MBT Operators

[CollinBRTD]

I still don´t get it!

In the verhicle named "Aircav" its no problem going over 3 axis and gun at the same time but when it comes to slow tanks its impossible. I really get the feeling here the Aircav PS1 players fear nothing more the losing their killwhoring.

Again if you have the choise between one tank or three reavers you (your outfit) will always go for the Aircav. In PS1 the biggest fear for a soldier was always the Aircav and not the tanks.

Everybody is pulling (including me) aircav as soon as possible to break the back of a base.

If you go down the road with driver don´t get the main gun you have to do that with the Aircav as well.

I say give the main gun to the driver and you will see great tank fights. If you give the main gun to the passanger you will see "Reaverside 2.0". Because every killwhore ingame will take the "Aircav" over a tank.

Don´t get me wrong here i think the "Aircav" is great fun in such games but it can be a gamebreaker (saw it in the BF series when airplanes got to strong). The backbone of groundbattle should be the tanks not the "Aircav".

If tanks are not beeing pulled we will see no fights outdoors. The grunts cant defend themselves from the "Aircavs" and the AA cant defend themselves from the grunts. So you will see a quick wipeout of the AA. If you have tanks they can protect the AA and the only way to get rid of the tanks are tanks.

[CutterJohn]

Collin, recall that AA is a lot more prevalent, and the game will launch with very specific Air superiority fighters.

[Coreldan]

I think they mentioned that you could have MAXs equipped with two different weapons, other controlled by LMB and the other by RMB.

So, we might have every MAX equipped with one AA arm and the other arm for AI or AV depending on situation, except if you are specifically just going indoors so you might go AI/AI.

That said, to reach Planetside 1-like effectiveness against tanks for example you might have to go AV/AV, but the option to go for two different roles is there, but you just arn't that good in either.

[Eyeklops]

Originally Posted by Coreldan

I think they mentioned that you could have MAXs equipped with two different weapons, other controlled by LMB and the other by RMB.

So, we might have every MAX equipped with one AA arm and the other arm for AI or AV depending on situation, except if you are specifically just going indoors so you might go AI/AI.

That said, to reach Planetside 1-like effectiveness against tanks for example you might have to go AV/AV, but the option to go for two different roles is there, but you just arn't that good in either.

There was an old theory in EVE: Don't mix guns.

It will be interesting to see how effective mixed mode maxes will be.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Originally Posted by CollinBRTD

I still don´t get it!

In the verhicle named "Aircav" its no problem going over 3 axis and gun at the same time but when it comes to slow tanks its impossible. I really get the feeling here the Aircav PS1 players fear nothing more the losing their killwhoring.

Again if you have the choise between one tank or three reavers you (your outfit) will always go for the Aircav. In PS1 the biggest fear for a soldier was always the Aircav and not the tanks.

Everybody is pulling (including me) aircav as soon as possible to break the back of a base.

If you go down the road with driver don´t get the main gun you have to do that with the Aircav as well.

I say give the main gun to the driver and you will see great tank fights. If you give the main gun to the passanger you will see "Reaverside 2.0". Because every killwhore ingame will take the "Aircav" over a tank.

Don´t get me wrong here i think the "Aircav" is great fun in such games but it can be a gamebreaker (saw it in the BF series when airplanes got to strong). The backbone of groundbattle should be the tanks not the "Aircav".

If tanks are not beeing pulled we will see no fights outdoors. The grunts cant defend themselves from the "Aircavs" and the AA cant defend themselves from the grunts. So you will see a quick wipeout of the AA. If you have tanks they can protect the AA and the only way to get rid of the tanks are tanks.

Stop being so logical and intelligent! You're ruining everything!

My pet hate is that AA in PS1 was underpowered. It was a deterrent not a way to kill anything. To be more balanced, the skyguard should have had 5x the armour it had and the flak needed faster travel time. It is a custom built vehicle designed for one purpose - which it couldn't actually do.

Hopefully PS2 will have more fragile air. Tanks should be able to take a pounding because they don't fly. Flying vehicles should be fragile sheets of paper that can get shot down by 2 AA maxes. They should never be able to afterburn away and outrun homing AA projectiles.

My wishlist includes MBTs that you can choose which type of guns are on it. The lightning is all well and good as an AA vehicle but if a reaver can destroy it with little trouble then it's not doing its designed purpose. An MBT with a flak cannon might actually come close to the intended use.

[kaffis]

Yes. Why? Because I want all empire to have a dedicated driver (required) with two optional gunner seats.

Why do I want that? Because teamwork is fun, and glorified rolling MAX suits aren't tanks. And that's the way a driver-gunned tank would have to be balanced.

If you want to drive and gun, roll a Lightning.

As for turning into Reaverside -- Reavers should be lightly armored and fragile compared to ground-based AA. Their primary role should be hunting Galaxies (which are now more critical due to filling the mobile spawn deployment role, as well as troop transport) or providing escorts for Galaxies. Liberators should be the armored gunships of the air and -- you got it, not be pilot-gunned.

Equipping a Reaver for air to ground combat should be about hit and run strikes at high velocity, and still remain risky at that. Skirmishers, not tank-killers. Leave the tank-killing role to Liberators, which should be armored enough to duke it out with dedicated AA ground forces on a fairly even footing.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by StumpyTheOzzie

My pet hate is that AA in PS1 was underpowered. It was a deterrent not a way to kill anything. To be more balanced, the skyguard should have had 5x the armour it had and the flak needed faster travel time. It is a custom built vehicle designed for one purpose - which it couldn't actually do.

Though I concur that aircav was a bit too succesful in PS1 (in some cases primarily because people knew damn well how to get the most out of them), giving the Skyguard 5x the amount of armour would be a bit much. For one, it'd have removed the Harasser from viable Anti-Infantry units. 25-30% more armour wouldn't have hurt it, nor gameplay though, quite the contrary. It being possible to kill a Skyguard with a single Reaver was a bit problematic, especially after the incredibly dumb Reaver armour buff (if there was one vehicle that didn't need a buff...).

But far more importantly, it should never have been so restricted to Tech Plants. Their removal from the caves acquisition list was the final nail for the caves and one reason why TR frequently dominated so many continents in the end of the game and were able to open a lot more threeways than they would otherwise have: having effective AA in caves based on flak and Strikers meant they could dominate the caves with air superiority. Ownership of the caves meant they had more access routes to continents and also that they fought more with cave benefits and modules in their capitals.

[sylphaen]

Skyguards were decently balanced before that s**** f**** stealth reaver armor buff.

I never understood why they decide to break it like that. After that buff, a good SG crew (2 people) could barely survive one good reaver pilot (1 guy) and death was certain vs. 2 reavers or more.

SG crews also faced a lot more hunters on the ground than reavers faced in the air.

Before the stealth armor buff, being in a skyguard was a cat & mouse game.
After the stealth armor buff, being in a skyguard was a survival game.

I always loved this minigame in PS. My utmost respect to all the smart aircav pilots out there. It was easy to know when you were facing one: it was usually too late.


(and special thanks to TRx who never missed to show up with their birds at the party)
(and also special thanks to our own VS reaver pilots who always arrived when I was starting to ask myself: "where the f*** is our support?!")

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Originally Posted by Figment

Though I concur that aircav was a bit too succesful in PS1 (in some cases primarily because people knew damn well how to get the most out of them), giving the Skyguard 5x the amount of armour would be a bit much.

Ok, so i got a bit excited and didn't think clearly about the amount of armour... But the spirit remains the same.

Paper beats rock.

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by Mechzz

I've followed this gunning/driving subject fairly closely, but haven't seen any specific comments from devs on it. Have there been any?

From last Friday:
https://twitter.com/#!/mhigby/status/180837658241662977

Originally Posted by @mhigby

@CDLHamma @BrewkoPS probably. It's something @kevmo0 and I discussed POSSIBLY adding as a way to spec tanks out to have a dedicated driver

Originally Posted by StumpyTheOzzie

Hopefully PS2 will have more fragile air. Tanks should be able to take a pounding because they don't fly. Flying vehicles should be fragile sheets of paper that can get shot down by 2 AA maxes. They should never be able to afterburn away and outrun homing AA projectiles.

I agree, Stumpy. PS1 Reavers in particular could withstand way too much punishment given all of their other advantages. Even before that last stealth armour buff.

But it looks like we might be getting part of our wish anyway. In the GDC vid Higby's Reaver lost 40% of its armour from one Railgun shot from a Mag. So death in 3 shots, and that's for the toughest of the 3 ES Fighters.

Compare this to PS1 where it takes 4 railgun shots to kill a Mossie (5 if shielded) and 5 for a Reaver (6 if shielded).

Of course, this says nothing about how many ESF rockets it takes to kill any of the MBTs....

EDIT: ES Fighters are also physically a lot bigger than PS1 Air Cav was, and they don't appear to fly much faster than they did in PS1, so all else being equal they should be easier to hit...

[CollinBRTD]

Originally Posted by kaffis

Yes. Why? Because I want all empire to have a dedicated driver (required) with two optional gunner seats.

Why do I want that? Because teamwork is fun, and glorified rolling MAX suits aren't tanks. And that's the way a driver-gunned tank would have to be balanced.

If you want to drive and gun, roll a Lightning.

As for turning into Reaverside -- Reavers should be lightly armored and fragile compared to ground-based AA. Their primary role should be hunting Galaxies (which are now more critical due to filling the mobile spawn deployment role, as well as troop transport) or providing escorts for Galaxies. Liberators should be the armored gunships of the air and -- you got it, not be pilot-gunned.

Equipping a Reaver for air to ground combat should be about hit and run strikes at high velocity, and still remain risky at that. Skirmishers, not tank-killers. Leave the tank-killing role to Liberators, which should be armored enough to duke it out with dedicated AA ground forces on a fairly even footing.

Teamwork: Its not like you are not speaking with each other the second you pull 2 tanks. Its quiet the opposite. You still need a gunner for the side gun AA/AI/AV wich makes a 2 men tank even better fun to gun.

I still say even if you give Aircav paper amour they will just hop from base to base. I am in an outfit how loves to pull tank colums but when we arrive at a base its already overrun by reavers of beeing shoot into pieces from Aircav. (nowadays you need at least 1 skyguard for 2 tanks). So my fear over the aircav tank balance is very deep.

My points are:

1. Why should you pay and then not gun (i know but thats how the normal FPS player is used to it)
2. Why should you get 2 gunners and a driver while you can just pull 3 different vehicles.

The discussion goes this way atm:

The solo vehicle has 1000 hp . The forum says well the 2 men vehicle should have 1500 hp. But thats bullshit. The 2 men vehicle needs to have 2500 hp. So 2,5 times more because the 500 hp more then the solo vehicle is not a bonus, since if you get 2 solo vehicles you have 2000 hp (thats why the prowler/Raider concept was always broken). So if you go down this road you come to a point that either the solo vehicle is near useless or the X person vehicle will be BFR 2.0.

The hp you can change in any benefit the vehicle has. For example. Tank A has 1000 hp and the reaver has 500 hp. Both solo vehicles. But the Reaver can fly so you have to decide if the tank is worth 500 more hp but it cant fly. So you have to break down every benifit of a vehicle to get it balanced. But if you need like 2 person to fire a gun it must have 2 times better benifits then the solo gun. I even say there must be a HUGE bonus as well because you need to coordinate the 2 persons as well. So you come to a point where you have uber outfits controlling huge guns and are untouchable by the normal not on Teamspeak person.

So its damn hard to balance vehicles in the same role with different types of persons needed operating it. This includes of course not if the vehicle has a different role ingame.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by CollinBRTD

My points are:

1. Why should you pay and then not gun (i know but thats how the normal FPS player is used to it)
2. Why should you get 2 gunners and a driver while you can just pull 3 different vehicles.

The discussion goes this way atm:

The solo vehicle has 1000 hp . The forum says well the 2 men vehicle should have 1500 hp. But thats bullshit. The 2 men vehicle needs to have 2500 hp. So 2,5 times more because the 500 hp more then the solo vehicle is not a bonus, since if you get 2 solo vehicles you have 2000 hp (thats why the prowler/Raider concept was always broken). So if you go down this road you come to a point that either the solo vehicle is near useless or the X person vehicle will be BFR 2.0.

The hp you can change in any benefit the vehicle has. For example. Tank A has 1000 hp and the reaver has 500 hp. Both solo vehicles. But the Reaver can fly so you have to decide if the tank is worth 500 more hp but it cant fly. So you have to break down every benifit of a vehicle to get it balanced. But if you need like 2 person to fire a gun it must have 2 times better benifits then the solo gun. I even say there must be a HUGE bonus as well because you need to coordinate the 2 persons as well. So you come to a point where you have uber outfits controlling huge guns and are untouchable by the normal not on Teamspeak person.

So its damn hard to balance vehicles in the same role with different types of persons needed operating it. This includes of course not if the vehicle has a different role ingame.

Okay, first off: I can solve the "why pay to specialize in a vehicle if you can't gun it?" dilemma quite simply. Whomever pulls a vehicle can surrender the driver's seat for a gunner's seat, so long as he's already in the vehicle.

In other words, the owner gets in first, to *any* seat he wants, and the rest of the seats unlock. This prevents one certed guy from pulling vehicles for his whole squad, while also allowing him the freedom to choose his role within the vehicle.

You and I, as veterans of two-man tank games like PS1, both know that the guy who decides to pull a tank and gun while he tries to recruit a random ally to drive for him will probably quickly get frustrated at how poor a driver they turn out to be, making his job gunning difficult. This is actually probably a pretty decent way to teach "traditional" FPS players the value and skill inherent in the dedicated driver, so it's a self-correcting "problem," yet my solution allows for the guy to continue to gun if he wants.

Secondly, keep in mind I said *all* empires' MBTs should be 3 men, dedicated driver only. So we're not talking about "different number of gunners necessary" unless you're including the Lightning into the mix, to which I say "relative durability of different vehicles can be adjusted in beta to your heart's content." You and I can trade math all day long about how many HP a 3-man tank warrants, but no matter whose math we start with, the balance will be revealed in play.

My big issue is, the way we're going with driver-gunned MBTs, the balance is going to skew heavily towards "a 1-man MBT is out-and-out the best use of a body in a ground game wherever a tank can fit," and if we're setting up the expectation that driver-gunned will be in the game, that's not something you can balance by adjusting durability against a 2-man version of the same vehicle -- because the 2-man and the 1-man vehicle get the same adjustments applied to both.


Finally, when it comes to 2 men in a 3-man with a dedicated driver vs. a full 3-man tank; so long as that's what all three empires have, I don't see a balance issue. You don't *have* to make the 3rd seat a "must-have" -- the fact that 2/3s of your players are bringing firepower to bear instead of 1/2 of your players should create *enough* of an incentive that they would fill up, so long as the two guns are comparable. The problem with the Prowler was twofold: it was the only 3-man tank (and the other empires' guns were dual-role or could be swapped on the fly situationally), and the third gun was lackluster in the first place, so even in a Prowler-on-Prowler battle, the chaingun was dead weight.

If the Prowler had had two main guns, you'd have seen the two 3-man Prowlers vs. the three 2-man Prowlers fare much more evenly, because you'd have 4 guns in 2 hulls brought to bear against 3 guns in 3 hulls. That's close enough that the higher cert-efficiency of the 3-man team and the danger of the 3 tanks getting in each others' way as they maneuvered would provide enough incentive to make it viable.

[Stardouser]

The problem with making it "optional" is that some of the reason for making multicrewing mandatory might have to do with balance. Making it optional then defeats that purpose.