MBTs - 3-man or 2-man - Discuss! - Page 4

Figment · 2012-03-17, 07:40 AM

Let's put it this way, two 3 crew tanks with 1.5 AV + 1.5 AA + armour of three, is also the same average firepower and endurance of three AA and three AV single player tanks, but would be a really heavy tanktype in comparison. Yet each gun on its own worthwile without being really OP as it would be outgunned in AV or AA damage by three tanks of similar weapon type. So it's a choice to take an average firepower tank into battle to get both benefits, but not to the same extend as three dedicated platforms.

If you add circling and turret rotation into that equation, the lighter tanks can quite easily win when played in a wolfpack against such a tank.

You can also simply up the damage and only have one type of weapon on it. For instance, if you just make it a dedicated platform (doesn't HAVE to be a cross platform) and double AA, AI, or AV output and double the armour, then you also got a good choice to make between a single man tank and a two crew tank.

Just some examples.

Skitrel · 2012-03-17, 08:00 AM

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

PredatorFour · 2012-03-17, 08:01 AM

T-Ray! dont listen to these wild "make the mag turret stationary/no rotation" ideas ... For the love of our lord Vanu please dont listen !
Infact for these heretic calls, punish the others with fixed turrets

**Malorn** · 2012-03-17, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by PredatorFour

punish the others with fixed turrets

I'd love me a strafing hover-vanguard. Fixed turret is fine by me.

PredatorFour · 2012-03-17, 08:38 AM

I think its fine as it was in PS 1. Keep vs/nc 2 man , tr 3 man. Who knows in PS 2 there might be a cap on pulling tanks due to resources so that would restrict people to just pulling a tank each and having no gunners.
Theres only so far you can go pulling out the maths equations tho. Thats assuming each gunner hits EVERY shot on the enemy doesnt it, which we all know ingame doesnt happen. Don`t get me wrong its interesting and useful to know as a player, but if you miss your shots its not as black + white as to who has the advantages and this is what makes the fights really interesting.

Coreldan · 2012-03-17, 08:40 AM

But tanks/weapons/anything shouldnt be balanced around someone possibly being a bad aim and missing a shot

Figment · 2012-03-17, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

I'd love me a strafing hover-vanguard. Fixed turret is fine by me.

If they get a lot more AV firepower, I wouldn't mind Tank Destroyers, tbh. Fury was one, though if it gets armour as well, it would need two crew. Maybe put a defensive 8 mm on top against infantry.

basti · 2012-03-17, 08:42 AM

Theres absolutly no question about it, they NEED to add the option to have a dedicated driver.

Problem there is the Mag. Its main gun is fixed forward, because it hovers, and controlling a rotating main gun while controlling the tank itself would be rather difficult.
So, two options: leave it as it is: Means no dedicated driver for the Mag, just like in PS1. Dont like this option realy
Or, change the mag. Put the main gun on top to let it rotate. But only if you got a dedicated driver. If the driver controlls the main gun, its simply fixed forward.

Devs, DO THIS!

PredatorFour · 2012-03-17, 08:45 AM

Tank destroyers would be cool. Kinda like an artillery piece between a flail and a vannie.

Figment · 2012-03-17, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by PredatorFour

Tank destroyers would be cool. Kinda like an artillery piece between a flail and a vannie.

Also:

And dedicated, two crew AA tank:

None of these would be unbalanced, as they each have deliberate inbuilt flaws to prevent versatility. However, as dedicated platforms, they would be quite good at specific roles: anti-heavy tank, forward push, AA.

PredatorFour · 2012-03-17, 08:49 AM

looks mint! Sign him up devs!

Skitrel · 2012-03-17, 09:03 AM

Convolution is not a good thing.

While adding more to the game sounds nice, the question is in fact is it necessary.

The answer is no.

PredatorFour · 2012-03-17, 09:08 AM

They`re already making AA,AV upgrades for tanks so why not fully upgrade to AV , AA ?? like figgy`s tank pics.

Skitrel · 2012-03-17, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by PredatorFour

They`re already making AA,AV upgrades for tanks so why not fully upgrade to AV , AA ?? like figgy`s tank pics.

Because of the paradox of choice. More is less when more is unnecessary.

Allowing the current tanks to fill those roles is perfectly acceptable addition of choice, creating entirely new tanks to fill those roles however is entirely unnecessary.

Figment · 2012-03-17, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Because of the paradox of choice. More is less when more is unnecessary.

Allowing the current tanks to fill those roles is perfectly acceptable addition of choice, creating entirely new tanks to fill those roles however is entirely unnecessary.

Putting everything on just two platforms is however, extremely dull because it all looks the same and you don't really feel like you're driving something built for a job, it's also about gameplay experience. Just because you CAN stick all roles on one vehicle by adapting it doesn't mean you should.

Worse though, it may just look like a cheap reuse of stock units. If you look at the amount of tanks in WoT and the gameplay differences each tank has, there's a lot to say against using the same two units. Especially because visual recognizability is why they make all these infantry classes in PS2 look different. It's also for the opposition to know what they're up against at first glance.

Furthermore, less can also just be... less. I would agree that having both a M4 and PzIV in WoT is superfluous as they have the same playstyle (only slightly different stats), but a TD, medium, light and heavy play completely different and that is thus more is more.