary gunner too, since it sounds like that will be under used as well since you can just pull a MBT and a lightning instead.

The issue with giving shields is that you're giving bonuses to players not for how they play, but just because they've got a bunch of guys in one vehicle. We don't give shield bonuses for being in a liberator or any other multi-manned vehicle. Why do it with the MBTs if the idea isn't to make the variant better, but simply allow a certain playstyle with it? Vehicle survival isn't about how much health you have, it's largely dependent on how you play. That's how it was in PS1 and I've got a suspicion that's how it'll be in PS2. If someone is being stupid with their tank, they're going to die regardless of how much armor they have.

The issue with the lightning instead of a secondary gunner doesn't hold water. A lightning cannot cover a tank from 360 degrees like a gunner can. There would be TONS of line of sight issues, because a lightning (or ANY separate vehicle) can only cover from one side. This could work in some situations, but certainly not in most.

For all Figment's talk about pulling units from the field, he doesn't seem to realize that a lightning has better things to do than babysit an MBT who didn't want to bother to get a gunner...

[Azren]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

I thought we already had an idea to make it work and we were weighing out how it stacked up against the standard variant. Introduce the third guy to act as a second gunner. The issue would be giving the magrider a movable turret without giving the standard magrider one. Again, what good will it do to make the new variant substantially better than the original?

It seamed to me that you two were wearing off topic in the direction of personal debate. Any constructive remark is welcome of course.

I do not belive we need to make it stronger, people underestimate how important situational awareness will be. Comming from BF where you only have to keep an eye at a maximum of 16 people, this is no surprise, however in PS2 16 people will be what we will find on top of a small hill, not the entire map. Being aware of what is going on can increase the overall efficancy of the vehicle enough to make up for the need of one more gunner (or loss of one turret).

If it turns out that it's still not enough, maybe an enhanced radar could be added to the dedicated driver tanks.

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

THIS is the perfect time to hammer the idea out, imo. Also, I like the sidegrade idea form the other thread. No need to cert it, just have it a standard option on all MBTs from the get-go.

Keep on hammerin'

Sidegrade or a cert that is free, I don't see the diffrence. I went with cert, because those are already implemented in the game system while selectable modifications of a vehicle (not cert based) are not.

A cert you already learn when creating the character should do the job in my opinion.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Azren

It seamed to me that you two were wearing off topic in the direction of personal debate. Any constructive remark is welcome of course.

some of it was irrelevant. I tried saying it wasn't what the thread was for, but some people insist on arguing.

I do not belive we need to make it stronger, people underestimate how important situational awareness will be. Comming from BF where you only have to keep an eye at a maximum of 16 people, this is no surprise, however in PS2 16 people will be what we will find on top of a small hill, not the entire map. Being aware of what is going on can increase the overall efficancy of the vehicle enough to make up for the need of one more gunner (or loss of one turret).

I completely agree.

If it turns out that it's still not enough, maybe an enhanced radar could be added to the dedicated driver tanks.

Yes. I think the idea, as presented, is fairly solid and if it's a big issue when we actually get some beta test data, THEN we can worry about tweaking stats and numbers.

Keep on hammerin'

Sidegrade or a cert that is free, I don't see the diffrence. I went with cert, because those are already implemented in the game system while selectable modifications of a vehicle (not cert based) are not.

A cert you already learn when creating the character should do the job in my opinion.

I'm not sure if there are standard sidegrades you get with vehicles from the beginning or if they all require certs. If there are some variations you can use from the get go, this should just be one of them, imo.

Now all we have to do is solve the magrider thing. We can't give a rotating turret to standard magriders (the controls won't allow it) and we can't give a rotating turret to the 3-man variant magrider (because it doesn't work on the original variant). The question is: Is there a large enough advantage discrepancy there that people will always pick the 3-man variant for the sake of effectiveness instead of what playstyle they think is fun?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Azren

I do not belive we need to make it stronger, people underestimate how important situational awareness will be. Comming from BF where you only have to keep an eye at a maximum of 16 people, this is no surprise, however in PS2 16 people will be what we will find on top of a small hill, not the entire map. Being aware of what is going on can increase the overall efficancy of the vehicle enough to make up for the need of one more gunner (or loss of one turret).

Please, widen the scope of debate, Azren, you too are thinking of one unit with one driver, who's awareness is being enhanced by adding gunners. That's not true however, since you overlook the group awareness of allies is greater than that of the one player in his little tank.

In an existing team of three, enhanced situational awareness of a single unit is not an significant added benefit, because the three will already pretty much have it anyway.

For the single unit yes, but then you're isolating your designing perspective to the one unit again and that's the whole point that is continuously missed: this is a massive multiplayer game, you design unit interaction for players on multiple levels. You can't look at an isolated unit.




Btw, you say there's 16 units on that hill? Those 16 could be firing at THREE tanks or focusing on one. So that cancels out very swiftly because sure, some might miss once or twice more, but instead of 3x 16/3 firing at one tank or having to decide which tank to fire at first, you'll have 16 firing at one tank. So really, numerically the odds and survival time go down, fast, in that scenario.

They need armour buffs. Period.

[Talek Krell]

Originally Posted by Lumberchuk

On paper yes it has more damage potential, but in practice it could be completely different.

Not just more damage potential but more survivability and more tactical flexibility as well. And since the number of individuals working together in either scenario is two, I doubt they're really losing much in the way of situational awareness. The sole quantifiable downside is the cost and while I don't dismiss that entirely I believe that cost is and should be used to keep people from being suicidal with their equipment rather than to pose a significant barrier to entry.

Forgive me if I drift in and out of the conversation, work neverending and so on.

Originally Posted by Azren

What we should try to achieve is to get this cert in a form how it can be implemented. The balance in power can be addressed later.

There's a legal concept I've heard of that if you accept any form of compensation for an issue then you forfeit the right to complain. For me this is basically that. I would rather go back and forth and hammer out an agreeable solution than accept a subpar one on the assumption that it will just be fixed later.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

There's a legal concept I've heard of that if you accept any form of compensation for an issue then you forfeit the right to complain. For me this is basically that. I would rather go back and forth and hammer out an agreeable solution than accept a subpar one on the assumption that it will just be fixed later.

The issue is that we don't really know much about the game itself to say exactly how it will pan out in the big picture of the game without getting hands on first. Besides, we have to nail down a decent idea before we can compare it to anything else.

[Lumberchuk]

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

Not just more damage potential but more survivability and more tactical flexibility as well. And since the number of individuals working together in either scenario is two, I doubt they're really losing much in the way of situational awareness.

Again all these things are on paper. More damage relies on you hitting your target (which will be much easier with a gunner driver combo), more survivability of 2 tanks in terms of pure HP, but again, a target on the move is much harder to hit (also driver can focus on driving more e radically between shots). More tactical flexibility, that the 2 tanks may have an advantage slightly, but in standard range open terrain tank on tank combat, the 2 man tank will perform much better, and retreating to repair is much easier with a dedicated driver, not to mention the ability to shoot back while the vehicle is being repaired.

At long ranges in battlefield 3's tank vs tank combat, a moving tank is pretty hard to hit, even harder when it swerves and changes speeds. However driving like that is not a viable tactic because its almost impossible to concentrate on shooting as well.

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

The sole quantifiable downside is the cost and while I don't dismiss that entirely I believe that cost is and should be used to keep people from being suicidal with their equipment rather than to pose a significant barrier to entry.

Yeah I agree with you on this, I don't want to be stuck without a tank because my empire can't hold enough territory, but we don't yet know how the system works that's why I included it.

[Azren]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

Now all we have to do is solve the magrider thing. We can't give a rotating turret to standard magriders (the controls won't allow it) and we can't give a rotating turret to the 3-man variant magrider (because it doesn't work on the original variant). The question is: Is there a large enough advantage discrepancy there that people will always pick the 3-man variant for the sake of effectiveness instead of what playstyle they think is fun?

The Magrider needs a model update for this to work. Check the image in the first post, that shows how this can be done.

The idea is that the Magrider has a rotatable turret in both variants, but if it does not have a dedicated driver, the turret is locked in a frontal position (as it is now).

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Lumberchuk

Again all these things are on paper. More damage relies on you hitting your target (which will be much easier with a gunner driver combo), more survivability of 2 tanks in terms of pure HP, but again, a target on the move is much harder to hit (also driver can focus on driving more e radically between shots). More tactical flexibility, that the 2 tanks may have an advantage slightly, but in standard range open terrain tank on tank combat, the 2 man tank will perform much better, and retreating to repair is much easier with a dedicated driver, not to mention the ability to shoot back while the vehicle is being repaired.

Lumber, we're not saying that the individual unit gains advantages. We completely agree with you on that. You don't need to repeat your point.

But you lose other advantages and that cancels out very, very swiftly.

Here's a list:

(Dis)advantages of ONE unit with TWO gunners over the same, ONE unit with ONE gunner

Note: A unit is described as any player operated avatar in game: tank, infantry, aircraft, etc. A player is any real life person operating as an unit that will be in game at the same time anyway.

The first comparison is just the effect on the single tank.

PER UNIT (driver=gunner + gunner vs driver=gunner, both in one unit)
Situational awareness per unit: doubled and a little (gunner not needing to watch road, two sets of eyes)
Variety of potential perspectives per unit: Equal
Number of potential units: Equal
Enemy firepower dispersion: Equal
Hitpoints per unit: Equal
Firepower per unit: Doubled
AA options available: Equal (no need to switch)
Resource cost per unit: Equal
Maneuvrability per unit: Equal
Tactical options per unit: Equal
Expected lifespan per unit: Slight increase
Execution of available tactical options: Slight increase in efficiency


So that looks pretty neat and beneficial, right? Until you actually look at what the above means for the actual potential of two players.

PER PLAYER (Two separate units vs one unit)
Situational awareness per player: Minor increase
Number of potential units: Halfed
Variety of potential perspectives per unit: Halfed
Enemy firepower dispersion: Halfed
Hitpoints per player: Halfed
Firepower per player: Equal
AA options available: Halfed
Maneuvrability per player: Halfed
Resource cost per player: Halfed
Maneuvrability per player: Virtually halfed
Tactical options per player: Severely restricted
Expected lifespan per player: Reduced by a third to half
Execution of available tactical options: Slight increase in efficiency

Meaning the only thing that improves ever so slightly is the first and last efficiency (driving and awareness) and resource cost. Firepower effectively remains the same and therefore does not double even if it appeared to do so. But the kicker is that all other statistics are halfed!

And it gets worse when you compare the potential of three players with three in one unit, again per unit and per player:

(Dis)advantages of ONE unit with TWO gunners and dedicated driver over the same, ONE unit with ONE gunner

PER UNIT (dedicated driver, two gunners vs driver=gunner, one unit
Situational awareness per unit: Tripled and a little (gunner not needing to watch road, three sets of eyes)
Variety of potential perspectives per unit: Equal
Number of potential units: Equal
Enemy firepower dispersion: Equal
Hitpoints per unit: Equal
Firepower per unit: Doubled
AA options available: Equal (no need to switch)
Resource cost per unit: Equal
Maneuvrability per unit: Increase in efficiency
Tactical options per unit: Equal
Expected lifespan per unit: Slight increase
Execution of available tactical options: Slight increase in efficiency

Note that compared to two players, for three players only maneuvring and situational awareness increase. Firepower does not. If it was a dedicated driver with just one gunner, firepower would equal per unit, but HALF per player.

PER PLAYER (Three separate units vs one unit)
Situational awareness per player: Negligible
Number of potential units: 1/3
Variety of potential perspectives per unit: 1/3
Enemy firepower dispersion: 1/3
Hitpoints per player: 1/3
Firepower per player: 2/3
AA options available: 1/3
Maneuvrability per player: 1/3
Resource cost per player: 1/3
Maneuvrability per player: Extremely reduced
Tactical options per player: Extremely restricted
Expected lifespan per player: Reduced by half to two thirds
Execution of available tactical options: Slight increase in efficiency

If you compare the per unit advantage, then sure everything looks nice and there only seem to be positive effects. When you start looking at manpower and thus player potential, you should immediately be shocked by the potential you remove from yourself by making a choice on the per unit statistics.

Considering the lifespan per player is reduced, it is also questionable whether the resource advantage really matters.


The only way to combat this is to design the unit to have significantly better endurance statistics than a single crew unit.

[Azren]

Figment, the issue of solo MBTs is not related to this topic. If solo MBT is balanced against an MBT with gunner, that balance will remain wether the gun is used by the driver or the gunner.

What I am saying is that this suggested certification does not have to address the issue of solo MBTs, they should be handled separately.