Poll on driver gunning

[Raymac]

I can't believe you people sometimes. Since when did a tank cannon become "jack of all trades"?

I flew a reaver alot in PS1, which is a vehicle where the driver controls the main gun. You know what is more powerful than a reaver? (besides an AA Max) 2 Reavers. Teamplay always trumps the rambos.

Plus, all you people keep ignoring the fact that the tanks have a second gunner spot. Then they are making the Sunderer passengers use their own guns. Nevermind the fact that they are giving outfit benefits which do a crap ton more to encourage team play than forcing someone to be your chauffeur.

Oh, but you expect me to believe the devs are destroying the very fabric of teamplay? C'mon, let's get back to reality here. You guys are waaaayyy over stating the impact of losing the designated driver while ignoring the addition of things like outfit benefits.

[Zulthus]

We are not talking about outfit benefits, we are talking about the driver/gunner situation. There is a big difference between a vehicle with a dedicated driver/gunner compared to two different vehicles with dedicated drivers. Some people prefer the former, and some people prefer the latter. That's why reavers, furies, lightings, etc. existed. They catered to both styles of gameplay in PS1. From what I'm hearing, the driver will be the main gunner in all vehicles as of now. I'm sure myself and many others prefer the gunner taking control as I can concentrate on avoiding enemy fire and giving them a good shot. Simply, it is more fun and more effective.

Also, just because the gunner gets a second seat doesn't change the issue here. While on this subject, I'd like to say that Tanks should not have any form of dedicated AA. They are meant to fight against infantry and other tanks, not aircraft. It should be rock-paper-scissors gameplay. I'm not sure I like the direction they're taking by removing the dedicated vehicles and making tanks the jack of all trades. I loved seeing diversity on the battlefield in PS1, with Skyguards meant for AA, MBTs for AV/AI, and jeeps/buggies mainly for AI. As of now it sounds like there are no Skyguards or buggies, just tanks that can have whatever they'd like on them.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Raymac

I can't believe you people sometimes. Since when did a tank cannon become "jack of all trades"?

Since they can outfit themselves with whatever weapon system they want, or combinations there of.

I flew a reaver alot in PS1, which is a vehicle where the driver controls the main gun. You know what is more powerful than a reaver? (besides an AA Max) 2 Reavers. Teamplay always trumps the rambos.

That's exactly the problem. What's better than one tank with two crew? The same tank, but two, with one crew, OR the same tank plus another unit that fulfils the role of the secondary gun.

Two driver tanks WILL beat one driver/gunner tank!

1 + 1 > 2!

Teamwork is as such redefined as teamwork being better between units than teamwork within units. That is going to be a major issue. If you can't see it, try doing some maths.

Plus, all you people keep ignoring the fact that the tanks have a second gunner spot. Then they are making the Sunderer passengers use their own guns. Nevermind the fact that they are giving outfit benefits which do a crap ton more to encourage team play than forcing someone to be your chauffeur.

You are ignoring that we have a very strong argument that states the second gunner spot is completely redundant in the new system. MATHS, learn it.

Oh, but you expect me to believe the devs are destroying the very fabric of teamplay? C'mon, let's get back to reality here. You guys are waaaayyy over stating the impact of losing the designated driver while ignoring the addition of things like outfit benefits.

Teamwork and interdependency within a unit will definitely largely be replaced by lone wolves who might now and then work together, because they can, rather than have to. This reduces social bonds between driver and gunner, because the driver will not see the need to at all times have a gunner and the gunner will feel there are more efficient ways to utilise his manpower.

To use your example of two Reavers: two Reavers will split up to go off on their own on a regular basis, bringing their firepower to different locations, even if they swarm now and then to attack the same target. Mainly because in this case there are no two men aircraft with significant benefits over two Reavers (PS1 MBT over two PS1 Lightnings, or two PS1 MBTs without either gunners or drivers). Having two in the same aircraft would be a far more social situation as you'd be forced to move together AND NEED EACHOTHER at all times to win an engagement. In every situation, you'd be completely dependent on eachother directly, there is no way you can come out on top on your own. Not just in situations where you need an extra Reaver, also in situations where you would have been able to cope alone. By giving the driver this gun, you create a situation where you CAN come out on top alone, thus lowering the need for a gunner. Which is further reduced because a gunner can now never be as effective as or more effective than a driver of a solo vehicle, in any circumstance.

Being dependent on one another is what defines a teamwork vehicle and the way gunners are reduced to optional extra accessories does not define teamwork and complete interdependency, at all. Quite the contrary.

You also don't seem to get that if you have a jack of all trades vehicle, (ie. customizable for any type of situation, even if it can only deal with one at a time), will remove any need for niche vehicles: dedicated weapon platforms. Or have you not noticed that the solo vehicle Lightning AA variant and the AA gunner option on MBTs has already completely removed the need for the addition of a teamvehicle like the two crew Skyguard? So again, two players in one AA vehicle become two players in seperate AA vehicles.

Understand the argument please before you reply. The two situations are very, very different. Unfortunately since you are a lone wolf, being a long time Reaver user, you may lack the understanding of a concept of intra-unit teamwork.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Figment

Since they can outfit themselves with whatever weapon system they want, or combinations there of.

Right, but you need the 2nd person for that, so it's not a "ONE MAN jack of all trades". And 1 tank can't have a set up that matches up against everything all at once.

Originally Posted by Figment

Two driver tanks WILL beat one driver/gunner tank!

First of all this is an assumption since we don't know the balance, but lets go with it for the sake of debate. Those 2 tank drivers will still need to coordinate in order to beat the 1 driver/gunner tank. Otherwise the driver/gunner tank will easily pick them off one at a time. Coordination = teamwork. Learn thesaurus. Don't give me that "learn math" bullshit.

And don't even try to sell me the garbage that the gunner seat will be useless and therefore totally unused. That is such a huge strawman fallacy that I don't even know where to begin.

Originally Posted by Figment

the AA gunner option on MBTs has already completely removed the need for the addition of a teamvehicle like the two crew Skyguard

Perhaps you don't understand, but the AA for MBTs is for the secondary gunner, not the main gun. So you will need a 2nd person for that. Unless you want to just park and switch seats, which I've seen Skyguards do.

Originally Posted by Figment

Unfortunately since you are a lone wolf, being a long time Reaver user, you may lack the understanding of a concept of intra-unit teamwork.

I'm going to try to ignore how douchey this personal attack is and just say that being a Reaver pilot doesn't make someone a lone wolf. Flying in organized squadrons or close air support or rapid response takes a considerable amount of coordination. It's not that I don't understand the concept of squad-based teamwork, as I'm sure you do. I just don't believe that removing the chauffeur is going to destroy the concept of teamwork, chicken little.

Now, if they took out squads, or platoons, or outfits, or chat, or the ability to use 3rd party or in-game voice chat, then yes I'd agree that the devs are hurting teamwork. However, removing the outdated mechanic of not just encouraging (which is what they are doing in PS2) but FORCING someone to drive somebody else around with their expensive tank cert is not going to destroy teamwork. That's an extremely alarmist point of view. God forbid you let the person who spent the cert points for the tank actually get to shoot the damn gun.

[Aractain]

This is starting to resembel the 'debate' about Guild Wars 2 and the removal of the forced dependancy of the holy trinity vs the idea of free form group builds. The wow classic lovers argue that because you don't need a dedicated healer and tank the increased responsibility of the other players results in less skillfull gameplay and less teamwork. Thats false.

I know that I had no 'social bonds' with the idiots in my gun when I drove MBTs alone. I do remember that flying with other people on voice was SO fun and had so much teamwork trying to take pressure off each other or baiting an enemy pilot so you could down him between you. Coordinated attacks on AA maxs etc, even just sharing intel about the threats and targets in the area.

The idea that two people in different tanks reduces teamwork is straight up bullshit. The idea that one player has to focus on a no fun role (subjective) so another player can have fun in the name of "teamwork" is just silly.

[Captain1nsaneo]

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Figment

And sorry Cutterjohn, but your opinion seems biased in the sense that you have absolute trust in devs. I honestly can't recall a single person who wanted a driver weapon for a tank, saying people wanted it would be a blatant lie. In fact, ALL people I've asked over Steam today (about 15) raised their eyebrow at the prospect and agreed they'd most probably use a secondary unit instead due to the same reasoning I provided.

I don't have absolute trust in the devs. I just have a lot more trust in them than random people on a forum. When you can convince someone with millions of dollars to fund your ideas, I'll trust you too.

This change is not my preference. I wanted the driver to have optional control of a weaker secondary turret, that he could control, or let a secondary gunner control. Picture a prowler where the driver could control that top turret, or grab a secondary gunner. His choice.

Since its not whats happening, I choose not to rail against the inevitable, and since I have yet to convince someone with millions of dollars that my ideas are superior, I will have to accept what I'm given.

The only reason one would still gun, was if that secondary gun was at least better in dot + armour loss compared to the alternative of using a secondary unit with a comparable or complementary weapon. The thing is, that the moment this secondary gun is THAT powerful, you have an overpowered weapon and a weapon platform that has too many roles. These agreeing people are some of the top brass from outfits like Mercenarys, Delta Triad, TRx, Risk and other respectable outfits that know how to optimize their firepower, endurance and TTK.

Only 1 reason? I'm disappointed.

-Better situational awareness. Extra eyes free from watching the road.
-Faster repairs. Cover while repairing.
-Ability for the driver to switch to concentrate fully on driving when in dire peril, while still having a gunner maintain fire.
-Ability to bring AA and AI weapons to the field. The driver weapon is poor at both.
-1 tank is cheaper than 2 tanks(You forgot about resources?)
-The tanker will just plain have a better tank than the grunt who did the minimum spec to get one.
-Because friends want to play together in the same vehicle.
-Because someone hates driving, didn't have time to grab a tank, happened to be around.

Its incredibly interesting, because you name drop a bunch of names I could care less about, and talk about maximizing power, yet you claim to have driven raiders and sunderers around for years... If you were interested in maximizing power, you picked the wrong vehicles. So. It seems, if 2 gunners will suck as much as you think, you'll do it anyway, because if you're willing to drive raiders and sunderers around, you care nothing for effectiveness.

I'm not saying the system can't work, I'm simply saying it'll be a social failure, a huge missed opportunity and a hell of a big problem to balance fairly compared to other units, next to it becoming completely impossible to add more dedicated platforms, because their semi-niche roles will have already been filled by two ground units.

The driver/gunner combo was not there to promote teamwork. It was a balance mechanism, limiting the power of the unit by requiring 2 people.

The class system and splitting up of weaponry types can for instance be a very good alternative to create a social interdependency context similar to BR20. As long as you can't change to each and every class each death or at every equip term, but still need some certs for instance. I wouldn't enjoy the idea of everyone in a base simultaneously deciding to grab a MAX unit, for instance. Role overlap creates both overpowered and imbalanced situations, as well as reduces the uniqueness of a player. And uniqueness, specialisms, that is what makes players appreciated.

Today just isn't your day. You can switch classes at terminals and on death.

As such I'm also going to be VERY critical about the cert / class system of PS2. If it leads to a BR40 situation, I'll heavily protest its implementation. Not just because it was in PS1, but because it will be extremely bad for general gameplay.

Irrelevant at this point. Its free to play. If they restrict what a character can do people will simply make alts, as higby has already stated the battlerank leveling time will be far shorter than training times.

Whats really going to bake your noodle is when you realize what that means for that 1 empire per server nonsense everyone spouts...

Good luck changing their business plan though.

[Figment]

I didn't drive Raiders, I drove Thunderers. You know, the APC with the power to kill Magriders. Something a fully manned Raider could barely pull off but need two more people for?


Manpower efficiency. Learn to appreciate it. Making units akin to the Raider is completely wasted development time. Making MBTs where the gunner is more powerful than the driver is not. Hence why I've already said before a small forward mounted AI weapon akin to a machine gun for the driver would be fine, as it would provide incentive to get into the gun to make sure the unit has firepower. But when doubling firepower is at all times better done by obtaining a second unit you can bet everyone will obtain a second unit instead when they can.

As for your arguments:

- Extra set of eyes is even more true for two seperate units since you look at things from another angle.
- Faster repairs and covering can be done with two units as well, since you'll take LESS damage with two units as the enemy cannot concentrate fire on both of you at once (try running one deli or three delis in PlanetSide and see how much damage you take when you split up the enemy's concentration and move in groups).
- The ability to half your firepower in danger is not really a good thing and not an advantage over two tanks, since they can do that too, but with more endurance.
- Resources can't be THAT limited that 500 players will have to make due with ONE tank.
- Speccing won't ever be an issue if you have dedicated players. You should know that by now. Cr5s were not intended to be 60 to 75% of the playerbase, they were after a couple years. Don't base balance on day one, base balance on day one to 5 years into the game or you are just ignorant.
- Friends - as some others noted above - will have no issue playing with two units as that can be VERY effective and fun too, while they ALSO get to go at it alone.
- Happening to be around doesn't happen when you plan on things, so basically you just came up with one reason: pick up randoms in the field. Great teamwork...



I'm rather confused why you claim you accept a decision already (already admit defeat) yet make this thread. If you want to make a change, you'll have to fight for it, garner support and make it noticed (see support from your poll for PS1 gunning). Assuming nothing can change especially prior to beta will provide no incentives for devs to change things.


"This just isn't your day" is an incredibly stupid thing to say, as I know about their plans and that's why I am warning for them now and provide constructive critique on how they can prevent that sort of bull from happening and also WHY they should prevent that from happening. If you don't but just accept it in advance, you'll have a VERY hard time combatting poor balance later.

Like the overkill of MAXes and aircav campers we had in PS at certain points in the game, until they changed some things or provided new tools to fix that at least to some extend (Flaklet for instance, powerless as it was in many cases). THAT is what feedback is for and can do.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Figment

I didn't drive Raiders, I drove Thunderers. You know, the APC with the power to kill Magriders. Something a fully manned Raider could barely pull off but need two more people for?

Still doesn't explain the sunderer.

- Extra set of eyes is even more true for two seperate units since you look at things from another angle.

But you can't look behind you very good. You think those turrets are going to track like the lightnings did?

- Faster repairs and covering can be done with two units as well, since you'll take LESS damage with two units as the enemy cannot concentrate fire on both of you at once (try running one deli or three delis in PlanetSide and see how much damage you take when you split up the enemy's concentration and move in groups).

Fair point, except if you have AA on the tank.

- The ability to half your firepower in danger is not really a good thing and not an advantage over two tanks, since they can do that too, but with more endurance.

Its better than your solo tanks ability to do zero damage when running from danger. Ever chased a lightning?

- Resources can't be THAT limited that 500 players will have to make due with ONE tank.

Sure. But it doesn't mean they'll want to waste money on it either. And I doubt the resources will be so meaningless that you can pull anything you want at all times.

- Speccing won't ever be an issue if you have dedicated players. You should know that by now. Cr5s were not intended to be 60 to 75% of the playerbase, they were after a couple years. Don't base balance on day one, base balance on day one to 5 years into the game or you are just ignorant.

They waved around figures as high as 'over a year' for maxing out a single skill tree. I'm not going to complain about people being BR40ish after 5 or 10 years anyway. I would prefer no BRs or training at all, to be perfectly honest. Such things don't belong in FPSs. I'll deal.

- Friends - as some others noted above - will have no issue playing with two units as that can be VERY effective and fun too, while they ALSO get to go at it alone.

Right. So? Now they can do it with two tanks, or one. Both will be effective, but at different things. 2 may have an edge in certain cases at pure AV work. 1 will obviously be more effective at AI and AA.

- Happening to be around doesn't happen when you plan on things, so basically you just came up with one reason: pick up randoms in the field. Great teamwork...

Guess how a large percentage of ps1 played, and how all people played when nobody else was around.

I'm rather confused why you claim you accept a decision already (already admit defeat) yet make this thread. If you want to make a change, you'll have to fight for it, garner support and make it noticed (see support from your poll for PS1 gunning). Assuming nothing can change especially prior to beta will provide no incentives for devs to change things.

I made a thread so they could see peoples preferences. I expected absolutely nothing to come of it, but what else are we supposed to do on the forum of a game thats not released yet except argue?

[Figment]

@Raymac: It was not an insult, you simply "grew up" in PlanetSide as a living example of what I'm talking about will probably happen with these units: you prefer a single man, jack of all trades, superior advantages (flight firepower etc) vehicle with complete personal control, which can ALSO be used in teams, rather than HAVING to be used in teams.

However, I was wrong to say you couldn't understand, because you should have been thoroughly aware of why you picked that over a two seater, beyond the flight advantages. You are not a Liberator pilot, as you well know you can single handedly take those down and three Reaver pilots are far more effective than one Liberator crew and can do the same things and then some with less risk to yourself as they may target someone else first. Unfortunately though, you are not very aware of the reasoning behind the choices you made. I certainly hope you realise you had more reason to cert Reaver specificaly than "I wanted to be a fighter pilot because it was cool" in comparison to both the Mosquito and Liberator.



And yes, AA on such a tank as secondary GUNNER is pointless if you could have brought a seperate AA dedicated vehicle. I never said the driver handled anything but the primary gun in this new system, I did say I'd prefer it if it handled a tertiary limited use front mounted gun, rather than either the primary or secondary gun INSTEAD. The driver should stay away from the turret completely IMO. So please read more careful.


@Cutterjohn: The Sunderer (old one) was a really under appreciated vehicle. It had a much lower profile than Galaxies, had mine sweeping capacity (we used suicide Sunderers to clear a path for a second Sunderer full of troops or used it as a mobile shield when crossing bridges - which of course became a fastly superior and more commonly employed tactic with the EMP blast). With the old Sunderer, you could already kill a MBT mathematically (killed 6 Magriders, 4 Prowlers and one stolen Vanguard in such direct confrontations, simply through superior driving and making them think they could exploit the 75 mms dead angle, while I knew how to keep those trained on them: drive sideways on hills). Especially when you had no tech, a Sunderer was a decent alternative to a Thunderer and Deliverer when both were on a timer.

Post-buff, we took out aircraft such as Reavers with its new 20mm guns, used it as mobile turrets, hunted BFRs, blew up minefields, gen drops and took on and out a lot more tanks and enemy positions than before.

In fact, you probably don't know that a Sunderer at full speed (especially after movin down hill) can move half a grid under water before it comes to a full stop? Meaning you can actualy get to the other side of certain rivers without taking damage due to the water shield. So yeah, we employed it as submarine transports too at times.

So let me ask you why you never considered using the Sunderer with 10 men including just two gunners? Prefered to use five to ten vehicles instead per chance?



You say it's better than two solo tanks fleeing. I disagree: If you split up and circle back you can create an encirclement situation where the hunter becomes the hunted and gets pounded from two directions while - assuming it is the same vehicle for train of thought - that unit only has half health. So when his single unit dies, both guns stop firing. If one of you dies, the other lives on to either continue the fight or to get back to safety. Two single man tanks using the same equipment as one two crew tank will take approximately 2/3s damage at most due to DoT + Endurance.

I'm going to disagree again because of the added effect of endurance, two units with each a half of the firepower will always be superior to one unit. Perhaps we have to agree to disagree, but I would recommend you to look up calculations regarding the Raider (5 crew) vs two Delivers (2 + 3 crew) discussion on the old forums and why it makes Raiders have no niche of its own at all.

Picking up randoms as gunners made them about 15% as effective as gunners you play with on a daily basis. They don't communicate effectively, they give away your position early, they have bad targeting priorities, they don't understand your goals and they brought the wrong equipment and thus can't help with repairs. These randoms are usualy lower ranked troops, often beginners too, since most every veteran has his own unit and own group of players to work with on a daily basis. I would never recommend picking up token gunners because too often it doesn't work out and they're far more effective when playing in their own vehicles. Still often underperforming, but at least they work according to a plan within their own vehicle. I'm however talking about appropriate and efficient use of manpower in this discussion and regarding regular (daily basis) teams. Those teams will soon realise they're better of specialising in their own units than to gun for others.

The time to max out a tree is not very interesting as it will happen for multiple trees over time and people will always have an optimum vehicle and weapon for themselves (likely a better choice over gunning). As such it is a temporary limit at best.



Although this is another discussion enirely, jack of all trades is about what you can use at any one point in time, particularly when you change gear. A lot of people often argument that you can't use everything in one lifetime, but that is a shortsighted argument since people respawn. It'd be great and they might have a point if there wasn't such a thing as respawning and that a fight does not end after a single engagement. These people think in single encounters. Think of it as thinking in a single battle instead of a war, as such it is terribly shortsighted. Being always able to bring the rock to the scissor fight yourself after you realise paper is not going to work, is not going to make you be as dependent on others as a lot of players would want (BR20 situation). For instance, you can bring paper and string to the fight or the fight aftermath after you beat scissors with rock.


You don't use all options on a suiss knife at once either, do you? That'd be silly. Still doesn't mean a suiss army knife is not far superior in long term survival than each of its options being available separately!


I'm sure though that since classes can't use all certs at once in PS2 (iirc) then you'll at least not get people who have the option to at all times have inherent skills such as expert/data corruption hacker, or other combinations such as advanced medic + assault/fort engineer + HA + uniMAX + CE + Mossie/Reaver + tanks immediately, but IMO they should not always have access to anything else 2 minutes later either just because they could switch to any class without limitations. The people who argue that you only have one thing at all times forget that you can optimize your weaponry for the coming fight and aftermath at all times and thus never need to be in a dependent position for long.


A very good example in PS1 of why it was bad was that if you have expert hacking as an inherent skill because you could always afford it or got it free. You used to be unlikely to have full assault force and needed to work with some others to take a CC during BR20 - people needed YOU low powered, fast hacking, to secure the facility while they covered you because you reseced faster than them. If they could open a term and get adv. hack there and then, they'd not need you, they'd do it themselves: teamwork requirement reduced severely. You are now better off doing full assault as well and see about who is first to grab a REK later. Very different from protecting your specific guy with that skill to get to that CC in time. The new situation is rather "we could care less who does it or dies, because we pretty much all can fix the situation".

If you died, it meant a hack or resecure would take a minute and the enemy could respawn once or twice to try and prevent it from happening. Now? You can't kill just the advanced hacker user to get that time, since everyone is expert hacker (even faster) and they resecure or hack so fast that you can't even spawn before the hack has gone through and they moved from CC to spawn area. The flow and duration of gameplay changed completely through one single thing people coud now do as well. On top of that, you got to face radar virals every base, instead say every 1 in 50 battles because others could not afford it. Such situations shoud be avoided in PS2, because one of the main gameplay elements is holding a control point and fighting over it back and forth till there is a winner - not just one push and it's over.

I honestly can't believe certain people still wouldn't get that. :/

[acosmo]

i believe i speak for everyone who is against the planned model when i say that i just want a game where social interaction and teamwork are just as powerful and important as pure skill in the effectiveness of a unit.

if this can be achieved then it doesn't really matter who has to fire the big gun.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Figment

@Raymac: It was not an insult, you simply "grew up" in PlanetSide as a living example of what I'm talking about will probably happen with these units: you prefer a single man, jack of all trades, superior advantages (flight firepower etc) vehicle with complete personal control, which can ALSO be used in teams, rather than HAVING to be used in teams.

However, I was wrong to say you couldn't understand, because you should have been thoroughly aware of why you picked that over a two seater, beyond the flight advantages. You are not a Liberator pilot, as you well know you can single handedly take those down and three Reaver pilots are far more effective than one Liberator crew and can do the same things and then some with less risk to yourself as they may target someone else first. Unfortunately though, you are not very aware of the reasoning behind the choices you made. I certainly hope you realise you had more reason to cert Reaver specificaly than "I wanted to be a fighter pilot because it was cool" in comparison to both the Mosquito and Liberator.



And yes, AA on such a tank as secondary GUNNER is pointless if you could have brought a seperate AA dedicated vehicle. I never said the driver handled anything but the primary gun in this new system, I did say I'd prefer it if it handled a tertiary limited use front mounted gun, rather than either the primary or secondary gun INSTEAD. The driver should stay away from the turret completely IMO. So please read more careful.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting you know the reasons why I chose to fly a reaver better than I do? Damn, anybody ever tell you what a massive ego you have?

Besides, your point about liberators kind of destroy your own original arguement. If 3 Reavers are more powerful than 1 Liberator, than by your rationale of solo tanks making driver/gunners obsolete, we would never ever see Liberators in PS1. Well, every time I've logged on, I've seen plenty of Libs, so that's a pretty good sign that you don't need to worry about driver/gunner tanks being extinct. Thanks for single handedly destroying your arguement for me.

And for the love of Tebow, can you stop with the "learn to read" and "learn math" childish bullshit? Your myth of having the option to attach a secondary AA gun on a tank would be pointless with a dedicated AA vehicle is just plain false. 1 quick situation is self survival for the tank against air. Plus, what is this mythical 1-man AA vehicle you are referring to? An AA Max? Or are you trying to say that another 2 man skyguard w/ a dedicated chauffeur would render 1 AA gunner in a tank pointless? Because even with my (according to you) retarded math skills, I can see a flaw with that theory.

Deeper customization of weapons and vehicles is a really cool improvement on Planetside 1. I can understand not liking any changes to the original Planetside. If it ain't broke in your opinion, then don't fix it. That's understandable. What's over the top is trying to argue that this minor change will be the death of teamwork.

Personally, I'd prefer to have an option to allow players to be a dedicated driver if they so choose, and I can't really see why that shouldn't be implented, but it hasn't been yet so I'm clearly missing something. Maybe it's balance, maybe it's an issue with the engine. I just don't know but there must be a reason other than "the devs want to kill teamwork and only have solo rambo killwhores".

[acosmo]

Originally Posted by Raymac

Personally, I'd prefer to have an option to allow players to be a dedicated driver if they so choose, and I can't really see why that shouldn't be implented, but it hasn't been yet so I'm clearly missing something. Maybe it's balance, maybe it's an issue with the engine.

beyond all the griping i think this something we all agree on.

I just don't know but there must be a reason other than "the devs want to kill teamwork and only have solo rambo killwhores".

what scares me is that we haven't received any rationale other than that today's gamers are too individualistic and socially inept to deal with the original driver gunner paradigm (hence outmoded).

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Raymac

I'm sorry, are you suggesting you know the reasons why I chose to fly a reaver better than I do? Damn, anybody ever tell you what a massive ego you have?

Yes on both accounts.

Besides, your point about liberators kind of destroy your own original arguement. If 3 Reavers are more powerful than 1 Liberator, than by your rationale of solo tanks making driver/gunners obsolete, we would never ever see Liberators in PS1. Well, every time I've logged on, I've seen plenty of Libs, so that's a pretty good sign that you don't need to worry about driver/gunner tanks being extinct. Thanks for single handedly destroying your arguement for me.

Not at all.

Are you argueing that there are as many Liberators as there are Reavers and Mosquitos? Or would you agree that Liberators are more for the hobbyist and often end up as two men teams (pilot + bomber)? Per chance with a one aircav escort?

Have you also noticed how many of those Liberators have just a pilot and use the massive armour of the Liberator for solo play?

Oh snap.

And for the love of Tebow, can you stop with the "learn to read" and "learn math" childish bullshit? Your myth of having the option to attach a secondary AA gun on a tank would be pointless with a dedicated AA vehicle is just plain false. 1 quick situation is self survival for the tank against air. Plus, what is this mythical 1-man AA vehicle you are referring to? An AA Max? Or are you trying to say that another 2 man skyguard w/ a dedicated chauffeur would render 1 AA gunner in a tank pointless? Because even with my (according to you) retarded math skills, I can see a flaw with that theory.

PlanetSide 2 will have Lightnings that fulfill the Skyguard role as they can be equiped with AA weapons, AI weapons OR AV weapons. They are thus one man dedicated AA platforms when equiped with AA guns, much as a heavy tank would equip his gunner slot with AA. They would fulfill the same role and then the question is which do you get? Since both have the same role, require one man, but the Lightning has its own hitpoints, its own maneuvring seperate from the main tank to get in an optimal position and some other advantages, there is no reason to pick the tank gunner position over the Lightning.

Similarly, why would one pick an Enforcer if you can get two Reavers? Or a Marauder if you can pick three? Acquisition rules are the only thing that stops you from getting a Reaver and as such Enforcers were rarely seen at all. Doesn't mean there are none, just that they won't be in use as much as intended as players have better ways to get TTK.

That's basically wasting development time on underused and rather inefficient features simply because one does not understand player mentality. And with all due respect for their enthusiasm, they don't seem to.

Deeper customization of weapons and vehicles is a really cool improvement on Planetside 1. I can understand not liking any changes to the original Planetside. If it ain't broke in your opinion, then don't fix it. That's understandable. What's over the top is trying to argue that this minor change will be the death of teamwork.

It's not at all about it being changed from PS1, it's about it being changed for the worse in comparison to PS1. 'Cool' as it may be, 'cool' does not balance things out. it reduces if not outright removes the need for dedicated units because you can make any unit into a dedicated unit and will probably be able to change it at the touch of a button at some sort of console, just like a BFR at a Repair Pad.

Personally, I'd prefer to have an option to allow players to be a dedicated driver if they so choose, and I can't really see why that shouldn't be implented, but it hasn't been yet so I'm clearly missing something. Maybe it's balance, maybe it's an issue with the engine. I just don't know but there must be a reason other than "the devs want to kill teamwork and only have solo rambo killwhores".

No, the devs want to give drivers something to do other than drive because they apparently feel there was a need for that. It's a simple design decision that can be changed at ANY POINT IN TIME, because it only requests some input from somewhere. I personally don't and never will see the need for a driver to control a turret if someone else has to sit in the back as a token player.

Btw, I never said they want to kill teamwork, just that they're not aware that they are by creating very big incentives to NOT use teamvehicles to full potential as they create other more attractive alternatives. These alternatives happen to be solo oriented.

When I saw the new Reaver for the first time, I was delighted to see what I thought was a two seater that reminded of an Apache. I was very disappointed to learn it was just another ground unit farming vehicle that could be fully modified to attack whatever you want. ie. another jack of all trades, again. I had hope the devs had learned from the huge outrage about Br40, but everything suggests they have not and since they are taking specific solo-attitude features from other games they are are contributing to the overall trends in gaming and society I described earlier.

Whether or not they realise that.

[xSlideShow]

Originally Posted by Figment

Have you also noticed how many of those Liberators have just a pilot and use the massive armour of the Liberator for solo play?

Well to be fair, it's still not a good vehicle even on it's own.

They would fulfill the same role and then the question is which do you get? Since both have the same role, require one man, but the Lightning has its own hitpoints, its own maneuvring seperate from the main tank to get in an optimal position and some other advantages, there is no reason to pick the tank gunner position over the Lightning.

Other than if since the lightning dies so quickly that the extra armor from the tank proves better in, big group situations. And in some small group situations. I bet a liberator can slay a lightning this time around. Also for those who really like teamplay there is still the lib. It's going to be a lot better and good at kill ground.

Maybe that's kinda the team play tank. Just your in the air. Still a tank.