Poll on driver gunning

[moosepoop]

Originally Posted by Azren

You mean the PS 1 magrider model?

yes. also like the mg on the ww2 panzer tanks.

[Headrattle]

Well, I just lost hope for this game. Have a good time guys. They had some good ideas, but they seem intent on taking this in a direction that I don't like.

[Malorn]

Aside from the distraction with various options, it seems pretty clear from the PS1 to PS2 comparison that people prefer PS1 method over the PS2 method by a significant margin.

I'd like to see a poll where only those two options exist so we can get a larger sample size on just that topic.

[Trolltaxi]

Driving an MBT without the option of firing required a bit of sacrifice from the gunner. It encouraged teamplay but while the gunner invested a lot of cert points (2+1 for Armoured Assault 2 + at least 3 for engi) and he was the driver with the least fun in the veichle.

If the driver gets a weak secondary cannon (even wiht a small arc facing forward) he can at least fire at something, or mark a target. But assigning main cannon would make an awful experience to gun for anyone. Just imagine, you get a secondary cannon (AA seeems ok, unless you already have air superiority, or a mortar wiht its indirect fire, so you don't even see what you hit). So you are locked to the small cannon and the driver is having all the fun, untill he flees, fire backwards and tries to climb the Ultimate Enemy (aka. tree)...

D may be a lot of codework, BFR-ish seems ok for me.

[Trolltaxi]

Originally Posted by Trolltaxi

Driving an MBT without the option of firing required a bit of sacrifice from the gunner. It encouraged teamplay but while the gunner invested a lot of cert points (2+1 for Armoured Assault 2 + at least 3 for engi) and he was the driver with the least fun in the veichle.

If the driver gets a weak secondary cannon (even wiht a small arc facing forward) he can at least fire at something, or mark a target. But assigning main cannon would make an awful experience to gun for anyone. Just imagine, you get a secondary cannon (AA seeems ok, unless you already have air superiority, or a mortar wiht its indirect fire, so you don't even see what you hit). So you are locked to the small cannon and the driver is having all the fun, untill he flees, fire backwards and tries to climb the Ultimate Enemy (aka. tree)...

D may be a lot of codework, BFR-ish seems ok for me.

And @Liberty: PS1 vets wont be able to power the game, it will need loads of players - players from other shooters, and in general I think they are way more trigger-happy than we are. You can't explain a 12 year old, that he will be doing all the work, and his gunner will get all the fun. They want (rather: WANT) POWA'!!!!444!!!4444fourfour...

[Malorn]

BFR-ish and the PS2 method are essentially the same thing except the driver has main gun options in the BFR design.

[NapalmEnima]

Another argument to throw into the ring for the whole 1-seat vs 2-seat MBTs:

Maybe their design goal isn't to balance two gunnerless tanks against a single tank with a gunner?

Planetside is all about Combined Arms. And an MBT with no gunner will have Significantly Reduce Options when some A2G or AV troops (with effective cover) show up.

So even if 2 1-seat MBTs really can clean the clock of a single MBT with a gunner, maybe that's OK.

1: SOE can design the secondary AV weapons to make it even or better than 2 1-seat MBTs (in general or in specific conditions).
2: SOE may choose not to for Perfectly Valid Reasons.

Tanks zipping around on their own are going to take a lot of hits to the sides from infantry AV (either dedicated AV class, or something like an under-slung rocklet launcher on an assault rifle) with no way to respond. Exposed troops might be easy meat, but a little prep time and some cover could turn the tables.

Tanks zipping around on their own are going to get Et Up by Reavers (and possibly liberators, though bombing a moving tank can be tough).

So if gunner-less MBTs become common, Reavers could become common for all those easy, high-value kills. It's potentially a self-balancing "ecosystem". Ditto for AV troops, particularly if its possible to one-shot kill a tank in the rear. Hide, let'em drive by, murder.

So either way, I'm not all that worried.

[Haro]

I personally think PS1 is the best way to go, though I can understand why they want to have a driver in control of the main gun. I found it difficult to find people willing to take me and others on as gunners. Still, I have fairly bad memories of tanks in BF2 being very powerful. Similar for the halo games, if you give a one man tank to someone who knows how to drive it, it becomes a problem.

That said, however, if PS1's style were to come back, I think the lightning or equivalent should get vastly buffed. It was nearly useless, in my personal experiences, because the vast majority of ground vehicles actually grossly outgunned it.

So maybe driver as gunner tanks will represent that role, and they put in an even heavier tank that has a separate main gunner.

One think I'm waiting to hear though is how tank damage is handled. If PS2 style control is put into PS1 health pools (unlikely) then it's a terrible decision, but if the vehicles are much easier to destroy, I think it could work. One thing I remember from BF games is that most people would not consistently go AT unless an enemy tank was a real threat, because most of the fighting was still infantry based. In planetside, however, I think AT will be more rewarding because you won't have just one or two tanks a team, but dozens or more.

So I'd say we should wait for Beta to make final judgements, and be aware that just because we have one tank that uses a main gun for the driver, that does not mean we can't have a tank that has a dedicated gunner.

[kaffis]

I have this queasy feeling that the impetus behind this design decision is to support the statements like "We think joining up with an armored company and seeing an armor column stretching out to your clipping plane" or whatever it was in PCMag, by halving the manpower required to make such events occur.

However, this seems like a terrible idea to me, because the reason that's "a gaming experience to tell your grandchildren about" or whatever, isn't because OMG THERE'S SO MANY TNAKS!!!!

It's because there's so many people involved in such a teamwork focused mode of play.

I still say, let the guy with the cert decide whether he wants to drive or gun, but don't let anybody, cert or no, do both in an MBT.

[NewSith]

/bump

Poll results only prove the point about driver gunning.
Teamplay > Unisoldier

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by NewSith

/bump

Poll results only prove the point about driver gunning.
Teamplay > Unisoldier

Remember it's biased by veterans that have gotten used to the inferior system. This is a problem with change when people get used to something even if it isn't as good as a new proposed system.

[dsi]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Remember it's biased by veterans that have gotten used to the inferior system. This is a problem with change when people get used to something even if it isn't as good as a new proposed system.

Wait what, one man tanking wasn't in PS1...

Oh wait....

If this is a teamwork oriented game it will have team tanking, if it is a teamwork optional game it won't have team tanking, as simple as that.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Remember it's biased by veterans that have gotten used to the inferior system. This is a problem with change when people get used to something even if it isn't as good as a new proposed system.

IMHO that only works if you only play PlanetSide and no other games. But BF, (old) CoD, Crysis and a variety of some not-so-famous titles had shown me that this "change" is no good.

Originally Posted by dsi

Wait what, one man tanking wasn't in PS1...

Oh wait....

If this is a teamwork oriented game it will have team tanking, if it is a teamwork optional game it won't have team tanking, as simple as that.

Quoting Higby:
"We're planning to make this game more teamwork based, that's why we've added classes and removed inventory system that allowed for universal soldiers."

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Remember it's biased by veterans that have gotten used to the inferior system. This is a problem with change when people get used to something even if it isn't as good as a new proposed system.

Or please list several reasons as to why it has been proven (as a fact) to be inferior. It's getting way too old hearing that argument without having reasons as to why you think that way.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Headrattle

Well, I just lost hope for this game. Have a good time guys. They had some good ideas, but they seem intent on taking this in a direction that I don't like.

The game is always going to take a direction one or many people dont like, people have to remember, while PS1 maybe the majority on these forums they will not be the majority of planetside 2 players, all going well I would expect us to be a minor few.

I dont really see the problem with a driver having control of the main AV gun, so somebody gets to have abit more fun in the tank instead of been some derp who paid 5 cert points for a tank and gets no kills. teamwork going on the window? 1 tank with a single AV gun on a slow turret traverse speed is a sitting duck, it will need infantry support, another tank supporting it or it will need a secondary gunner on AI to kill the hordes of infantry coming at it. *gasp teamwork* If BF3 is anything to go off, the secondary gunner wont be lacking kills.