Vertical stabilizer for vehicle turrets?

[VioletZero]

No vertical stabilizatiion doesn't make the game more complex, it just makes the secondary gunner role a hell of a lot harder to play if you don't know the driver.

It's an unreasonable expectation to make it so that every tank crew has to know each other. It should be something that people can just ask each other to do to get them cohesively working together.

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by VioletZero

No vertical stabilizatiion doesn't make the game more complex, it just makes the secondary gunner role a hell of a lot harder to play if you don't know the driver.

It's an unreasonable expectation to make it so that every tank crew has to know each other. It should be something that people can just ask each other to do to get them cohesively working together.

Yes it does make it more complex because it not only increases the size of the skillset needed to be a top-tier gunner or driver, but it encourages teamwork by rewarding those crews who are able to work together to use terrain to their best advantage.

In single-crew vehicles like a Lightning, it allows you a greater chance to come out on top against a larger multi-crew vehicle that isn't so skilled in dealing with rough terrain or in working well together. As a dedicated Lightning driver in PS1 I can attest to this fact. There have been many, many times I've been able to take out a more powerful MBT because I was able to use the terrain to my advantage, to set up ambushes, attack from angles that made it difficult for the enemy to return fire, and to evade in such a way that the enemy had to follow me over rough terrain to keep up, which threw off their aim in the process.

In multicrew vehicles it rewards tank crews who make an effort to work with one another instead of just playing independently inside the same vehicle. Being able to anticipate a driver's movement patterns allows you to be a better gunner since you'll know the likely courses he'll take and thus what terrain you'll have to deal with, and knowing your gunner's ability to compensate for varying terrain helps the driver to know what paths he can take that still let his gunner land his shots. IMO a tank crew that works often and well with one another should be rewarded for their dedication and experience in working together, and this is one aspect of gameplay that does just that.

In addition, PS1 has shown us quite clearly that a pick-up crew of random players can still be very successful in a vehicle without vertical stabilization even if they've never driven with each other before. They just won't be quite as effective as a crew that's worked together a lot. IMO that's how it should be. The stress on teamwork and communication in vehicle operation is one of the things that makes PS1 (and hopefully, PS2) vehicle combat so great.

And remember, if a player just can't seem to get things to click with others when he's in a multi-crew vehicle and successful teamwork never develops no matter how hard he tries, he can always drive his tank solo, or hop into a Lightning which has just 1 crewmember.

[Gandhi]

I voted no. It's yet another aspect of teamwork between driver and gunner, and considering we now have built in voice comms and hopefully some appropriate voice macros I don't see why it should be removed.

Even in PS1 it didn't always mean stopping the tank, just driving over flat ground for a while. There was actually a lot of skill and planning involved to give your gunner the best possible firing platform while still staying mobile. And I'm still hopeful we can convince them to go back to the 2+ man MBTs in beta.

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by Traak

"Realistic" is turrets that actually stay, not just on azimuth, but on target, after you have spotted the target with your targeting system.

The M1A1's gun traverses and moves vertically to maintain it's bearing on a chosen target. Driver can be doing anything in his vehicle up to the bump-stops of the turrets vertical travel, and the gun will stay on target.

That is how it needs to be to be realistic. I think it would be a good addition to the game, too.

I totally agree realism for the win and being it is futuristic you can even beef things up even more so it is full of non stop action and destruction. A action/scifi/sim/mmofps would rewrite the fps genre and is exactly what planet side 2 should strive for. A game changer to show all these noob clone arcade fps's whats up

[Gortha]

Originally Posted by VioletZero

I voted yes.

Anything that increases the skill gap should increase the game's depth. This does not. It is just an arbitrary hindrance that makes being a gunner harder to pick up and play.

Noob!

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by Livefire

I totally agree realism for the win and being it is futuristic you can even beef things up even more so it is full of non stop action and destruction. A action/scifi/sim/mmofps would rewrite the fps genre and is exactly what planet side 2 should strive for. A game changer to show all these noob clone arcade fps's whats up

Realism is great up to a point, but it needs to take a back seat to gameplay. Vertical stabilizers reduce the amount of skill needed to be an effective gunner and simplifies it to the point that a lot of the challenge is gone, and gameplay suffers as a result. Remember this is a war game, not a simulator. It's a contest of skills, and all other things being equal, if something greatly diminishes the skill involved it should probably be discarded.

Of course we have little info on the effective and max range of vehicle weapons, of typical engagement distances, nor of how much punishment various vehicles can take. So it's possible that some form of stabilization may be necessary to be at all effective in a combat vehicle. But I highly doubt it.

I think I might be okay with it in some limited form if it exists as an unlock buried deep within a vehicle's cert tree. But I don't think it's something that should be available in a stock vehicle.

[Chaff]

BOTH sides - both points-of-view have legitimate merits.

I like how Erendil presents the case to stay more towards the PS1 style of gunning.

The simple premise that gun stabilization would exist in the future is irrefutable - since it exists now.

It seems to primarily effect TANK-VS-TANK. SO that is a wash. The better Tank still wins. It will just involvle more hits/min during encounters.

MBT vs smaller vehicles ?.....wait for Beta. Maybe the rotaional speed of the turret will still give smaller vehicles a fighting chance......AND...if their weapons get stabilization to their primary gun....then perhaps the ACTION is a little more INTENSE....but the ultimate outcome may bear out comparable outcome percentages between PS1 to PS2. The ACTION may be faster and more iNTENSE. The eventual outcome may carry similar percentages to the old game. We have to wait and see.

CHANGES WILL OCCUR. Why is there so much CRYING before Beta shows what the reality of the gameplay changes or the brand new elements actually are.....?

.....the CRYING and FLAME-OUTS are nothing more than people being short-sided or close-minded, insecurity about having to learn new gameplay or strategies, and indicates a general elitist immaturity issue with many PS veterans.

It's gonna be DIFFERENT. It may be too different for many former players. What will drive SOE is what the NEW player base thinks of the game mechanics. If vets are less than 10% of the future population, and we do 90% of the crying......well, don't expect them to heed our cries.

Until Beta and the first 6 months post-Beta......I'm gonna try to grow into the changes. The NEW game deserves a fair chance. Nostalgia will blind those with closed minds.

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by Chaff

BOTH sides - both points-of-view have legitimate merits.

I like how Erendil presents the case to stay more towards the PS1 style of gunning.

The simple premise that gun stabilization would exist in the future is irrefutable - since it exists now.

It seems to primarily effect TANK-VS-TANK. SO that is a wash. The better Tank still wins. It will just involvle more hits/min during encounters.

MBT vs smaller vehicles ?.....wait for Beta. Maybe the rotaional speed of the turret will still give smaller vehicles a fighting chance......AND...if their weapons get stabilization to their primary gun....then perhaps the ACTION is a little more INTENSE....but the ultimate outcome may bear out comparable outcome percentages between PS1 to PS2. The ACTION may be faster and more iNTENSE. The eventual outcome may carry similar percentages to the old game. We have to wait and see.

CHANGES WILL OCCUR. Why is there so much CRYING before Beta shows what the reality of the gameplay changes or the brand new elements actually are.....?

.....the CRYING and FLAME-OUTS are nothing more than people being short-sided or close-minded, insecurity about having to learn new gameplay or strategies, and indicates a general elitist immaturity issue with many PS veterans.

It's gonna be DIFFERENT. It may be too different for many former players. What will drive SOE is what the NEW player base thinks of the game mechanics. If vets are less than 10% of the future population, and we do 90% of the crying......well, don't expect them to heed our cries.

Until Beta and the first 6 months post-Beta......I'm gonna try to grow into the changes. The NEW game deserves a fair chance. Nostalgia will blind those with closed minds.

I'm fine with changes for the better, but not backwards crap like forcing the driver to gun with out the ability to release it to a dedicated gunner, or not giving a full motion turret to the Magrider. Don't dictate changes to the players give them the option. Those are the only things I really have a problem with so far. Fix those in or before beta and I'm fine with changes, just make the changes make sense in a futuristic shooter and explain them in the Planetside story line. Love the sig Erendil

[VioletZero]

Originally Posted by Erendil

Realism is great up to a point, but it needs to take a back seat to gameplay. Vertical stabilizers reduce the amount of skill needed to be an effective gunner and simplifies it to the point that a lot of the challenge is gone, and gameplay suffers as a result. Remember this is a war game, not a simulator. It's a contest of skills, and all other things being equal, if something greatly diminishes the skill involved it should probably be discarded.

Of course we have little info on the effective and max range of vehicle weapons, of typical engagement distances, nor of how much punishment various vehicles can take. So it's possible that some form of stabilization may be necessary to be at all effective in a combat vehicle. But I highly doubt it.

I think I might be okay with it in some limited form if it exists as an unlock buried deep within a vehicle's cert tree. But I don't think it's something that should be available in a stock vehicle.

Skill gap is great, but it needs to be the result of DEPTH.

Taking away vertical stabilizers does not increase the game's depth. And if it doesn't increase depth, it at least needs to be more fun.

But it's not fun to have to compensate for your driver going on uneven random terrain. It's a frustration.

Your focus on increasing the importance on skill and teamwork is getting in the way of the facts. Tanks should be something easy to pick up and play. After all, that's why drivers can control the main gun now. It should also be easy to pick up the machine gunner position on someone else's tank without it being a huge frustration.

Being an effective tank driver should come down more to greater tact, not greater skill.

[Garem]

I wouldn't want to have no stabilization at all- maybe some correction delay based upon how harsh the jerking would be, based on terrain and speed.

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by VioletZero

Skill gap is great, but it needs to be the result of DEPTH.

Taking away vertical stabilizers does not increase the game's depth. And if it doesn't increase depth, it at least needs to be more fun.

But it's not fun to have to compensate for your driver going on uneven random terrain. It's a frustration.

Your focus on increasing the importance on skill and teamwork is getting in the way of the facts. Tanks should be something easy to pick up and play. After all, that's why drivers can control the main gun now. It should also be easy to pick up the machine gunner position on someone else's tank without it being a huge frustration.

Being an effective tank driver should come down more to greater tact, not greater skill.

EDIT: Apologies for the long post. I'm quite passionate about this subject tho, so plz bear with me

It seems to me that you and I have a different definition of the word "depth." IMO, not having stabilizers does increase the depth of gameplay, by not only giving players more skills to utilize and improve upon (namely effective aiming over uneven terrain, minimizing the rough terrain that you drive over, and maneuvering such that the enemy is themselves forced to drive over uneven terrain themselves), but by increasing the variety of environmental hindrances to a player's battlefield effectiveness and allowing for a greater variety of tactics to overcome those hindrances and/or capitalize on the situation when said hindrances are affecting enemy forces.

And contrary to what you might think, the above-described increased depth is fun for many people, my self included. It may be a frustration for you, but for many others it's fun being involved in a tank battle over uneven terrain without stabilizers due to the challenge, just like it's fun to fight at night, or during a snowstorm which you seem to enjoy, or (in a plane) while zooming in and out of cloud cover. the extra challenge and variety and unique tactics that result is what makes it fun. Vertical stabilizers would IMO water this down and make it less fun because gunning would become too easy.

And my "focus on increasing the importance on skill and teamwork" is not getting in the way of "the facts." Rather, your lack of experience in PS1 gameplay is getting in the way of what you somehow think are "facts" to begin with. I really don't mean to be throwing this into your face, but my understanding is you've never played PS1. Reading your other posts you obviously are an intelligent person and have a rather extensive gaming background.

That said, contrary to what you seem to think, gunning in a tank in PS1 is already easy to do. Finding a gunner for a 2-person MBT in PS1 is easy to do. And many people love the game mechanics of vehicle warfare in PS1 despite the fact that there is no vehicle stabilization.

This is not the first time stabilizers have been discussed on a Planetside forum. I've been involved in a few of them over the years on the SOE forums. Many people like the idea. Many others do not. In the end though, stabilizers detract from the skill required and variety involved in vehicle warfare so IMO it shouldn't be implemented by default on all vehicles, but only as a customization if at all.

If you insist on having stabilizers on your turret in order to let the game aim for you, then fine. But you should have to pay for it, and it should be rare and expensive since it would be a big advantange. But don't force it on the rest of us.

[Livefire]

I want all the vehicles in this scifi combat world to look as cool, perform as cool, and be as advanced, stabilizers and all as combat vehicles would be 100s of years from now. Scifi, action, theater size, combat sim, mmofps for the win.

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by Livefire

I'm fine with changes for the better, but not backwards crap like forcing the driver to gun with out the ability to release it to a dedicated gunner, or not giving a full motion turret to the Magrider. Don't dictate changes to the players give them the option. Those are the only things I really have a problem with so far. Fix those in or before beta and I'm fine with changes, just make the changes make sense in a futuristic shooter and explain them in the Planetside story line. Love the sig Erendil

Thanks! I, too, am leery of the changes they made to the Mag. I hope they get the mobility right on it if they end up keeping the main cannon fixed forward, and I hope it has at least a little control like the Fury rocket launchers in PS1.

I think the Mag even looks better with the main cannon attached to the turret like that instead of below. The Mag's turret right now serves little purpose and quite frankly it looks weird having a turret with no barrel sticking out the front, but an additional weapon mounted on top of it.

[Coreldan]

I'd say no too, cos I dont really like the idea of driver gunning in the first place, so I sorta think that it doesnt need to be any more powerful as a solo vehicle than it already is.

That said, I'm ok for the secondary gunner to have it though, but wouldnt want the main turret to be very easy to shoot while on the move.

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by Coreldan

I'd say no too, cos I dont really like the idea of driver gunning in the first place, so I sorta think that it doesnt need to be any more powerful as a solo vehicle than it already is.

That said, I'm ok for the secondary gunner to have it though, but wouldnt want the main turret to be very easy to shoot while on the move.

How about for the Lightning, since it doesn't have the option for a secondary gunner?