Driver/Gunners... NO! - Page 40

Ratstomper · 2012-07-14, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by fod

there are also pages and pages of info in this thread as to why IT IS the case

No there isn't. Every last one of those points have been refuted. The best thing that you guys have come up with are ridiculous hypotheticals that will rarely, if ever, happen in game.

Buggsy · 2012-07-14, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

No there isn't. Every last one of those points have been refuted. The best thing that you guys have come up with are ridiculous hypotheticals that will rarely, if ever, happen in game.

Actually balance happens in all games. In fact if game developers are good at anything, they are good at balancing something to the point where it doesn't matter what choice the player makes in doing this or doing that.

AzureWatcher · 2012-07-14, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

Why do you think this is the case? No ability is being taken away from you as a driver. How can something that's fun + a gun be less fun than before? Are you saying you're unwilling to learn to drive and gun at the same time? It's not that hard.

Pretty much this. This thread is full of posts about how difficult it is for them to drive and shoot at the same time. They want to nerf the game because of their own incompetence.

It's also full of the falsehood that the second gun is somehow weaker than the main cannon. It's not, and it can also be fitted to provide the tank with incredible versatility. In the Higby interview that was posted today, Matt mentions that you can fit your tank with an AA gun on the roof, or a second AT gun.

The MBTs still require teamwork for optimal performance. It's not like they are getting rid of it. They are just adapting it for a modern market. Driver&Cannon Operator + Roof Gunner instead of Driver + Cannon Operator.

So it's not that much of a change as you lot are making it out to be.

Ratstomper · 2012-07-14, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by KaB

Because SOE wants PS2 to be fun !

Considering the fact that PS1 was unique, if PS2 lose all the good points that had PS1 only to become a random FPS with big vehicles/guns/graphics, it's like restarting from zero.

This tank feature from PS1 was actually one of those which made me play it. I dunno what type of vehicles you were driving, but maybe you should make your way on another one and stop rejecting what made games better.

The same could be said of you buddy. Seems like the majority of the playerbase realizes it's a good idea and wants to keep MBTs the way they are. You people are the odd men out, yet haven't stopped to ask yourselves if you're maybe missing something.

The ONLY thing that PS2 changed from PS1 was made the combat more engaging. There's still the logistics. There are still the massive battles. There are still massive groups of people moving from base to base, just like in PS1. the only changes made are changes that the majority of people want (As a PS1 vet, I prefer them), because PS1's gunplay and MBT system were bad. Just awful.

Originally Posted by Buggsy

Actually balance happens in all games. In fact if game developers are good at anything, they are good at balancing something to the point where it doesn't matter what choice the player makes in doing this or doing that.

What does this have to do with the thread topic?

Although, I would say that "balancing something to the point where it doesn't matter what choice the player makes" is not even remotely correct or the point of balancing. Balancing makes it so that the choices of the player are ALL that matter. Balancing makes it so if you choose to use tactics, you can beat someone with a gun that's maybe not as great in you current situation. If you choose to bring the wrong type of equipment, you may well be screwing yourself over if you don't choose to handle the situation correctly. Balancing isn't about neutralizing player choices, it's about emphasizing player choices and ability over hard, unfair game mechanics.

KaB · 2012-07-14, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

because PS1's gunplay and MBT system were bad. Just awful.

Gunplay will be upgraded with the new engine. Not replaced.

Whereas the MBT system is absolutely not an engine limitation and could be already replaced in PS1 if players really wanted it. Which didn't look to be the case, did it ?

BlueSkies · 2012-07-14, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by KaB

Gunplay will be upgraded with the new engine. Not replaced.

Whereas the MBT system is absolutely not an engine limitation and could be already replaced in PS1 if players really wanted it. Which didn't look to be the case, did it ?

Yes, I am sure that the microscopic population that PS1 had before the free month really enjoy the current system, or don't care either way. Others, prefer the new system.

Ratstomper · 2012-07-14, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by KaB

Gunplay will be upgraded with the new engine. Not replaced.

Whereas the MBT system is absolutely not an engine limitation and could be already replaced in PS1 if players really wanted it. Which didn't look to be the case, did it ?

Gunplay is more than just the new engine. I'm talking about the lower TTKs and overall small arms combat. The netcode and long TTK in PS1 was godawful and was a mark against it.

The MBT system had been established in PS1; they weren't going to change it, especially for a game that was pretty much dead. SOME people (evidently) liked it. Many did not and had to just get over it because it's what was in the game and (just like in PS2), the MBTs were far and away superior to lightnings in toe to toe warfare.

Now they have an MBT system that supports superior teamplay (even better than in PS1) and you're going to bitch about it because it's different. Big surprise.

fod · 2012-07-14, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

Why do you think this is the case? No ability is being taken away from you as a driver. How can something that's fun + a gun be less fun than before? Are you saying you're unwilling to learn to drive and gun at the same time? It's not that hard.

nothing to do with me "learning" to play this way - im a battlefield vet (since bf1942) that has played all the battlefield games (im a tank whore in them also) and i just have more fun driving with a separate gunner

and yes i lose the ability to ONLY concentrate on driving and letting my gunner concentrate on gunning - its MORE FUN having a dedicated job and co-ordinating my driving with my gunner, which i lose when i dont have this OPTION to have a separate gunner

i know what is FUN for me, im 35 years old i have been playing FPS games for freaking years so i KNOW what i enjoy doing

how can you tell me what is fun FOR ME?

Klockan · 2012-07-14, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by Buggsy

Oh come on, you don't have to be in BETA to know it would totally unbalance the game. Players on the losing side will log off en mass.

Yes, they might unlink resources to sites but resources will definitely stay in the game. They have too much mechanics around it.

Originally Posted by Buggsy

Actually balance happens in all games. In fact if game developers are good at anything, they are good at balancing something to the point where it doesn't matter what choice the player makes in doing this or doing that.

Agreed, which is why they can give us a balanced cert that would give away the main gun to a passenger with some bonus added in on it and then everyone is happy.

Zedek · 2012-07-14, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by BlueSkies

Solo MBT < MBT with main driver/gunner + secondary AV gunner
Solo MBT < Air configured for air to ground
Solo MBT < MBT with main driver/gunner + secondary gunner when presented with multiple targets.

Simple fact: You are gimping yourself and wasting your own resources/cooldowns if you don't get yourself a secondary gunner.

So... whats the problem exactly?

This.

Originally Posted by AzureWatcher

Pretty much this. This thread is full of posts about how difficult it is for them to drive and shoot at the same time. They want to nerf the game because of their own incompetence.

It's also full of the falsehood that the second gun is somehow weaker than the main cannon. It's not, and it can also be fitted to provide the tank with incredible versatility. In the Higby interview that was posted today, Matt mentions that you can fit your tank with an AA gun on the roof, or a second AT gun.

The MBTs still require teamwork for optimal performance. It's not like they are getting rid of it. They are just adapting it for a modern market. Driver&Cannon Operator + Roof Gunner instead of Driver + Cannon Operator.

So it's not that much of a change as you lot are making it out to be.

And this.

Seriously, there is nothing to bitch about here. Except maybe wanting to have the option to let a buddy take over your cannon so you can focus on driving.

Ratstomper · 2012-07-14, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by fod

nothing to do with me "learning" to play this way - im a battlefield vet (since bf1942) that has played all the battlefield games (im a tank whore in them also) and i just have more fun driving with a separate gunner

and yes i lose the ability to ONLY concentrate on driving and letting my gunner concentrate on gunning - its MORE FUN having a dedicated job and co-ordinating my driving with my gunner, which i lose when i dont have this OPTION to have a separate gunner

i know what is FUN for me, im 35 years old i have been playing FPS games for freaking years so i KNOW what i enjoy doing

how can you tell me what is fun FOR ME?

I, for one, don't care what's more fun FOR YOU. As someone who is older, I'd expect you to act more mature. It's not all about YOU. It's not all about ME. It's about giving the best gameplay experience to the most people possible. By your reasoning, why should the majority give up what they want just so you and a handful of others can get what you want (you may also want to ask yourself why so many people prefer it when it's such a bad design)? That's not working for the greater good of the game or the community.

You can say dedicated drivers are more fun for you, and they probably are for now. How about you do the sensible thing and wait to give it a shot before screaming that it is going to cause the next holocaust. You may find it's not so bad.

Littleman · 2012-07-14, 09:13 PM

This post is LONG. If you want to find the on-topic portion, find the dotted line and just concern yourself with everything below it. If the mods want to delete everything above the dotted line... well $#!%. Typing this took forever!

Originally Posted by Buggsy

That's codespeak for: dumbing down.

let me translate that for you, "We are dumbing down the game so a 4 year old can understand how to play it. Nothing is more irritating than a 4 year old at Best Buy that insists on buying a game, weak willed parents always cave in."

Oh come on, you don't have to be in BETA to know it would totally unbalance the game. Players on the losing side will log off en mass.

Getting really tired of hearing this claim from people whom seem to forget FPS' started off rather humbly.

Let's take a look at the evolution of the shooter?

Wolfenstein 3D/DOOM/Quake = run around, dodging monster blasts, shoot back. $#!%%& netcode that failed on a LAN connection. Fun as hell co-op if you get it working though. Likr Diablo without the annoying stat juggling and where shotgun shells are precious, but not overly rare. Every FPS gamer should at least play through the first episode of (a modded for modern day controls) DOOM at least once in their lives, just to experience what really got the ball rolling.

Hexen: Classes. Though this really felt like something between a shooter and a hack-and-slash, each one played fairly differently, with different weapons to acquire and different ways to play. You didn't get up close as a wizard, while it was pretty much the only way the Warrior could fight effectively. Reference Team Fortress as another (popular) title that introduced classes.

Half-Life/Counter-Strike/Duke Nukem 3D(?) = Introduction of reload mechanics. You no longer just pulled ammo straight from your inventory. Pistols don't normally have 200 round magazines... (400 if you found the backpack.) As for DN3D, technically the hand gun reloaded every 12 rounds, though it was the only weapon with an actual reload animation/period.

Unreal Tournament/Quake III/Counter-Strike/Team Fortress = some of the first actually memorable multiplayer focused shooters (there were others... I think... they weren't as memorable.)

2001's Halo: Combat Evolved. Hello recharging "health" (shield.) Come Halo 2/Call of Duty 2, a "goodbye health packs" was added. This was also the age where console gaming really started to take off. Before the Xbox/Halo:CE, anything but a platformer on a console was fairly unwieldy.

2003's Call of Duty (1: ) first FPS to actually influence the industry with ADS mechanics. What were the games before CoD that had ADS? Yeah, I can't remember either. Well, CoD 2 actually influenced ADS more, due to the "next gen" console market boom, but CoD 1 was successful enough to make developing CoD 2 a no brainer.

Somewhere in there, weapon customization became a big thing too. Though in most cases, games really only cover an under barrel, magazine, and sight attachment.

Simplified, that's Shoot and run > classes > magazine reloads added/multiplayer focus > regen hp added > ADS added > "Build-a-Gun Workshop" added. Mind you, not all games today have all of these, though reloading has become practically a standard expectation across the genre since its inception just like with jumping and crouching.

Really, I look at a game like UT as a game easier for a newb to get into. The rules of a deathmatch are fairly simple: aim at another guy and pull the trigger. Capture the Flag: grab theirs, get back to yours. Online play and competitive play just demand actual aiming, dodging, and prediction skills (knowing where an enemy might show up) knowing map layouts and a good ping. The game itself wasn't complex by any means, players just made it complex.

Today, we have to worry about how much ammo we have in our magazine, how we move through an area due to very low TTK's not giving us time to respond to an ambush, instinctively knowing to ADS when the enemy is some distance away or sticking with shoulder/hip fire when they're in range (unless it's a "realism" game, then it's every time before you ever pull the trigger.) Properly using cover and using hand grenades to flush people out of said cover (or simply to deny them a strafing direction.) No longer does one rush off to find a health pack, they learn to stick with someone dedicating themselves to keeping their team mates alive. In light of weapon customization, now they get to tweak their gun, but they need to make sure it's not too horribly gimped in one department for the sake of improving another, especially accuracy (no matter how fast or powerful, if it can't hit anything, it's useless.) Finally, they need to plan their angle of attack based on the target, because they can't just engage a tank from the front using enough rockets, that's suicide. They need to work their way to it's rear, and watch out for anyone else that may stop them, it won't just be you, the tank, and a pile of rocks. As an aside, Engaging aircraft without some place with a roof to duck into is pretty stupid too.

Oh yes... PS2 is getting dumbed down. UT is as dumb as it gets in comparison. Strafing and bottomless magazines have been around since DOOM - it just took ten years and mods to make strafing anything but clumsy in DOOM which coincidentally made the game ultra fun again. Get Brutal Mod, it's REALLY well done and... sadistically satisfying.

The complexity in UT/Q3 was found in it's PvP and the variety of weapons people deftly wielded to brutal effect, not it's mechanics. Those were fairly basic compared to what we see today. People have more $#!% to worry about now, and the PvPers are STILL bringing the deeper complexity to today's games. Being able to kill someone with just pointing and shooting should work, but it won't be scoring anyone big kill streaks. Playing smart and mercilessly will, and experienced players WILL play smart and they WILL be merciless.

Planetside 2 will be no exception. Just because the game is easy to get into, doesn't mean the experienced guys are going to make it easy to survive, let alone win.

Complexity is best born from player ingenuity, not hard coded design decisions. The latter is simply static until the developers change it. Admittedly, player's do build the complexity off of said mechanics, and that complexity is something hopefully everyone can learn, master, and counter, making for an ever evolving meta-game. In theory. Depending on how the mechanics are set up, there may not be much to the meta-game. I suspect this is partly why Brink didn't turn out so hot... It just felt shallow, over simplified, and overall unsatisfying.

In terms of tanks, there's the concern of whom will be hopping OUT of the tank. Oh yes, this is complexity in and of itself. Saying that a Heavy Assault Shock Trooper driving/piloting and bailing a doomed wreck to use their launcher shouldn't happen is, in the typical fashion of those whom constantly call design decisions they don't agree with, what I consider "dumbing down" the game. That's ONE scenario. Another bailer might be a cloaker or an LA that will try and plant C4 on your tank, and they're both notably harder to track than an HA as you may never see the cloaker bail, or the LA might be too hard to hit in the air without an MG secondary gun. Alternatively, the bailer may be an engineer who could hustle over to ANOTHER standing tank and support it with repairs or with turret fire from an advantageous position, provided he isn't dealt with before he bails in time and survives to have the chance help win the battle (as with all other bailers sans the medic, he's a useless bailer overall as far as I can tell.)

NOTE: If you disagree with any of the above and want to say something, just reword my quoted text as "stuff" and tell me I'm wrong. This thread is for tank seats, not pointing out how the genre has actually gotten more complicated mechanics wise in general. I just wanted to get this off my chest before I hear anymore of these stupid "dumbing down" bull$#!% claims. I don't feel like getting into an argument over accurate FPS history anyway -_- The past is the past. PS2 is the near future and the only thing that matters!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requiring 1 or 2 people to make a tank work on the most basic level isn't adding any form of novel complexity or dumbing the game down so much as it's more of a trade off in complete control (D=G) vs. efficient control (D&G.) A coordinated Driver/gunner team with the third seat being filled would make for a tank that should last longer than a typical "driver-gunner" tank filled with two people in just about every scenario. In divvying up the responsibilities, people can better focus on a single task, making them just plain better at doing their job. But if people want to handle the responsibilities of working both the tank and the turret at once, I don't see why they shouldn't have the option to do that instead.

If we're talking just tank engagements, then yeah, the DG+G may win since they can field five tanks to the former groups three (+ a lightning/air cav/DG-MBT) if we're talking full squads of 10 soldiers, but this game is about mixed arms (that's already heaps of complexity) between hundreds to thousands of players (whom bring the real complexity) and the situations where it will be JUST tanks (let alone that many) slugging it out will be rare.

And if we're to be honest, there COULD be 10 single-manned tanks vs those three fully manned tanks (+1) but I'd be skeptical if those 10 had any coordination going on at all, and I'm of the believe the coordinated few can overcome the mindless gathering of many within reason. It's not impossible for a squad to coordinate 10, single-manned tanks, but those are 10 seriously vulnerable tanks, and no way their enemies' fly-boys won't take notice of 10 hostile tanks rolling through the battlefield as a group. In fact, it's down right irresistibly appetizing; At least until the lightning/infantry escorts start throwing flak their way.

Klockan · 2012-07-14, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by KaB

Blizzard had more respect for the Starcraft 1 vets, and I'm not sure PS2 will make better than SC2 in terms of success.

I'd argue to the contrary.

Here are some examples of things that many sc1 fans complained about saying that these things would ruin the game and needs to be changed:
Blizzard added multiple building selection greatly reducing the skill it takes to manage your production, allowed people to select almost infinitely many units greatly reducing the skill needed to control large armies, adding the ability to rally workers directly to gather minerals instead of having to go back and order each individual worker, removed the reaver and added the colossus instead, removed the lurker, basically removed the need to split workers, added smartcast which indirectly nerfed all the casters, added the mothership, made the game in 3d instead of 2d which would reduce the visual acuity of the game, changing the cliff mechanics from a miss chance to not revealing units on top, pathfinding being too good reducing the need to micro your armies, Blizzard not letting people chose their opponent in the automatching ladder like they could in BW, being unable to change your online ID in Bnet 2.0, no chat channels in Bnet 2.0, no Lan, can't watch replays with friends and that the automatch ladder would use blizzard created maps which would mean that it would suck.

If you actually watched the community you would know that they were in an uproar about every single thing changed. The few things blizzard listened to was mostly about the visuals on the units and a few units that were so bad that they were scrapped before beta, also they added a few things to make managing your production a bit more taxing to make up for the time freed up from having multiple building selection. But overall today most are glad that Blizzard didn't listen to many of those sc1 elitist whiners (some of those would have been nice though, but if we talk just about gameplay now) and most PS2 players will be glad that the devs didn't listen to you guys about forcing 2 players in each tank.

Ratstomper · 2012-07-14, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by Littleman

This post is LONG. If you want to find the on-topic portion, find the dotted line and just concern yourself with everything below it. If the mods want to delete everything above the dotted line... well $#!%. Typing this took forever!

This may not be the thread for it, but we should frame that whole first part (before the line) and hang it above the doors to the PSU forums, imo. Very well said.

Man, I kinda miss Doom...

Littleman · 2012-07-14, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

This may not be the thread for it, but we should frame that whole first part (before the line) and hang it above the doors to the PSU forums, imo. Very well said.

Man, I kinda miss Doom...

DOOM is fucking awesome!

Grab the ID pack while Steam is having it's summer sale, then get Zdoom to make it work + have modern FPS controls (+ a bunch of other modifiers, like double ammo pick up, respawning enemies, respawning items, plus a crap ton more) and then I really recommend Brutal Doom as it does make the game a bit more difficult. It basically makes the game messier and faster. The minigun will eat through 400 rounds in about 30 seconds >.> But I'll be damned if it doesn't leave a shit eating grin on your face when the blood stops flowing.