MBTs - 3-man or 2-man - Discuss!

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by Warhound

Umm cant you still have teamwork with the one man vehicles? Ya know kinda like coordinating your efforts with people in other vehicles? I dont see how one man tanks take away any teamwork aspect at all, instead of coordinating within a vehicle(You still would if you had someone manning the secondary) you're just working with multiple vehicles.

Besides it would seem that if this was implemented wouldn't the multicrewed tanks run the the strong risk of being vastly outnumbered in an armored engagement? I mean sure you can spend the time and get people to multicrew some tanks but I mean for the price of one fully crewed tank you could have three one man tanks. Quantity always seems to trump quality.

Did you play PS1?

[Warhound]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

Did you play PS1?

Very fleetingly but to answer your question, yes.

[Malorn]

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:

• We will see a lot more tanks. This is great. Unless tanks are resource-expensive, in which case it might not matter.
  
• I think one problem of PS1 was that not enough people pulled tanks because you needed a gunner and people didn't want to invest in certs or pull a tank so someone else could reap the benefit and fun.
  
• Since tanks probably cost resources, giving the driver the ability to gun seems like justice and would result in more tanks overall. If you're going to spend some hard-earned resources, why not get some value out of it?

For the 3-man argument there are some good benefits too..

• It gives the lightning more defined role since it would effectively become the 1-man tank option. The ATV/Quad (what name did they settle on?) also has increased value if the person pulling the vehicle is just using it for transit from point A to point B. With the 2-man design I question the value of the lightning - why pull one if you can get a bigger, better MBT?
  
• It allows the MBTs to be stronger. They have to be if you have more people and roughly the same firepower. So it is more rewarding in a sense to form up a tank crew if you know that your MBT will make a bigger difference than say a Lightning. Having dedicated tank crews that are more durable and make a bigger difference justifies the extra manpower and makes that tank more valuable. I liked being a key part of a tank crew in PS1 knowing that we were making a difference because our tank was helping push back the enemy. If I had the option of gunning or simply driving but having a better tank, I would choose the latter.

I used to be solidly in the dedicated-driver camp, but I see clear tradeoffs. It's not black & white to me anymore.

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I lacked statistics a long time ago to make a conclusion. I got the impression VS leaned toward a swivel turret (10 vs 7), but the NC and TR liked the VS having a fixed turret (7 vs 5).

Would you like if the TR's prowler switched to a fixed turret? That's what they did to the VS tank. Or do you only like it for the VS?

Hover tank can strafe, effectively that means they can dodge incoming. No other tank can do that. Fixed turret is the balance for it.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Hover tank can strafe, effectively that means they can dodge incoming. No other tank can do that. Fixed turret is the balance for it.

That's why I'm for a slow strafe with dual hover tracks like in this image I pasted earlier:

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.

[Westy543]

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.

[Malorn]

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.

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

That's why I'm for a slow strafe with dual hover tracks like in this image I pasted earlier:
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.

It's not a penalty at all, it can move in all directions, it can aim in one direction while moving in other directions just like any other tank can, with the added benefit of not having to turn to change in any direction. The only difference is the visual.

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.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Malorn

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.

Someone not up for the challenge could use a 3rd person and focus on driving. Same concept is open for drivers of the NC and TR tanks. It's only fair that it be an option for the VS.

Originally Posted by Malorn

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.

This forces the player to do that. It's not a choice. This also assumes that strafing is more beneficial than say driving horizontally like the NC and TR tanks which might cover more ground and be harder to hit.

Originally Posted by Malorn

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.

But it totally destroys the concept of ever having 3 gunners for all the tanks. This is unacceptable as a VS player. Unlocking the top turret only benefits the game. There's literally no disadvantage for a Magrider user if the gun is unlocked and balanced around behaving like the NC and TR tank. This will just turn into the same issue of the prowler having 3 guns and the developers trying to balance things in hindsight around a poor design choice leaving the other factions extremely different.

Originally Posted by Skitrel

It's not a penalty at all, it can move in all directions, it can aim in one direction while moving in other directions just like any other tank can, with the added benefit of not having to turn to change in any direction. The only difference is the visual.

Explain why it's a negative, given that all tanks right now in the game have their turrets controlled by drivers.

Can't have 3 drivers. Can't choose where to aim and where to shield one's weaksides. You're forced to aim the front of the tank at the enemy. It removes a lack of choice simplifying the Magrider's gameplay. Not that a laser doesn't do that already enough.

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.

[dsi]

One-manned MBTs have no place in a teamwork focused game. Lightnings fill the "alone & need something that can assist in armored movements fast" niche perfectly. (and are also fine IFVs)

[CutterJohn]

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.

[Roradan]

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

[Coreldan]

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

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Can't have 3 drivers. Can't choose where to aim and where to shield one's weaksides. You're forced to aim the front of the tank at the enemy. It removes a lack of choice simplifying the Magrider's gameplay. Not that a laser doesn't do that already enough.

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.

You are overthinking and arguing for the sake of arguing. These aren't factors, any competent driver is aware of his surroundings enough to do both at once.

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.

[Coreldan]

Originally Posted by Warhound

I mean sure you can spend the time and get people to multicrew some tanks but I mean for the price of one fully crewed tank you could have three one man tanks. Quantity always seems to trump quality.

Such armor column with only a drivergunner in it would get quite easily raped by air and infantry. The main turrets are fairly inefficient against infantry now and you can't most likely do shit when Raymac comes bombing you with his Reaver.

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