Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2

[kaffis]

On the issue of the Magrider -- so long as it remains driver-gunned, it will be a fixed forward turret that the driver controls. Why? It's a simple matter of controls.

A tracked vehicle with a rotating turret controlled by the driver has 4 axes for the driver to control. Turret pitch and yaw (rotation), throttle, and vehicle yaw (turning). This is easily done with a mouselook for turret pitch and yaw, and then a 4-button keymapping for forward/backward/left/right.

A hovering vehicle with a fixed-forward turret (PS1 Magrider and current PS2 Magrider) under the driver's control similarly has 4 axes: turret pitch, vehicle yaw, vehicle throttle, and vehicle lateral movement (strafing).

Converting the Magrider to have a rotating turret under the driver's command suddenly gives him 5 axes to control. He'll have turret pitch and yaw, and vehicle throttle, yaw, and lateral movement. Now he's having to map and manage an extra two keys. I doubt most people really want that; that's more complicated than traditional flying controls (which uses pitch, yaw, roll, and throttle)...



Finally, though, it's worth noting that I would rather see the Magrider get a rotating turret for both guns, and see all ES tanks go 3-man required. Why? Quite simply, if the driver wants to gun, he's got a Lightning available to him. It worked in PS1; it should work here. That allows the devs to balance a solo vehicle to be more fragile than a 2-3 man vehicle (because let me tell you, giving a soloable driver-gunned ES tank armor for 2 is pretty broken from a survivability standpoint; as is giving two guys in an ES tank Lightning-esque armor -- that's just free XP for the second death, right?) without jumping through weird hoops.

It's simply the best solution to achieve a good balance no matter what options the driver takes. It is also the best way to make MBTs feel sturdy and worthy of the name.

[Raka Maru]

Why "require" ES MBT's to have 3 players? Just make it less effective if there is not a full crew.

So a solo lightning can fight a solo MBT. Out maneuvering the bigger gun or outclassing with special weapons.

Trying to think in line with the development decision, I would not cert a MBT if I could not drive/gun. Then again, it should be just as useful as a lightning until my buddies join me and I assign them their roles.

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by kaffis

On the issue of the Magrider -- so long as it remains driver-gunned, it will be a fixed forward turret that the driver controls. Why? It's a simple matter of controls.

A tracked vehicle with a rotating turret controlled by the driver has 4 axes for the driver to control. Turret pitch and yaw (rotation), throttle, and vehicle yaw (turning). This is easily done with a mouselook for turret pitch and yaw, and then a 4-button keymapping for forward/backward/left/right.

A hovering vehicle with a fixed-forward turret (PS1 Magrider and current PS2 Magrider) under the driver's control similarly has 4 axes: turret pitch, vehicle yaw, vehicle throttle, and vehicle lateral movement (strafing).

Converting the Magrider to have a rotating turret under the driver's command suddenly gives him 5 axes to control. He'll have turret pitch and yaw, and vehicle throttle, yaw, and lateral movement. Now he's having to map and manage an extra two keys. I doubt most people really want that; that's more complicated than traditional flying controls (which uses pitch, yaw, roll, and throttle)...

I might be misremembering, but I think this is the reasoning that the Devs gave us behind the fixed cannon when we first found out about it. But quite frankly it's a craptastic excuse, especially if it means gimping one empire's main assault vehicle in the process.

Any FPS that has a lean function like COD has the same number of control axes that a turreted Mag would, and people are able to control their characters in those games just fine so long as they're not using a console controller. In addition, the Descent series of games had a full six degrees of freedom and six axes to control: ship pitch and yaw, throttle, lateral movement, vertical movement, and roll. And people could fly those ships fine as well.

Thus, if given a chance people would be able to fully-operate a strafing Mag with a 360 turret once they got used to the controls. But even if they never mastered it, they could just simply not strafe and instead drive it like the other tanks. It's not like strafing is an absolute requirement for its operation.

Originally Posted by kaffis

Finally, though, it's worth noting that I would rather see the Magrider get a rotating turret for both guns, and see all ES tanks go 3-man required. Why? Quite simply, if the driver wants to gun, he's got a Lightning available to him. It worked in PS1; it should work here. That allows the devs to balance a solo vehicle to be more fragile than a 2-3 man vehicle (because let me tell you, giving a soloable driver-gunned ES tank armor for 2 is pretty broken from a survivability standpoint; as is giving two guys in an ES tank Lightning-esque armor -- that's just free XP for the second death, right?) without jumping through weird hoops.

It's simply the best solution to achieve a good balance no matter what options the driver takes. It is also the best way to make MBTs feel sturdy and worthy of the name.

Yeah giving the driver the main cannon has a lot of different problems both from a balance and useability perspective. But it seems as if either the Devs don't see it as a problem despite the clear illustrations posted both here and on the PS1 official boards, or they simply feel that letting MBT drivers go solo is worth the price of those imbalances, presumably in the name of player enjoyment.

Hopefully these are things we can show them firsthand once we get into Beta, and that they'll be open to setting up specific combat scenarios where we can demonstrate the inherent power disparities in such vehicle setups as well as the affect that gunning has on your average tanker's driving skills.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Erendil

Any FPS that has a lean function like COD has the same number of control axes that a turreted Mag would, and people are able to control their characters in those games just fine so long as they're not using a console controller.

When using lean, presumably Q & E, you aren't using WASD, because lean only works when motionless.

In addition, the Descent series of games had a full six degrees of freedom and six axes to control: ship pitch and yaw, throttle, lateral movement, vertical movement, and roll. And people could fly those ships fine as well.

Roll was unnecessary to control constantly since orientation didn't matter, and you can get by just fine by controlling horizontal strafe and ignoring vertical strafe.

Thus, if given a chance people would be able to fully-operate a strafing Mag with a 360 turret once they got used to the controls. But even if they never mastered it, they could just simply not strafe and instead drive it like the other tanks. It's not like strafing is an absolute requirement for its operation.

It will be balanced for strafing, presumably by having fewer hitpoints since it gains in avoidance. If you choose not to use it your tank will be weaker.


The only way to do it and not make the thing too complex to handle is to ignore the fact that turning and strafing exist, and instead wasd simply determines what direction you go, meaning W is always forward, towards your gun. A & D always strafe, and S is always backwards, and then the game itself just twists the tank around so that its going in the appropriate direction.

It would be functionally identical to a fixed cannon, but would add the turret graphic, giving the option of a gunner taking control of the turret.

Yeah giving the driver the main cannon has a lot of different problems both from a balance and useability perspective.

No. Its different gameplay. They are only 'problems' in the context of PS1, since PS1 was not balanced for such things.

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

When using lean, presumably Q & E, you aren't using WASD, because lean only works when motionless.

Not true - at least in the versions I played frequently (COD 1 & 2). Leaning had no restrictions on its use so you could lean whenever you wanted. Some people in COD1 would even go so far as to constantly lean back and forth while strafing in a firefight because in that version it actually made them a harder target to hit.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Roll was unnecessary to control constantly since orientation didn't matter, and you can get by just fine by controlling horizontal strafe and ignoring vertical strafe.

Strafe in PS2 would also be unnecessary to control constantly if the Mag had a 360 turret, as evidenced by the capabilities of the conventionally-treaded tanks that don't strafe at all.

And if they allow Mags to conserve their momentum fairly well (due to lack of friction with the ground), then the need for such constant manipulation of both strafing and throttle would be lessened greatly since once the tank got going in the direction you wanted it'd coast that way until you wanted to make a correction. That by itself would be enough to counterbalance much of the added complexity in the movement controls, IMO, and 360 turret or not, I really hope they design the Mag's behavior like this.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

It will be balanced for strafing, presumably by having fewer hitpoints since it gains in avoidance. If you choose not to use it your tank will be weaker.

Pure conjecture. Although it'd make sense if they took strafing into consideration when balancing the Mag's overall effectiveness, that doesn't mean that they will. And even if they do, it's incredibly hard to predict how much of an impact it may have on its design in other areas since the benefits of strafing are hard to quantify. But IMO the point is moot since I believe people would be able to fully-control a Mag with a 360 turret anyway.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

The only way to do it and not make the thing too complex to handle is to ignore the fact that turning and strafing exist, and instead wasd simply determines what direction you go, meaning W is always forward, towards your gun. A & D always strafe, and S is always backwards, and then the game itself just twists the tank around so that its going in the appropriate direction.

It would be functionally identical to a fixed cannon, but would add the turret graphic, giving the option of a gunner taking control of the turret.

I disagree since your assertion seems to be refuted by the presence of movement controls in other games that are already that complex and are quite useable by the players of those games.

I'm not 100% against having a fixed forward turret. If they make the Mag nimble enough that it wouldn't suffer from the intrinsic drawbacks of such a design, then I'd probably be fine with it. Unfortunately though they haven't released any footage yet that has shown that to be the case. And until I get a chance to drive all three MBT's myself I'll most likely stand by the message in my sig.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

No. Its different gameplay. They are only 'problems' in the context of PS1, since PS1 was not balanced for such things.

It has nothing to do with PS1 specifically. The issues that we're talking about are ones that would exist in any FPS that uses a mix of solo vehicles and multicrew vehicles when the most powerful weapon is given to the driver and where manpower vs firepower is a consideration in the game's design.

It's pretty basic math and fairly sound logic, and some of it is illustrated quite nicely by Figgy on page 41 of this very thread and reiterated by Malorn on page 42. And once you look at it within the context of PS, it's pretty obvious that the following issues will exist:

• Two solo MBT's will be more combat effective in an AV role than one 2-man MBT config'd for AV/AV
• One solo MBT and one AA Lightning will be more combat effective than one 2-man AA/AV MBT
• Dedicated drivers are much better at maneuvering a tank and keeping it alive than drivers that have to multitask and also fire the main cannon
• Some people luv driving tanks but hate having to gun at the same time, but currently in PS1 they don't have the option to be a dedicated driver.

The question now is whether or not the Devs feel that any of these issues are big enough to warrant any change to the MBTs' designs.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Erendil

It's pretty basic math and fairly sound logic

Depends on how effective being a gunner is at increasing your effective DPS, which you can only assume at this point. The driver may have the 'main' gun, but the gunners weapon is no slouch either, and being able to focus 100% of gunning will make 360 coverage better, increase response time, increase situational awareness. This goes double for AA, since the driver would have to watch the ground and the sky.

You're also ignoring the fact that the guns will have different strengths and weaknesses and so be useful in different circumstances.

You're also ignoring the fact that not even close to everyone will pull vehicles constantly, and plenty of people who didn't want to pull one will be happy to jump into a back seat.

You're also ignoring the fact that vehicles cost money to pull, which could be a huge factor in favor of running two man to maximize effectiveness.

You're also ignoring the fact that its simply harder for two tanks to work together than 2 people in one tank. You have two people in two vehicles, both driving, maintaining proximity to each other, and gunning. And when one dies, they have to spend time regrouping that the 2 man tank does not

It is by no means clear that 2 tanks is greater than 1 2 man tank in every situation, and if it is, Higgles specifically stated that they want people in the gunner spots, meaning if its too useless, they'll.. improve it!


If you just look at dps vs hitpoints, and ignore every single other thing, sure, 2 tanks beats one every time. But that is by no means the whole story, and you really, really do have to wait to see how it plays before you can say its good or bad.

[Talek Krell]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

If you just look at dps vs hitpoints, and ignore every single other thing, sure, 2 tanks beats one every time. But that is by no means the whole story, and you really, really do have to wait to see how it plays before you can say its good or bad.

If beta arrives and it does prove to be an issue (let's say it's that people aren't generally using the secondary MBT weapon), what solutions would you propose?

[CutterJohn]

Theres a few options.

My preference would be: When the gunner gets in a shield is activated(with a really slow recharge, like amp station recharge) to bring a 2man tanks total hitpoints up. I say shield rather than a straight hitpoint boost for 3 reasons.

1. Its obvious that the tank has boosted hitpoints because of the shield flicker/glow. It would be annoying not knowing for sure if that tank has 50% more(or whatever it is) hitpoints.
2. Its more believable that the gunner can activate an extra system than that he bolted on more armor.
3. It can believably be shut off and turned on as the gunner enters and exits the vehicle(if it stayed active, you'd just get buddy drivers get into each others tanks for the buff).
4. And it might be good to let it be disabled by EMP.
5. Oh, and it can be applied to just the AV turret(Since the other two turrets have roles the drivers cannot fill, its not so much of an issue).

Other than that, the most simple thing to do would be to rebalance the driver and gunner weapons. Either by straight up damage alterations, or by making the gunner weapon more dual purpose, like the AA turret could be a decent AV weapon as well, kinda like how the BFR weapons were. I don't like this option though since it messes with a whole crapload of balance.

Another option, less straigtforward, is to give the gunner some secondary perks/abilities. A countermeasure, an emp, one of those 2142 style temporary invuln shields, maybe the gunner has a darklight headlight, or a vehicle radar, etc, etc, etc. These would be things the gunner has access to that the driver does not.

And last but not least, simply make tanks more expensive and/or have a longer timer. The more valuable they are, the more likely two people will team up to share the cost burden/split the timer. You didn't often see a BFR without a gunner.

[Erendil]

My apologies to all ahead of time for the long post, but I feel Cutter deserves a response to each of his comments. Although I suppose it's a drop in the bucket compared to the length of this thread...

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Depends on how effective being a gunner is at increasing your effective DPS, which you can only assume at this point. The driver may have the 'main' gun, but the gunners weapon is no slouch either, and being able to focus 100% of gunning will make 360 coverage better, increase response time, increase situational awareness. This goes double for AA, since the driver would have to watch the ground and the sky.

On the flip side, two solo MBT's have the benefit of being multiple targets, have 2x the total effective armour, gain 2 different views of the battlefield, can attack from different angles, are able to maneuver to flank the enemy in order to cut off enemy forces and minimize any terrain advantages they might have, can use crossfire and covering fire, can run interference for one another, can use bait-and-switch to draw out enemy forces, attack from behind, setup ambushes, etc.

In addition, a single 2-man MBT will statistically take more incoming fire than each of the separate solo tanks would, forcing it to dodge more ordinance and making it inherently more difficult to evade attacks since more opponents will be firing at it than would be at each solo MBT separately. And it'll be no more effective at dodging each shot since there's no dedicated driver.

And in the "two solo MBT's vs one 2-man MBT" scenario, the 2-man MBT also has the choice of either:

1. concentrating both weapons on a single target, allowing the other solo MBT to concentrate almost completely on gunning and thus matching the 2-man MBT's dedicated gunner advantage, or
2. firing one weapon at each solo MBT, in which case both gunners are at a fairly equal disadvantage to the solo MBTs since the main cannon gunner is also driving and the secondary gunner, while not having to drive, has no control over where the tank is going and so can't maneuver to maximize his chance of hitting his target since the driver is presumably maneuvering to better hit his target.

My point is that both setups have several situational advantages that can be extremely difficult to quantify, and having a second gunner in 1 tank doesn't automatically make it a better choice than if he were in a second solo tank. Not by a long shot.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

You're also ignoring the fact that the guns will have different strengths and weaknesses and so be useful in different circumstances.

You are correct that my previous assertions do not take into account situational variables or the strengths and weaknesses of other secondary characteristics. I should have prefaced my statements with, "all else being equal..." I figured that people would realize that was a given but apparently that's not the case.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

You're also ignoring the fact that not even close to everyone will pull vehicles constantly, and plenty of people who didn't want to pull one will be happy to jump into a back seat.

You are correct that there will be people that won't want to drive a MBT but will be willing to gun for one instead. But that's beside the point. Implying that a vehicle is more balanced - or that an existing balance issue is lessened - because not everyone will pull it is a massive failure of an argument because when the vehicle is used the imbalance is still there. We found that out in PS1 with BFRs, GGs, Reavers, etc, and inversely with MA indoors, and things like the Harasser and Basilisk. People will often use what they want to use whether or not it is over- or under-powered. That doesn't mean the issue itself is any less important.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

You're also ignoring the fact that vehicles cost money to pull, which could be a huge factor in favor of running two man to maximize effectiveness.

My understanding is that Base-level MBT's cost nothing to pull, so that is actually a point in my favor since IIRC the default secondary gunner weapon is a LMG designed for AI work. If you want to beef up the secondary gunner to make a 2-man MBT more competitive to 2 solo MBT's in an AV/AV role, or if you want to give it AA or better AI ability, that is when you'll have to spend the resources. Thus the 2-man MBT becomes the more expensive option.

In addition, I'm betting a 2-man MBT pimped out for AV/AA work will most likely cost more resources than a free base-level solo MBT and an AA Lightning. So since the Devs have flat out stated the AA Lightning will be the better AA choice, all else being equal an AV/AA MBT will be both less combat effective and more expensive.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

You're also ignoring the fact that its simply harder for two tanks to work together than 2 people in one tank. You have two people in two vehicles, both driving, maintaining proximity to each other, and gunning. And when one dies, they have to spend time regrouping that the 2 man tank does not

This is a myth perpetuated by some people who are in favor of multicrew vehicles but it doesn't hold any water when you actually observe how two people behave in a 2-man tank. Countless times in PS1 I have observed multicrewed vehicles behave such that it's obvious that both crewmembers are doing their own thing.

I've had MBTs chase after me in my Lightning whose gunner continues to fire at other enemies in a completely different direction from mine that are obviously no threat to them and that he has little chance of hitting or killing. Inversely, I've had many gunners fire shot after shot at me while a MBT is driving away from me, even if they are under no immediate danger from any other forces, and have survived solely because the driver drove them around a corner or over a hilltop. I've even killed many MBT's because I was able to chase them down, drive right up to them, and slam shell after shell at them with impunity at short range because even though the driver was trying to evade me the gunner seemed oblivious to my presence and didn't return fire.

The only teamwork advantage that a multicrew vehicle gives you is that of central positioning, where both players are at the same physical location and are moving in the same direction and so will be in proximity to the same targets. So to that end I'd say that teamwork happens more frequently in a 2-man vehicle than in 2 solo vehicles. However, if you actually make a conscious effort to work together as a team you can do so as effectively in two solo tanks as you could in one 2-man tank.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

It is by no means clear that 2 tanks is greater than 1 2 man tank in every situation, and if it is, Higgles specifically stated that they want people in the gunner spots, meaning if its too useless, they'll.. improve it!

That's kind of the whole point of this discussion: So that the Devs can be made aware of these potential issues and make changes and improvements to the existing designs accordingly - either by changing the driver/gunner setup or by beefing up the secondary gunner weapon.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

If you just look at dps vs hitpoints, and ignore every single other thing, sure, 2 tanks beats one every time. But that is by no means the whole story, and you really, really do have to wait to see how it plays before you can say its good or bad.

See my "all else being equal" statement above. I realize there are many other aspects that need to be considered when balancing this scenario. We are just making sure that they are aware of these particular issues, since based on what we know of the current MBTs design it appears that they are not. And even though we haven't yet used these vehicles, the sooner the Devs know about these potential issues, the better.

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Theres a few options.

My preference would be: When the gunner gets in a shield is activated(with a really slow recharge, like amp station recharge) to bring a 2man tanks total hitpoints up. I say shield rather than a straight hitpoint boost for 3 reasons.

1. Its obvious that the tank has boosted hitpoints because of the shield flicker/glow. It would be annoying not knowing for sure if that tank has 50% more(or whatever it is) hitpoints.
2. Its more believable that the gunner can activate an extra system than that he bolted on more armor.
3. It can believably be shut off and turned on as the gunner enters and exits the vehicle(if it stayed active, you'd just get buddy drivers get into each others tanks for the buff).
4. And it might be good to let it be disabled by EMP.
5. Oh, and it can be applied to just the AV turret(Since the other two turrets have roles the drivers cannot fill, its not so much of an issue).

Other than that, the most simple thing to do would be to rebalance the driver and gunner weapons. Either by straight up damage alterations, or by making the gunner weapon more dual purpose, like the AA turret could be a decent AV weapon as well, kinda like how the BFR weapons were. I don't like this option though since it messes with a whole crapload of balance.

Another option, less straigtforward, is to give the gunner some secondary perks/abilities. A countermeasure, an emp, one of those 2142 style temporary invuln shields, maybe the gunner has a darklight headlight, or a vehicle radar, etc, etc, etc. These would be things the gunner has access to that the driver does not.

And last but not least, simply make tanks more expensive and/or have a longer timer. The more valuable they are, the more likely two people will team up to share the cost burden/split the timer. You didn't often see a BFR without a gunner.

I like the shield suggestion for when a secondary gunner hops in. I'm a little leery about its ability to recharge though, if only because o the risk/reward factor of getting what amounts to free repairs without any effort or risk. Plus it was one of the bigest things that were broken about the BFR's in PS1. I'd suggest only allowing it to recharge if the vehicle isn't moving or if it hasn't taken damage in the last 5-10 seconds, so keeping the pressure on a MBT would prevent it from recharging.

Adding in secondary abilities for the gunner like spotlights, EMP etc would be interesting too since it makes the gunner spot more attractive without directly affecting its firepower.

[Vanir]

Originally Posted by Erendil

My apologies to all ahead of time for the long post, but I feel Cutter deserves a response to each of his comments. Although I suppose it's a drop in the bucket compared to the length of this thread...

The length of this thread is testiment to how unhappy people are with tank drivers having to control the main gun and not being allowed to delegate the control of the gun to another player. A driver should be able to concentrate on navigation, staying alive and keeping mobile. Not have to bother with the distraction of controling a gun at the same time.

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by Vanir

The length of this thread is testiment to how unhappy people are with tank drivers having to control the main gun and not being allowed to delegate the control of the gun to another player. A driver should be able to concentrate on navigation, staying alive and keeping mobile. Not have to bother with the distraction of controling a gun at the same time.

No, this thread is a testament to the fact that the community is split. If everyone agreed, the thread would be short...not long.

[kadrin]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

No, this thread is a testament to the fact that the community is split. If everyone agreed, the thread would be short...not long.

Shouldn't the community being split be a good indication that at the very least an option should be included for the driver to give control of the main gun over to the gunner?

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

No, this thread is a testament to the fact that the community is split. If everyone agreed, the thread would be short...not long.

Okay, I'll admit -- I haven't read roughly the middle third to half of this thread, since I tend to post and read in bursts here on PSU (and it's been dredged back up enough times over a long enough period that I can't say that I recall the overall tenor very accurately in the first place), so I can't say whether this is the case or not in this thread, but...

Your statement is not universally true. A small handful of very stubborn, argumentative, and active people can drag a thread like this out against much larger numbers of people on the other side quite easily. It's simply a matter of repeating your arguments and boring the other side to death so they stop reading and others pick up the battle. Or, you know, failing to bore the other side to death and just continuing to respond to the same arguments in the same ways till you're all blue in the face.

So thread length alone can't always be considered indicative of an even split.

[Stew]

its like Battlefield game and its ok for me i have no issue agains it !