Poll on driver gunning

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Graywolves

My concern is efficiency.

I'd expect better results from a tank with a dedicated gunner and a dedicated driver than an individual multi-tasking.

Indeed, specialization leads to more efficiency. But it doesn't necessarily equate to more fun. I don't mind other gunning options that lead to the 'traditional' role of driver driving and gunner gunning, but it is not in any way clearly superior. It depends on personal preference, and I would not agree with mechanics that make it a superior choice.

To make a one man tank effective you need to make it slower, have more armor, and take a heavy pounding to be effective. Otherwise you have a massive skill curve between people who can drive without looking ahead of their tank and shoot, and people who can't.

Whats wrong with skill curves? Skill is to be applauded, not tossed away.

[Tasorin]

I voted PS1 style.

Keeps Tanks from being a one person option.

[Graywolves]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Indeed, specialization leads to more efficiency. But it doesn't necessarily equate to more fun. I don't mind other gunning options that lead to the 'traditional' role of driver driving and gunner gunning, but it is not in any way clearly superior. It depends on personal preference, and I would not agree with mechanics that make it a superior choice.




Whats wrong with skill curves? Skill is to be applauded, not tossed away.

There's no reason to put one preference over another if you're looking for getting people to have fun driving a tank. No one is forced to drive the vehicles so might as well make it the most efficient.

[Tasorin]

Bump

[Figment]

I would say a small 15mm-like front mounted machine gun (Bassilisk aiming style) should be tops for a driver of a heavy ground unit. Its gunner should control the turret and main firepower.

The whole point of a multicrew vehicle is to split up roles in order to make each more effective and efficient, yet without the other making them very vulnerable and inefficient. ie. splitting up jobs enhances and encourages teamwork best and reduces the frequent over the top I-myself-and-me mentality you saw amongst Mossy/Reaver users. Unfortunately it seems aircav is single crew again. Had hoped air units with the air to ground power of a PS1 Reaver would finally be dual crew units to get them in line with ground vehicles, rather than the other way around.

[Tasorin]

Bump to keep on first page...

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by Figment

I would say a small 15mm-like front mounted machine gun (Bassilisk aiming style) should be tops for a driver of a heavy ground unit. Its gunner should control the turret and main firepower.

The whole point of a multicrew vehicle is to split up roles in order to make each more effective and efficient, yet without the other making them very vulnerable and inefficient. ie. splitting up jobs enhances and encourages teamwork best and reduces the frequent over the top I-myself-and-me mentality you saw amongst Mossy/Reaver users. Unfortunately it seems aircav is single crew again. Had hoped air units with the air to ground power of a PS1 Reaver would finally be dual crew units to get them in line with ground vehicles, rather than the other way around.

Air cav isn't as bad as MBTs though, and never was. Air units are easier to destroy with even one AA platform on your side. I think they should have balanced the AA platforms better with each other, seeing as Flak was the ultimate AA weapon while the lock ons were annoying, they were less effective. MAX suits were by far the best source of AA fire, but the only way for the NC and VS to access Flak was either as infantry or through a vehicle.

And the Liberator is being remade into a gunship, there's your dedicated anti-ground multi-crewed heavy aircraft -happy panda- I think by comparison the ES fighters are going to be less capable of tank hunting and more capable of versatility as jacks-of-all-trades.

[Shogun]

my opinion:

ps1 driver/gunner system was great!

if you really have to change it, make it so that the driver can choose the driver/gunner setup but only as an option when drawing the tank. so this particular tank will stay at this setup until a new tank is drawn. this way there is no overpower issue and the drivers can use the system they like the most!
maybe even give 3 options!
driver has maingun
driver has secondary guncontrol
driver only, gunner has switchable controls over all guns

after all if you have the cert for a vehicle or invested time into a loadout, it´s fair that you can choose if you wanna gun, or how much control you give to your gunner.
i assume that still everybody can hop in as gunner, without certs. no certs needed but you have to take what the driver gives to you. just like it was with biffers!

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

Air cav isn't as bad as MBTs though, and never was. Air units are easier to destroy with even one AA platform on your side. I think they should have balanced the AA platforms better with each other, seeing as Flak was the ultimate AA weapon while the lock ons were annoying, they were less effective. MAX suits were by far the best source of AA fire, but the only way for the NC and VS to access Flak was either as infantry or through a vehicle.

As a Thunderer and Fury driver, I must disagree. With both I can easily handle any MBT, but even with a Deliverer aircraft (especially post-Reaver buff) cannot be dealt with properly.

While most AA platforms simply got overrun by aircraft due their numbers or - Flaklet - sheer lack of punch. I cannot recall a single time an AA MAX held off a resec team from a base. Either they simply spam it with Reavers or they bail on it and kill it, either way resulting in immediate air superiority. Now, I'm sure that'll be less prevalent in PS2 due to the amount of customization possible with any vehicle, but I still would have liked to see teamwork units over single player units. Also consider that AV was available everywhere and you always could hit it with EMPs, in contrast to the Aircav which you could not even reliably hit with your AV - especially as NC - let alone with EMP. On top of that, a camping vehicle can be jacked by a cloaker, camping aircraft can not. Aircav was way overpowered in contrast to ground vehicles, hence why you hardly even saw ground vehicles at some points in the game (until they finally got buffed again, only to be negated by the ridiculous Reaver armour buff).

And the Liberator is being remade into a gunship, there's your dedicated anti-ground multi-crewed heavy aircraft -happy panda- I think by comparison the ES fighters are going to be less capable of tank hunting and more capable of versatility as jacks-of-all-trades.

I don't consider Gunships a good thing. Liberators were fine because you could fight them. Galaxy Gunships ruined outdoor vehicle driving due to their sheer firepower with short TTK and hitpoints. As a Thunderer or Deliverer driver, you simply would die within 4 seconds with no hope of fighting back, not even hurting or escape. A Liberator you could duel and come out on top by sheer skill.

The ES fighters will likely be jack of all trades, but that was the Reaver as well and it did not get compensated in terms of firepower reduction. Quite the contrary. So no, I don't think being a jack of all trades is an incredibly good thing with the history of usualy implemented as being superior to dedicated platforms.

[acosmo]

Originally Posted by Coreldan

I don't think BFRs and MBTs can be compared even with this change. Tanks wont just suddenly fly into the air and to the nearest mountain when things get hairy. Also, I can't recall any MBT being even as close as durable as the BFRs were.

yeah i guess. but before BFRs, MBTs were the most powerful unit on the field. you couldn't take out a squadron of prowlers without a squadron of magriders or vanguards. after BFRs were implemented, the most powerful unit on the field only required one pilot to be effective. then the army of solo kiddies prevailed over the playerbase that relied on teamwork for victory.

the game lost most of its mmo social aspect because it was no longer practical to use vehicles that required a gunner/driver. One manned alternatives were almost always superior. one of the beautiful things about the old planetside was that the better the bond between driver and gunner, the more effective the tank was. no experience anywhere else rivals being a prowler driver in my outfit pre-bfr. 3 fully manned prowlers and 11 or so people in teamspeak (the other two as airsupport/mobile resupply). we would provide the heavy support where it was needed most and due to our coordination we would rarely ever lose tanks over the course of a couple hours. incoming air cav were called out and the 3 AA gunners would concentrate fire while drivers would maneuver evasively. enemy tanks were dealt with similarly. call me silly but the most exciting experience ever for me was being a prowler driver.

i worry when lone wolves prevail over coordinated teams.

[Figment]

This topic was just touched on PS forums and Brewko replied to it twice.

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps/po...id=88000028342

Tbh the marketing propaganda answer that it's a new game and we should just wait for beta does not instill faith for me, as it sounds a lot like the response we got when the 12mm Phantasm was about to be launched without any playtesting.

To me at least, these answers do not portray a vision of how gameplay mechanics should function in relation to others and thorough knowledge of how players choose, abuse and combine their equipment when given a choice. It's as if these things are designed without considering scenarios where you would have the option to use other things instead of that gunner position.

Which is basically true for every single minute in a game like PS (2).

Instead of manning an AA secondary weapon on a tank, I would get me a dedicated AA platform like a customized Lightning: more hitpoints, two targets, cover fire from a distance, flanking options, ambush options, better overview, dedicated weapons. ONLY if the secondary gun is so much more effective than a Lightning main AA weapon, would I ever consider manning the mbt's secondary gun for the secondary gun. But by then it sounds imbalanced and making the LIGHTNING almost redundant and that doesn't sound appealing either. :/ Either way, people will probably opt more often to use solo aircav instead of either Lightning or gunner position anyway.

I would really like to see a clear vision from the devs on this matter to be able to judge better, but I don't need to playtest to be able to make some predictions.



Devs: If people have the choice between full control and independency versus being a side-kick, especially in combinations with other advantages, they will always opt for this option after they realise it is the better use of manpower. The 15 mm seats on Prowler and Raider were not empty for no reason. The Raider failed hard under this concept of secondary and tertiary guns where solo options are far more flexible and stronger in terms of hitpoints, multi-targets, speed, etc and it made the TR extremely weak near water. Why repeat this mistake again and again?

[LongBow]

mhmm from the drivers POV yeh sure being your own gunner may have an appeal, but there is a teamwork to depending on someone else. Defending the tank is the drivers role as he controls position(and potentially a second weapon) while the gunner adds the offensive firepower.

I'm happy to let it see beta but I think its one of the changes that SOE are going to have to ensure they can implement.

[Traak]

Make the driver-gunned weapon the AA. And take away hover. Hover for planes adds nothing to the game, and takes a lot away.

Unless you add the ability to fly around like a plane to all the infantry, you know, for balance.

Planes that can stand still, ad infinitum, in the sky is ridiculous.

[Canaris]

ummm isn't PS2 & BFR is the same vote, driver/primary gun & gunner on auxillary?

[Death2All]

I prefer the PS1 style myself. The devs seem to have the inkling that all of us are in favor of letting Driver drive AND shoot, when in fact it's the complete opposite. I don't really see the point in letting the driver control the vehicle and the main gun...Of what point is it for you to have a gunner then?