Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2 - Page 17

NapalmEnima · 2011-09-27, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Azren

There seams to be an ongoing line of thought about the secondary gunner having AV capabilites. If you think such a thing would justify using a gunner instead of two tanks, you are sadly mistaken. Lets see what we have here:

1 tank has an armor of 100 points, and has a main gun that deals 20 damage, and a secondary gun that deals 20 damage aswell (would probably be much lower, but just for the argument's sake, lets make it 20 too).

now then, two tanks have an armor of 200 points, main guns that deal 20 damage each (20+20=40).

So what you are proposing would mean that the damage output is the same, however the armor value isn't. In a 2v1 fight the 2 tanks would always win.

You're forgetting the scenario where one of the tanks flanks the solo 2 seater and gets shots at more vulnerable armor. Not a given, but quite possible.

BUT, by the same token, you're forgetting the scenario where the 2-seater blows right past the two 1-seaters, giving its turret a free shot at one of their back-sides. This just might be a 1-shot kill, we don't know yet. And while the remaining two tanks are turning towards each other, the AV turret will probably get at least one more free shot on the side armor.

Ass-u-me-tions:
All three tanks get two shots off before the 2-seater passes the two 1-seaters.
Side shots do double damage
rear shots do x5 (insta kill) damage.

When the 2-seater passes the 2 1-seaters, it will have taken 80 damage. 1 of the 1-seaters will also have taken 80 damage. Now the turret gun puts a kill shot into the rear of the undamaged tank, killing it.

While the other one-seater is turning around, the gunner gets another shot at the side armor of the remaining tank, killing it as well.

Now that's a lot of "if"s and "maybe"s. But it is theoretically possible to create scenarios with numbers just as made-up as yours where a 2-seater comes out on top in straight up AV damage.

So its not all cut and dried, and in general the 2 tanks will be more survivable given straight-up direct damage G2G AV weapons... which is precisely why I suspect turret AV weaponry to be DIFFERENT.

Originally Posted by Azren

Lets see now about that other idea, about driving circles around one manned tanks and killing them with your gunner.
1 - if you drive around, you will not be able to shoot him, or be prepared to hit a tree or some small stone.
2 - your gunner will probably have much lower AV damage than the main gun does.

Which is it? Similar or much lower? Given Higby's "secondary guns are no joke" comment, I'd imagine that they'll be in the same ball park and perhaps even superior in specific circumstances. A beam weapon might beat out a cannon in DPS over the long haul because the cannon needs to reload while the beam doesn't. A rapid-fire missile weapon might be able to out-DPS a cannon in the short term but have lower DPS over time due to its long reload time.

Funky Weapons might open up strategic possibilities that simply aren't possible with the main guns. Shield leeches, immobilizers, blinders, indirect fire weapons.

Under the right circumstances a secondary weapon that was nothing but a targeting laser might be vastly superior to any single weapon a tank might carry, if only because there's several weapons of similar power at the ready waiting for a target.

Originally Posted by Azren

3 - your enemy will have much greater firepower than you, because he will be using the main gun

So what this all adds up to is: you either fight him face on, and probably win, or you drive around, trusting your gunner and you lose. So if you will fight him face-on anyway, why bother with gunner? Just roll two solo tanks and the poor guy will have no chance.

"Your enemy will have much greater firepower?" Not a given.

Further, the ability to not charge in headlong means you have a better chance at dodging shots entirely. The downside being shots that do land might not hit your frontal armor (ouchy).

Originally Posted by Azren

About that third idea, giving the driver the option to release the main gun to the gunner:
Just who in his right mind would give up more than 50% of the vehicle's firepower?

Someone with an enemy outside their normal firing arc. You put the main weapon in the turret, and your superior-in-some-undefined-way weapon has a 360 degree of fire. Tactical flexibility has value. Don't underestimate it.

Originally Posted by Azren

Just think about it, a gunner will not be able to shoot more than one gun at a time anyway, so giving him two guns is pointless, if you can use it yourself.

There really is only one way to balance this and please everyone: Make two types of tanks. Make a one manned variant where the driver gets the main gun, but has 65% less armor than the normal tank. Make a normal tank where the driver has no guns, but the gunner gets to use the main canon and a secondary one (if he wishes to).

There are lots of ways to balance this.

If a "secondary" AV does twice as much AV damage as the main gun, then straight up slugging matches are even.

If they are superior in specific situations (front loaded damage, remove options from the enemy), then the smart players will work to create those situations and kick the crap out of the Derps in the 1-seaters.

You can make A2G accessible enough that 1-seater tanks are just wheat to be mowed, with a survival time of 10 seconds outside air cover.

Your "just pull two tanks" argument also rests on the ability of both players being able to pull two tanks. There's going to be lots of other stuff to spend time and resources on.

A specialized tanker might have a specialized engineer as a gunner. What if that engineer has a cert that lets them passively repair the vehicle they're in? Or boost its shields? AND boost its shields? Given some prep time and CE, the enemy's "quick charge to an exposed flank" turns into "a dead tank in the middle of a mine field".

Lots of balancing options. You either don't want to see them because you hate the idea of 1-seater MBT existing, or you're just not bright enough to figure it out. I'll be kind and assume you're emotional rather than stupid.

Or I'm wrong. It happens.

But not very often.

**Malorn** · 2011-09-27, 12:52 PM

Your "just pull two tanks" argument also rests on the ability of both players being able to pull two tanks. There's going to be lots of other stuff to spend time and resources on.

Tanks without upgraded secondary weapons cost nothing. And we also know that on Day 1 anyone can drive a tank. Argument still quite valid. Thanks for playing.

NapalmEnima · 2011-09-27, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Tanks without upgraded secondary weapons cost nothing.

Some upgrades may have a large one-time cost to unlock while others need to be paid every time you install them. I suspect that the MBTs themselves will need to be unlocked with a fairly large resource price tag.

Originally Posted by Malorn

And we also know that on Day 1 anyone can drive a tank.

But we don't know that they're available in a freshly created character. I suspect not. Something one could earn with a couple hours dedicated to it, but there will be Many Other Things that are shiny and interesting too.

Originally Posted by Malorn

Argument still quite valid. Thanks for playing.

I disagree, and you're welcome. The only thing that'll settle this one way or the other is Word From On High (or beta, where we can see for ourselves).

We could ask TRay on Thursday's twitter chat. He might even tell us.

kaffis · 2011-09-27, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by sylphaen

Yup, something that has a specific function and is not adequately good at it will simply not be used.

The question for tanks and other vehicles will thus be : what is their intended role in PS2 ? Will they do it well ?

From the descriptions they've given, my guess is that their intended role is to be the weapon system of choice for an individual when attacking open space objectives. And that's it.

They're not meant to be a unique gameplay experience that requires coordination with others to be even fundamentally effective, offering solid performance, stand-out power, and a rewarding experience when you do so, as they were in PS1.

It's just another set of equipment. A MAX on wheels, if you will.

**Malorn** · 2011-09-27, 04:49 PM

Any sort of one-time cost, unless it is massive (takes more than a few days), will have little to no impact on the prevalence of vehicles we see. It will affect what you see on Day 1, but after a week or two zero impact.

If a 1-man tank is an effective killing machine then we will see a lot of them. If it isn't an effective killing machine then they'll be buffed until they are, otherwise you won't see many tanks at all.

Aractain · 2011-09-27, 07:17 PM

You sound like you don't want 1 man vehicles to be effective? Which would mean reavers and mossies would be worthless and not used.

**Malorn** · 2011-09-27, 07:34 PM

I want 2-man vehicles to reward teamwork and recognize the added risk and complexity in requiring 2 players to effectively run a vehicle. 1+1=3, that's the rough power translation. A 2 man vehicle should be 3x more effective at its role than a 1 man vehicle. Otherwise its more effective to just spam 1-man vehicles.

I am fine with 1 man vehicles, but you should get what you pay for. Lightning was a good balance with MBTs of PS1. Lighting was a 1-man tank, and if you knew how to drive it well you could do some great things. But it died pretty easily to a vanguard, mag, or prowler. That was the reward for teamwork.

If you want deathmatch Call of Duty is there for you. A great part of Planetsides epic feel and appeal is teamwork vehicles. Seeing those replaced by killwhore CoD/BF-style vehicles is not a good direction.

Azren · 2011-09-28, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by NapalmEnima

You're forgetting the scenario where one of the tanks flanks the solo 2 seater and gets shots at more vulnerable armor. Not a given, but quite possible.

There are scenarios where I can take out 3 vanguards in my lightining. Not a given, but quiet possible.

Seriously, balancing based on very specific scenarios is impossible, these are things that you make tactics based off, not what to look at while setting up core gameplay.

Originally Posted by NapalmEnima

BUT, by the same token, you're forgetting the scenario where the 2-seater blows right past the two 1-seaters, giving its turret a free shot at one of their back-sides.

Both of those driver only tanks will have rotatable turrets, and they will rotate and shoot you in the back just as you would them. Let's assume that your gunner has an AV weapon (if there will be such at all for a gunner), and let's assume that a tank dies from one hit in it's back. You would take out one of the solo tanks at best, but the other would kill you in return. That is in a 2v2 fight you and your gunner would die and only one of the enemy would die.

Originally Posted by NapalmEnima

Which is it? Similar or much lower? Given Higby's "secondary guns are no joke" comment, I'd imagine that they'll be in the same ball park and perhaps even superior in specific circumstances.

They are no joke, true, and AA gun on a tank is no joke if you are in a reaver, but AV? Nope...

Don't try to defend this concept, it was spawned from the same mindsat as jatpacks. In an interview they said something along the lines of "everybody loves jatpacks, so we added them. Appearently PS players are the only breed who don't...".
Same thing here, "everybody loves running around with tanks and shooting it's BIG guns, so we made them solo vehicles. Apperently PS players are the only breed who don't..."

It is a failed concept stolen from other, short term FPS games like the CoD and BF series, not something to defend or support by any means (if you want this game to last long, like PS 1 did that is)

cellinaire · 2011-09-28, 03:41 AM

1) let's first play beta and discuss more about this.

2) we still cannot know if this will be able to be averted/changed before launch date. I'm personally a bit worried, though.

3) Devs plz chime in again and say some more about this. =)

LostSoul · 2011-09-28, 06:14 AM

Maybe, just maybe, there will be another type of tank more powerful that doesn't give the driver any guns :o

Azren · 2011-09-28, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by cellinaire

1) let's first play beta and discuss more about this.

I'm afraid that is not good enough. This is a core gameplay issue, something that will not be changed after beta. They may remove/rebalance some guns, but this would take too much work. We need to make it clear to the devs that PS 1 style tanks are preferred, not the new nonsence concept.
The devs stated that beta will be a stress test mostly, basic gameplay will not be changed afterwards. Same with class system, anyone honestly thinks that it will be removed if we don't like it? It is a core part of the game by now, it would take too much redesigning to be changed, so it stays.

Draep · 2011-09-28, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by Azren

I'm afraid that is not good enough. This is a core gameplay issue, something that will not be changed after beta. They may remove/rebalance some guns, but this would take too much work. We need to make it clear to the devs that PS 1 style tanks are preferred, not the new nonsence concept.
The devs stated that beta will be a stress test mostly, basic gameplay will not be changed afterwards. Same with class system, anyone honestly thinks that it will be removed if we don't like it? It is a core part of the game by now, it would take too much redesigning to be changed, so it stays.

If anyone played APB, they would see the truth in this. APB beta changed nothing about the gameplay and therefore at launch, it was the exact same, broken game.

moosepoop · 2011-09-28, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Azren

I'm afraid that is not good enough. This is a core gameplay issue, something that will not be changed after beta. They may remove/rebalance some guns, but this would take too much work. We need to make it clear to the devs that PS 1 style tanks are preferred, not the new nonsence concept.
The devs stated that beta will be a stress test mostly, basic gameplay will not be changed afterwards. Same with class system, anyone honestly thinks that it will be removed if we don't like it? It is a core part of the game by now, it would take too much redesigning to be changed, so it stays.

THIS. wake up guys. if they actually go through with this the game is gonna die, fast.

Bags · 2011-09-28, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by moosepoop

THIS. wake up guys. if they actually go through with this the game is gonna die, fast.

Not sure if troll or just alarmist.

dsi · 2011-09-28, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Azren

I'm afraid that is not good enough. This is a core gameplay issue, something that will not be changed after beta. They may remove/rebalance some guns, but this would take too much work. We need to make it clear to the devs that PS 1 style tanks are preferred, not the new nonsence concept.
The devs stated that beta will be a stress test mostly, basic gameplay will not be changed afterwards. Same with class system, anyone honestly thinks that it will be removed if we don't like it? It is a core part of the game by now, it would take too much redesigning to be changed, so it stays.

This, the community has to be as vocal as possible about bad ideas like removal of a full inventory system and two man tanks, removing these things is taking out fundamental supports of the core of Planetside, teamwork.