Originally Posted by Figment
Because you are going to start as BR40 in this game: can't get a tank? Get something else till you can get a tank again. There's never a reason NOT to be in your own vehicle and in between you're going to have to grunt anyway as well, so it's pretty irrelevant from my point of view.
|
The point he is making (and that you're continually missing) is that it's ALWAYS more cost effective and efficient performance wise to have a 2-manned tank over a solo manned tank as they have it now. The whole argument that you can just get other vehicles is irrelevant to the discussion.
|
Plenty of reason, because you're going to fight solo versions of your own tank if that's the option PLUS you're going to waste certs on a vehicle that's supposed to be promoting teamwork. Now it's promoting solo play.
If you don't have any reason to complain fine, but if you don't get why we complain, don't complain about us complaining, you have no reason to.
|
You're NEVER going to fight solo versions of your own tank, because all the MBTs are ES. Aside form that, it doesn't matter because the solo version will be highly susceptible to air and infantry attacks.
As has been stated over and over, it's not promoting solo play over teamplay, because a fully manned MBT will ALWAYS have the advantage over a solo-manned MBT.
|
Because it's BOTH worse and better at the same time. FFS, it's not a paradox!
We want high standard tank combat and guaranteed team work vehicles provide a better performing opponent as an individual unit (with more crew). But with this system the worse performing individual solo tanks have significantly better performance in groups despite being crappier and less enjoyable as solo units, because they'll be using the leverage of numbers to their advantage!
|
The ONLY reason you believe this is because you've completely disregarded all the legitimate points that have been made against it. there is NO less teamwork required with the new MBT system to make a fully effective tank. It's made it so it is posssible to use it solo, but it's going to be MUCH less effective in battle situations (which makes the lightning more cost effective and viable).
|
What is so hard to get about that?
Seriously, if you read the full arguments, try to at least comprehend them.
|
We understand what you're saying. You're just wrong.
|
From the most recent beta info obtained at SOE Live:
Normal timer on tank 15 minutes (900 seconds). With implant: 5 minutes (300 seconds).
Purchase cost MBT: 120 resources of A
Purchase cost Lightning: 80 resources of B (not resource A!)
Normal timer on Lightning 11 minutes, 20 seconds (700 seconds). With implant booster: 5 minutes (300 seconds).
TTK on a tank for infantry: around 4-6 shots with AV.
TTK MBT on infantry with main gun: single shot.
|
Thats still a legitimate resource cost difference, even if it is a different resource. You're going to have to buy other things with that resource still and few people will want to waste resources on a half-effective tank and NOONE will want to spend resources and certs on a tank to put all the offensive capability in the hands of someone they don't know.
It takes 4-6 shots form AV to kill a tank under what scenario? Are they hitting the weak spots from behind? Even if that's hitting the hard armor of a tank, it means having 4-6 AV capable people in your squad could equal an instantly dead tank. which is exactly why secondary gunners and teamwork are still integral parts of the new MBT system and also why it's necessary to split the guns; secondary guns seem to have WAY more importance in PS2 than they ever did in PS1.
So you can spend one of your 20-30 tank shells to kill ONE of potentially hundred of troops. Awesome. Way to waste that ammo.
|
Keeping a tank alive for 3-8 minutes shouldn't be too hard if you're decent and working in a group. For the record, we have kept a group of 3 Deliverers/Thunderers (not the heaviest of vehicles) running for around 50 minutes at a time simply because the enemy had to spread their firepower over the three of us and with solo vehicles we'd have triple the group size, so it'd be even harder to kill us all. A timer of 3 minutes in PlanetSide never posed a problem, in fact if you did die, this usualy meant you had at most 10 seconds on the clock, since most of that timer is about getting to the battle.
|
And what happens when you get focused? So you kept a few fully manned deliverers alive in PS1 versus what? A bunch of unfocused people? Dont forget they've given vehicles weak points in PS2.
|
And tank resources clearly don't matter in restricting your use of OTHER solo tanks, so there's no reason not to solo. TTK by infantry is low enough to not warrant a gunner either (IMO), because there's a big difference in the time you get to kill infantry if it needs 4-6 shots to kill both of you or 8-12 if you both get a one shot kill main gun. It certainly DOES NOT warrant a third crewmember though. The difference between 4-6 shots and 12-18 is waaay too big to let slip.
|
There are three resources from what we've seen and those resources will be used for all vehicles. That means pulling your one-man MBT will mean giving up potential resources for other things anyway, regardless of them being different resources. I don't see how you've made a relevant point at all. Resources are resources.
4-6 shots is NOTHING. again, that means 4-6 AV infantry can kill a tank nearly instantly.
|
Note that the hit ratio on infantry dropped from a ratio of 1:4 to 1:6, to 1:12 to 1:18 shots. And with three firing, chances are someone hits sooner if you got an accuracy of 1 out of x shots hitting.
|
I'm curious where you're getting all your facts and figures.
|
Very simple: driver=gunner >>> driver+gunner >>> driver+gunners, because you make maneuvrability irrelevant compared to endurance and firepower. But maneuvring and outmaneuvring (especially a good, unpredictable enemy) is where the fun in vehicle combat driving lays.
So yeah, I have everyone reason to disagree with the current setup.
|
There is NOTHING being taken away from drivers. They still have ALL the capabilities they once had and the game is MORE dependent on maneuverability and spacial awareness because of the addition of weakpoints.
|
LOL. Yeah, no wonder your arguments are horrible in this debate.
"GUYZ, WE HAZ A 360 Deg GUNzor! Let's ONLY FIRE FACING FORWARD! SCREW PARTHIAN SHOT TACTICS!"
|
Parthian Shots worked great for the steppe horse archers of eurasia. Not so much for a lumbering MBT, especially considering that other vehicles can move faster than they can and it's weakpoints are behind them...Or maybe you don't actually know what you're talking about when you reference ancient battle tactics. I'm guessing if you DID you'd know the lightning would be MUCH better designed for this type of tactic. The reasonf or this is that MBTs and lightnings have different roles: one more thing you've failed to recognize or admit.
The ONLY time an MBT should be moving AWAY from the enemy is if it's been badly damaged and is trying to retreat back to it's own lines. Although, this is likely a scenario where the driver has made mistakes leading up to doing something that a tank shouldn't need to do.
|
Noob.
NOOoooOOOooOOoooob.
|
This is the exact same bullshit that gives gamers the stereotype of being immature basement-dwellers who have no tact or social skills. Fucking stop it.
|
Ratstomper, how can you claim I don't want to learn to drive and gun, if I got 10.720 matches in SINGLE MAN TANKS in World of Tanks alone (and lordy knows how many Bassilisk/Fury/Lightning/Switchblade kills) and have excellent stats on all of them.
My accuracy is around 70% while firing solo tanks. My winrate is well above average. I kill more players than players kill me while driving and gunning.
|
Then what's your gripe against it? For someone who is so awesome at gunning and driving you talk a lot about how it's unfair.
|
BUT IT'S NOT MORE FUN THAN DRIVING A THUNDERER WITH TWO GUNNERS BECAUSE THE QUALITY OF COMBAT IS FAR HIGHER, MORE SOCIAL, BETTER BALANCED AND SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED. You can't tell me what's more fun, because you don't have any idea what fun is for someone else and all you want is YOUR OWN TYPE OF FUN, which you already have in PS2 in the form of the Lightning and other solo units!
|
A thunderer is not the same thing as a tank. those are designed as heavy squad carriers. The whole point is to pack a bunch of people in them. I'm saying you haven't even played the game yet and you're complaining that it's already no fun. You can theorize all you want, but it doesn;t change the fact that there are a TON of unknown variables that almost certainly make PS2 a different game.
I want what makes the most sense. To me it's the current system.
|
For the record Ratstomper, what's your stance on BFRs? Pre-nerf and nerfed?
|
I think they were an interesting idea. However, they were shoehorned in and made too stout. If they had made them more squishy (pre OR post nerf), then having a secondary gunner would have been viable and probably more fun.
Originally Posted by Azren
You into politics? No? Well, you should be. You do exactly what politicians do; you try to make the opposition to your idea seam a minority, so the members of that group feel discouraged to speak up out of fear of being excoriated.
There are no previous polls that support your claim. In every single poll we had on this topic, around 50% voted to keep PS1 style MBTs, 30% wanted to make it optional and only around 20% wanted it to be PS2 style.
|
And when was this poll made? Back when the majority of players were PS1 vets who were still using the system? I want to know what the poll is now. From what I've seen in this thread alone, the majority of the people who say "keep the PS1" style gave no real reason for it. I looks like there may be many who have changed their minds.
You're right, I don't have hard numbers, but are you just going to dismiss all the non-PS1 players? A lot of non-ps1 vets seem to like the current system and it stands to reason why.
|
The majority of the PS2 setup supporters never played PS1 (see what I did there?). They came from Bf or CoD where they were only able to use drivergunner setup. For them, making it PS1 style would be a change to the unknown, when they would rather stick with what they know. Pretty much the same as what PS1 players feel, only diffrence is that more PS1 players have experience in drivergunner setup games than CoD players have with PS1 style tanks.
|
Did you ever stop to think that maybe the PS1 MBT setup made all the way back in 2003 is a little outdated? Ever think that maybe there are good reasons for the change (plenty have been listed in this very forum)? Have you stopped to think that maybe the devs (who aren't some super l337 kiddies, but people who have been playing and designing games for years) know what works best in the game they're making and know the most of any of us about?
|
I have played games that use PS2's setup, for example warrock where I did enjoy being the driver and the gunner, but what worked there would never work in PS. The scale is simply too different.
|
How so? I would argue the scale makes driver/gunner more viable, as a secondary gunner will have a lot more on his plate than in a game like Warrock.
|
The problem is that CoD players never experienced a battle where projectiles fly around from every direction, aircav attacks occure every so often, incomming artillery fire and bombers put waste to your front lines, ect. The sheer amount of events to keep track of is what makes a dedicated driver the better option here.
|
See my last point. The sheer amount of what's going on is what makes sense to give the secondary gunner his own spot. If he's manning the main gun, the secondary gun is going to waste. It's much more effective and fun to have a driver position to pick his own targets than try to communicate toa gunner to do something. You may have some super l337 gunner that is on the same brainwave as you. Some of us are lucky to find people with brainwaves at all. It's unfair and not advantageous to give all the offensive power of a tank to someone who didn't give the resources, certs and effort to go pull the tank.
|
You might argue that there are a lot of solo vehicles already, how do they work based on what I said? Simple: they are fast. All solo vehicles are much faster than MBTs and are not meant to stick around on the battlefield for extended period of time. Their role is closer to hit and run tactics than slowly pushing forward.
|
Exactly. That's why MBTs require the second gunner position filled to be effective.
|
I also like how you claim that tons of reasons to support PS2 tank setup were posted here before. They must have slipped my attention then. All I red was how much better it is this way because... oh wait, they hardly ever gave a reason. Well, it just is I guess...
Your side was never able to bring up an argument as why it nessesary to make MBTs this way when we already have a drivergunner tank and a great number of other solo vehicles.
|
Go look at the walls of text over the last couple of pages. the pro-PS1 setup arguments are incoherent at best.
-----------------------
How about these:
Originally Posted by SgtExo
I have never had trouble driving a tank and shooting at the same time. As a gunner I always know exactly where i need to be, and when to move, so i prefer to have it that the driver is the gunner. Unless you are part of a team that often play together, having separate driver and gunner seats are not effective.
|
Originally Posted by Turdicus
It's a critical design decision, I for one am happy that they made it this way. I find games that use both styles of tanks to be fun, but having the driver gun is certainly more fun for me. The community will get their hands on in beta and we will see what its like, I anticipate that after the initial "OMG this is awful" rants then people will take time to use it and get good with it and then people might be happier.
Maybe
|
Originally Posted by RSphil
I think this has been done as it is you spending the resources on the tank. I'd be mad if. Spent my stuff on a tank and the gunner was a prat.
Iv never had trouble driving and gunning. Though I'm used to it. You have to relies it is not just vets playing. This has to appeal to the fps gamers of today.
But I do think it is down to your resources so you should be the one responsible for its survival.
|
--------------------------
That's three, right off the first page.
|
In fact what we lack are group ground vehicles. There isn't a single one in game!
Please don't tell me how MBTs will still be group vehicles. We have brought up several arguments before (all of which your side was not able to negate) why MBTs will be mostly used as solo vehicle.
|
MBTs shouldn't be group vehicles in the first place. I think they should reintroduce REAL group vehicles, but don't turn what is an offensive powerhouse with a specific purpose in itself into a squad delivery system. again, MBTs won't be primarily solo vehicles for the reasons we've said a million times (seriously, can I stop beating the dead horse please?)
|
Resources.
I like how some of you drivergunner supporters bring this up as a last resort to support your case. Let me put down some pointers here that make any arguments that are based on resource cost invalid.
1 - we do not know anything about resource balance
2 - PS2 is a fast paced game with short TTK
3 - PS2 devs want to make spectacular large scale battles, not foot zerging.
4 - Point 2 and 3 result in making vehicles easealy accessable at any time.
5 - A high resource cost would contradict the above points.
If you are not dieing a minute after you pulled the MBT, you can be pretty sure the automated resource gain and the resources you get from your squad and the resources you get for yourself will be more than enough to buy a new one.
|
"we do not know anything about resource balance"
Obviously, if that's the case, it will require balancing. The question is why would someone want to pull MBTs and die a few minutes later when they can just fill the second gun and be WAY more effective and live longer?
Originally Posted by fod
since when does giving us the OPTION to have a gunner for the main cannon stop others who are driver/gunners from having fun?
it seems it is you who are not thinking of the majority - if we have it BOTH WAYS then everyone is happy
all we are fighting for is the OPTION for us to play how we find fun - what you are trying to say is that people must have fun ONLY the way YOU like to have fun
again i dont need to give it a shot as i have played LOADS of games with driver/gunner tanks and i find it a lot more fun having a dedicated driver and a dedicated gunner
|
I don't mind an option for doing that. However, I don't think it's necessary and I don't intend to fight for it. I think it's needlessly complex, but is some thing they could do if they decided to change some of the tank designs around.
Originally Posted by Azren
I think it is time to end this debate.
The best idea that was brought up is to make the dedicated driver setup optional. It would be worth a thread to discuss the details of that, but here are my ideas:
- Make the option to have dedicated driver avaiable without having to put any points into the MBT tree.
- Do not reduce any of the vehicle's stats when the option is selected (since it will require one extra gunner, this is fair to say the least)
- Have a new model for Magrider which has a rotatable turret, just have it in a fixed position of the said option is not selected.
This should make everyone happy.
|
This game is all about touting sidegrades. It would be easy just to treat it like a small arms attachment. Cert for it and choose that option when you pull the tank. Simple.
2012-07-15, 09:52 AM
Linear Mode
