Driver/Gunners... NO!

[RodenyC]

Originally Posted by Littleman

I would have said the one in the MBT smart enough to take out the lightning first. It'd be quick if their aim is good.

Though I'd wonder why that lightning gunner isn't in one of the MBT's...

How would the Two manned MBT take out the lighting when it's dealing with 2 solo MBTs?

[Goldeh]

I want to contribute to this thread.

I want it to reach 1k replies.

[KaB]

Originally Posted by maradine

Then you're looking for another game, it would seem.

Sorry for being too much demanding, but I want this outfit in a game featuring thousand of players in a huge persistent map with three futuristic factions fighting all around composed by cooperative players who wants teamplay !

Originally Posted by maradine

I do hope they cert in the split for those who want it, though.

I definitely hope so.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

LOL this whole series of events would have been different if only the MBT would have had a second gunner manning the AA turret.

Indeed, both would die, in one go (meaning less shots are required), to the Reaver and MBT you two mentioned and are apparently present as solo players then the OS hit late.

Noobs.


I can adjust scenarios too, you know.

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

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.

No, I'm not missing that point, I'm DISAGREEING WITH THAT POINT. FFS.

The point you are missing is that I've been saying this means squat (MEANING I DON'T GIVE THAT POINT CREDIT, I'M NOT MISSING IT) when you keep your tanks alive longer if you bring more.

Dude, really. Reading comprehension!

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.

THE POINT YOU ARE MISSING... IS IT IS ABOUT CHOICE. WHAT IS BETTER TO CHOOSE.

And two MBTs of the enemy will be MORE DANGEROUS than ONE MBT of the enemy! So it's irrelevant that you're not fighting your own tanks, your gunner has a CHOICE to either gun OR to tank OR get another unit. HE WILL TANK/GET ANOTHER SOLO UNIT, because it will provide more power and flexibility for that player!

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.

ONE ON ONE.

But in NO other situation! And given there's 600 people a side that's a completely irrelevant situation that will HARDLY OCCUR.

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).

Au contraire: INSTANT SEAT SWITCHING AND MORE ARMOUR.

[quote]We understand what you're saying. You're just wrong.

Given your above replies, you either deliberately ignore the points or you clearly don't understand what I'm saying. I'd wager the latter. Your first few replies clearly indicate the latter after all.

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.

And again you presume you work with someone you don't know. Idiot. A MBT in our setting is supposed to be for people who want to coordinate with others and can. You keep bringing up randoms who don't work together. Great. Don't work together and find someone you do know in a game with 70.000 players, surely you go to know a few hundred people you can work with over time?

I have in a game with only a few thousands players. So you keep bringing up non-issues and non-scenarios that only apply to anti-social people, who should just get a Lightning instead.

Done.

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.

Dude... Why do you think there's a difference of 2 in there? TO ACCOUNT FOR HITTING WEAKSPOTS OR NOT. So ALL scenarios are in there!

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.

HAHAHAHAHA. You honestly think people will care about what they're firing at if they can get a +1? Did you see anyone in the footage so far care that they killed an infantry or a tank if it was firing at them? "Oh hey I'm being fired at by an infantry guy, but I want to kill a tank, so I'll just ignore him while he damages and kills me within 10 seconds".

You honestly think people will care for ammo and that they won't just resupply? Man, you really are an idiot.

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.

Assumptions. We engaged groups of Magriders that regularly outnumbered us and usualy won through smart engaging and trying to take on as few of them at once, preferably from behind or side. That is called strategy. People tend to apply live-prolonging tactics in groups better than alone. That's the point, what's yours?

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.

Four resources.

And I think you forgot about the bit where you're gaining resources again. As said before, the winning, usualy more numerous team, will never be short on stuff so they can get more units for the same amount of players. That makes them even stronger.

Geez, are you really just that dense that you completely forget about arguments made in other posts and can't cross-combine?

It does appear you forget a lot of arguments over and over and over.

4-6 shots is NOTHING. again, that means 4-6 AV infantry can kill a tank nearly instantly.

Indeed. So spread out your manpower over more armour to get more endurance, give them more targets and retain your TTK on them! Hooray!

I'm curious where you're getting all your facts and figures.

Source:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/c..._of_ps2_after/

Rawr. Informed opinion, deal with it.

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.

Sigh. You just don't get it.

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.

LOL. Yeah there's no difference between being able to fire on the retreat and not being able to fire on the retreat.

I'm sure that the moment you show someone your weakspot, you REALLY DON'T WANT ANY FIREPOWER AIMED AT THEM AT THE SAME TIME AND PREFER THEM TO BE HITTING YOUR WEAKSPOT.

Man, you ARE dense.

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.

Mistakes, or surrounded by solo tanks. You know, cause you can't hide your weak points to both units. Certainly not in your 'scenarios'.

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.

Stop pretending you can't get gunners first and imply you're the stereotype.

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.

Experience lad, you should learn to appreciate it.

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.

THEY REWARD TEAMWORK AND YOU CAN EASILY GET GUNNERS FOR THEM, WHILE IT'S FUN AND REWARDING FOR DRIVERS, BECAUSE IT IS BALANCED AROUND HAVING THREE PEOPLE INSIDE INSTEAD OF ONE AND YOU CAN KEEP THEM ALIVE BY MOVING IN GROUPS. THAT IS MY POINT ALL ALONG. The Thunderer/Deli references are there to indicate how you can deal with things and how we do that on a daily basis. Your ignorance and your keenness on disagreeing by simply not acknowledging the point is really annoying.

If you notice, I do acknowledge some points of yours, but then note that your conclusions are wrong.

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.

Based on experience between driver and driver=gunner gameplay, I KNOW WHAT IS MORE FUN, because I know which type of gameplay is the most dynamic. I've got LOADS of experience with both. I don't need to know how balance is fine tuned in PS2 if there's more than enough information to know that you can't do the second more effectively than the first.

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.

This is your stance on BFRs? Good lordy.

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.

Maybe because they did in the other threads about it and are bored of debating over and over with pricks like you who just pass them of as relics with uninteresting and outdated opinions?

Look at how dismissive and denegrating you speak of PS1 vets. That's an indication why people don't want to debate with you. Your dismissive and self-centered attitude is why I'm also acting so hostile and aggressive towards you. Most people don't find the frustration debating with ignorant fools worth it. But considering you're threatening to "win" the debate by bullying out everyone else by disregarding everything they say on the basis of flawed selfish arguments and character murder, I'm not going to just walk away.

And yeah, I'm sure you're keen on intimidating players out of these threads, but I'll happily return the favour. Consistently with arguments. Shame you keep missing the points on purpose, since you don't want to give our system a fair chance.

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.

They haven't got any experience with driver + gunner, so yeah, I don't think they've got a good grasp on the debate at all.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the PS1 MBT setup made all the way back in 2003 is a little outdated?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the PS1 MBT setup was way ahead of its time in social game design since other games never dared to make that step and have always continued to focus on the one player concept that exists since Wolfenstein 3D? What is outdated? YOUR variant is far older and based on a time where only single player games existed!

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?

Most of them worked on PvE questing games, some worked on PS1 (and not all the ones that made the good decisions) and not all have them have worked on multiplayer shooters. And I'd say most have never worked on a game with a multiplayer of this scale. So I honestly don't care about this argument you're trying to make. I'd also say that given the way they fought in those videos while they were BO, didn't make them come of as very experienced gamers for PS1.

Honestly? They came off as reasonably new, zergling level, average players. That's not a flattering compliment sadly. I had hoped it would be different, but anyone who wants to use a Harasser (even says they NEED an Harasser) that's half dead and being spammed by a Reaver, or brings an Aurora or Marauder to an aircav battle is just being more than a tad dense... And both Higby and T-Ray made those comments, I could have accepted those mistakes from the MMORPG guy, but really, that was stupid. A Deliverer or Skyguard were the only viable choices they could make and considering they had three at the time, a Deliverer would have made most sense.

That gives me more than enough reason to not give them card blanche and criticize them when they make a wrong move.

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.

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.

...oh ffs. If you man that secondary gun, the potential armour increase you could have with two tanks 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.

Incredibly subjective. Don't you dare try to speak for me and others. Go use a Lightning and leave the MBT alone for those players that do think it's more fun.

Why can't you just accept ONE COMBAT UNIT existing that simply can't be used solo?

Why? Why are you so adamant that you don't want to rely on gunners, yet want to have gunner spots? What is it that makes you so self-centered you can't have it that people who want to work together get their own unit that's balanced design choices just around their play style and not around soloing it?

Why are you acting like such a selfish bastard that you HAVE to be able to use EVERYTHING alone in a MMO?

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.

Again, FIND ONE. There's hundreds out there!

Exactly. That's why MBTs require the second gunner position filled to be effective.

Go look at the walls of text over the last couple of pages. the pro-PS1 setup arguments are incoherent at best.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH A *breath* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

How about these:

Acknowledged existing subjective opinions. Some I consider uninformed, however, I acknowledged on own experience that driving=gunner is easy for me and I indicated I'm above average with that in World of Tanks. In fact, it's why I've been saying all along that multiple solo tanks trumps using one multi-tank despite being slightly less effective on a one by one unit basis, but more effective on a two vs one unit basis.


So really. What's your point? That you don't get what I'm saying and that you're the one who simply doesn't get there's no inconsistencies? I got that already when your type keeps asking us to "make up our minds".

Even though we have: it's worse one on one and provides worse quality gameplay (worse quality (more static) tank game play experience), while being more effective because it's more forgiving due to the increase in optional flanking tactics and the increase in endurance (2x increase in efficiency), making the multi-crew vehicle lose despite of having a maneuvring advantage ONE ON ONE, which is the only reason why you'd want to use two players. (PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF HUMANITY do note that you're disadvantaged if they can reach around to your weakspots, which they can more easily if they outnumber you! So it's you who doesn't take weakspots into account in this whole argument: the two player unit can't fend off units as easily because its weakspots will be exposed more often)



Seriously, I'm done with argueing with you now. Consider yourself on ignore if you keep this up for two more posts. I can't stand your ignorance and incompetence at grasping our points and running in circles with you.

[Azren]

I will just keep spamming this link:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=45169

It is a suggestion which should end this debate, write supportive replies to it so the devs will notice

[Figment]

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

Just out of curiosity: Will you guys (who think there should be a separate driver and gunner) still play and enjoy the game even if your suggestion doesn't make it into the final game for whatever reason?

How about I turn that question around?

Will you play if you have to buddy up with someone in order to gain access to the most powerful units? (While still actually having access to a ton of solo unit alternatives).

Meaning, do you honestly think this decision would affect you at all if you get the choice to still play solo, just not in that unit?

[EisenKreutzer]

Originally Posted by Figment

How about I turn that question around?

Will you play if you have to buddy up with someone in order to gain access to the most powerful units? (While still actually having access to a ton of solo unit alternatives).

Meaning, do you honestly think this decision would affect you at all if you get the choice to still play solo, just not in that unit?

Me, personally? Absolutely. As I said upthread, I could go either way. I wasn't asking to set up some killer argument later on, I am genuinely curious about just how important this issue is to the community.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

Me, personally? Absolutely. As I said upthread, I could go either way. I wasn't asking to set up some killer argument later on, I am genuinely curious about just how important this issue is to the community.

To me it's pretty vital for a fun game. It will always gnaw on me even in 20 years, I'd still be upset about the missed opportunity for showing the world good teamplay can be done better by other means than with solo units.


PS1 vehicle systems are too advanced for some noobs in this thread and they genuinly missed the point of why it was done in PS1.

I don't think Ratstomper for instance will ever admit that there's a hell of a lot of design reasons why you'd want to numerically limit your units and enhance social and dynamic game play in one go.



Actually, come to think of it, I don't think we even mentioned that one of the reasons was that other, lighter solo/teamwork units (including infantry) could deal better with heavier units because they'd come in smaller numbers with their enhanced firepower and endurance?

People like him are way too focused on their own selfish interests and have no interest at all in what's good for the game's balance and game play, let alone that you want to encourage communities forming in a MMO to retain players over time.

[fod]

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

Just out of curiosity: Will you guys (who think there should be a separate driver and gunner) still play and enjoy the game even if your suggestion doesn't make it into the final game for whatever reason?

yes but it would be a big black mark against the game for me (i will play but not sure if i will enjoy it though)

newer games are getting simpler and simpler - features that were great ideas that make games more fun and teamwork based are being removed to cater to i guess the younger audience (im guessing here i dont really know who is responsible for making games more simpler so dont bite back at me)

commander mode in battlefield is another one i was disappointed with them removing

for me pc gaming has been about depth complexity and teamwork and removing the ability for me to have dedicated gunners reduces the teamwork aspect and makes it less fun overall (for me)

if planetside goes to driver/gunner ONLY model then what games can i play if i like the separate driver and separate gunner setup in a FPS game? all FPS games i know of have copied the driver/gunner model now so there is no choice for us

[StumpyTheOzzie]

So wait...

Do you want drivers to gun or do you want gunners to gun?

I'm confused.

And sort of trolling.

All this min/maxing and CAPS ON AND quote /quote and stuff is all very interesting but I still don't understand what it's got to do with me and my mates.

If it's an even number, we'll fill tanks. If it's an odd number, we'll fill most of the tanks and have one gunnerless.

Fuck the zerg. They're there to get shot and give me XP so who gives a shit if they're rolling more tanks? That's just more XP for me and the crew.

[Sledgecrushr]

I agree that there should be an optional cert that allows a dedicated driver...if the magrider is put on tracks like the other es tanks.

[Azren]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I agree that there should be an optional cert that allows a dedicated driver...if the magrider is put on tracks like the other es tanks.

No need for that. It works just fine in PS1. The diffrence is in the firepower. Magrider needs 3 direct hits to kill an infantry, the other two empires need one.

I imagine PS2 power balance will be similar

[fod]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I agree that there should be an optional cert that allows a dedicated driver...if the magrider is put on tracks like the other es tanks.

why should the VS give up their empire defining ability?
then the TR should shoot slower? and the NC hit with less damage?

Originally Posted by StumpyTheOzzie

So wait...

Do you want drivers to gun or do you want gunners to gun?

I'm confused.

And sort of trolling.

All this min/maxing and CAPS ON AND quote /quote and stuff is all very interesting but I still don't understand what it's got to do with me and my mates.

If it's an even number, we'll fill tanks. If it's an odd number, we'll fill most of the tanks and have one gunnerless.

Fuck the zerg. They're there to get shot and give me XP so who gives a shit if they're rolling more tanks? That's just more XP for me and the crew.

if thats directed at me (im guessing it is with the way i capitol important words) all i want is the ability to have separate driver and gunner instead of the driver doing it all like the way it is now in PS2

i have much more fun in a vehicle when i am a dedicated driver and i have a dedicated gunner

[Sledgecrushr]

Originally Posted by fod

why should the VS give up their empire defining ability?
then the TR should shoot slower? and the NC hit with less damage?

I think its a given that the new magrider is an incredily agile tank as it is now. The video footage I have seen bears this out. Adding a turret to this configuration would make the magrider the quickest vehicle to acquire targets and be the most nimble vehicle. I say the mag would be quickest to acquire targets because it can rotate on its z axis while moving in any direction and also pivot its turret at the same time, while moving..at full speed...this just seems like a humongous advantage against the other MBT s. Other than this little wrinkle I think an optional cert for a three man setup would be cool.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by StumpyTheOzzie

If it's an even number, we'll fill tanks. If it's an odd number, we'll fill most of the tanks and have one gunnerless.

That's a questionable claim if you get more of an advantage by not filling them. Which IMO very unfortunately, the current system seems to do.

Meaning if you can run with all your tanks gunnerless and be better for it, you will. The perks of having them gun needs to outweigh the perks of not having them gun. Currently, they do not seem to.

Whatever happens, I'm going to assume that like any gamer, you'll go with whatever makes your group the most effective and exploit the game's systems in a legit manner to the utmost efficiency.

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I think its a given that the new magrider is an incredily agile tank as it is now. The video footage I have seen bears this out. Adding a turret to this configuration would make the magrider the quickest vehicle to acquire targets and be the most nimble vehicle. I say the mag would be quickest to acquire targets because it can rotate on its z axis while moving in any direction and also pivot its turret at the same time, while moving..at full speed...this just seems like a humongous advantage against the other MBT s. Other than this little wrinkle I think an optional cert for a three man setup would be cool.

You forget though that currently the Magrider is severely disadvantaged because it has to expose its hull weakspots the moment it gets flanked to some tank and will get flanked more easily and is less suited to flanking than other tanks.

Play some World of Tanks as a tank destroyer, you'll see what I mean. It's not quite as bad since you can strafe and prevent some flanking, but all in all you'll end up with just the gunner being able to fire, while that's not true for other tanks.

(Of course, in World of Tanks you can use stealth to your advantage and that makes TDs lethal to the point they're among my best units.)