Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: No purchase neccesary.
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
2012-03-17, 01:35 AM | [Ignore Me] #16 | |||
Colonel
|
|
|||
|
2012-03-17, 01:46 AM | [Ignore Me] #18 | ||
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
I didn't want to pollute the OP with opinion and keep it to just the facts, so I'll give some of my own thoughts now.
I'm a bit torn. I see the value of each, and I was a huge proponent of the 1+1=3 thing. For the 2-man argument, I see the following advantages:
For the 3-man argument there are some good benefits too..
I used to be solidly in the dedicated-driver camp, but I see clear tradeoffs. It's not black & white to me anymore. |
||
|
2012-03-17, 01:47 AM | [Ignore Me] #19 | |||
|
||||
|
2012-03-17, 02:02 AM | [Ignore Me] #20 | |||
Colonel
|
You could I don't know make the turret rotate slower as a penalty for allowing strafe. Don't fix the turret in place. That's a huge change. Tons of variables to play with, yet they fixed the turret. I can't comprehend how that went through someone's head after they saw the NC and TR tanks.
__________________
[Thoughts and Ideas on the Direction of Planetside 2] |
|||
|
2012-03-17, 02:06 AM | [Ignore Me] #21 | ||
Private
|
The magrider isn't gonna have a rotating turret? Well that seems silly. I would imagine a fixed turret for more of a tank destroyer type loadout (high damage little/no splash).
Just have strafing bound to separate keys- it's worked okay in other games. Still, the fixed turret thing isn't a complete gamebreaker, it worked okay in Battlefield 2142 and the Nekomata stood up to the A8 Tiger just fine.
__________________
Jimmyn from PS1. | Check out the daily deals anywhere from my Twitter! |
||
|
2012-03-17, 02:11 AM | [Ignore Me] #22 | ||
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
The mag having a fixed turret makes sense to me.
1) Strafing, turning, and having a rotating turret is a lot for one person to manage, fixing one of those helps, and the turret is the one that makes the most sense to fix. 2) By having a fixed turret the mag drivers are going to be very likely to be facing their targets, and since tank armor is the thickest in the front they can more easily keep their strongest armored side facing the enemy. I see the fixed turret as a benefit both from a usability perspective and a gameplay perspective. Being able to keep front armor facing the target is a huge advantage and will help compensate for any armor difference that the mag has compared to other tanks. It also enables the mag to take more frontal armor as its defensive upgrade and have even more protection. |
||
|
2012-03-17, 02:18 AM | [Ignore Me] #23 | |||
Explain why it's a negative, given that all tanks right now in the game have their turrets controlled by drivers. It works perfectly fine in Halo, it has absolutely no negative to it, there is nothing wrong with it. Last edited by Skitrel; 2012-03-17 at 02:19 AM. |
||||
|
2012-03-17, 02:25 AM | [Ignore Me] #24 | ||||||
Colonel
|
That and suddenly you can't fit through two close trees because you have to face your enemy. A prowler has no problem racing through trees facing forward. Suddenly the Magrider is gimped in that environment because of a lack of foresight.
__________________
[Thoughts and Ideas on the Direction of Planetside 2] Last edited by Sirisian; 2012-03-17 at 02:30 AM. |
||||||
|
2012-03-17, 02:53 AM | [Ignore Me] #26 | ||
Colonel
|
I'm all for optional 1, 2, or 3 man.
1 man a: Driver controls primary weapon. 1 man b: Driver controls secondary weapon(I only support this if they have to return to base to change weapons. Giving them both the av primary and AA or AI secondary is too powerful for a one man vehicle) 2 man A: Driver controls primary, gunner controls secondary 2 man b: Driver controls secondary, gunner controls primary 2 man c: Driver controls nothing, gunner controls both(not at the same time) 2 man d: Driver controls nothing, gunner controls an optional turret with only one gun and no coax. 3 man a: same as above with a passenger 3 man b: Driver controls nothing, both gunners control guns. A tiny little widget on the tank screen could easily control who controls what. Upsides: Everyone is happy. Due to the lack of animations, adding the third seat is easy. Downsides: A bit more confusing. Have to rework the magrider. More difficult to balance. And finally, a personal perspective. I generally run with small to tiny guilds/corps. There were plenty of days in PS1 there were only 3 of us on. The only vehicle we could pull, however, was a lib or deli. We weren't much for aircav, so the lib was out, and delis were never all that great as combat vehicles. On those days, we were highly jealous of the prowlers(and sometimes just defected to TR to run them). Basically, allowing it to be 3man lets you work with odd numbers better. If you have 2, you take a tank. If you have 4, you take two tanks. If you have 3 or 5, you have to work in some other 3 man vehicle. Doable, but not ideal. So yes, higby, devs, please please please do this! Give us the option! PS: If balance is a concern, i.e. that it would be incredibly difficult to balance the vehicles hitpoints to support 1, 2 or 3 man operation, I bet most people here would accept a quite arbitrary boost in hitpoints/shields/absorption or whatever. Just sprinkle in some technobabble about the extra guys controlling defensive systems or something. Last edited by CutterJohn; 2012-03-17 at 03:04 AM. |
||
|
2012-03-17, 03:00 AM | [Ignore Me] #27 | ||
Corporal
|
i like the three man tank even tho i only filled it half the time because i knew i had anti air without losing my fire power or having to switch over to a second smaller gun to scare off the flying bug's but i see the point on losing man power mybe it should be a upgrade thing if wanted you can have three instead of two
|
||
|
2012-03-17, 03:02 AM | [Ignore Me] #28 | ||
Colonel
|
Hmmh, not sure how attractive it's gonna be for majority to "waste" one guy into driving when you don't have to. I too would've preferred the old system, but as long as it's not forced upon us, I dont think it'll be too preferred.
With a third guy you can already get another maingunned Vanny But definitely not a bad idea, options are never bad. On the other hand, sometimes driving and gunning can be easier at the same time than having two different people do it. Mainly with people though who don't work that well together or the driver is fairly bad
__________________
Last edited by Coreldan; 2012-03-17 at 03:06 AM. |
||
|
2012-03-17, 03:24 AM | [Ignore Me] #29 | |||
The prowler has exactly the same problem, every tank currently has primary controlled by driver. The prowler driver can't see forwards while shooting sideways, therefore it is still EXACTLY the same effect as the Magrider guy not being able to see sideways (the direction he's moving in) while shooting forwards. There is no negative because all the tanks have the same deal. It's just a visual difference, as I mentioned previously. |
||||
|
2012-03-17, 03:32 AM | [Ignore Me] #30 | |||
Colonel
|
So basically, the quantity > quality would probably be right, but only against another armor column (supposing they didnt go for AV in the secondary guns, in which case it gets more even, but they are equally vulnerable to air and infantry). Cos we know that a Vanguard will need a direct hit on infantry to one shot, the splash damage this time around is fairly nonexistant. Sure, that's still a one hit, but without splash damage it's a whole other ballpark, really. I may not be 3 manning my tanks, but I will have a secondary gunner every time if barely possible with what we know now. I guess it might change once we actually get to play, but my head as it is now doesnt support one man MBTs
__________________
|
|||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|