MBTs - 3-man or 2-man - Discuss! - Page 6

ThGlump · 2012-03-17, 11:08 AM

Best idea ever. Anything that will take driver/gunner crap away. For those who really want it they can keep it, and balance it with slower (1/3) firerate - its hard to do 2 things at once as fast as one.

Tamas · 2012-03-17, 11:20 AM

I prefer how it works for example in BF3. The driver also controls the main gun, but can add an anti infantry machine gun or guided rockets etc. The gunner in PS2 would get the secondary gun which is also customizable. AA, AT, AI - or some defensive countermeasures etc.

In BF2142 - one tank had a rotating turret (EU forces) and the other had a fixed, but could hover. In most cases I preferred the hovering tank, as it was so flexible and the fixed turret was better actually for strafe dodging incoming fire - always only front exposed.

AncientVanu · 2012-03-17, 11:49 AM

I like the BF system the most. Driver fires main gun and gunner fires machine gun.

sylphaen · 2012-03-17, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Skitrel

No, it gives the choice without creating a paradox of choice, fewer choices means less choice paralysis. More choices means more possibility for choice regret, choice regret occurs when a person has the possibility of regretting said choice later down the line and even when a choice is a good one people still feel choice regret later down the line as there were many options.

The problem with applying the paradox of choice to player behaviour theory is in balance. Too much choice causes choice regret, negative emotions and ultimately a feeling of negativity despite a vast array of choices. It convolutes and confuses.

@Skitrel:
Planetside is not a RPG. It's not a game where making wrong choices is crippling like Everquest or Diablo. It will not force you to restart a new character because you chose the wrong stats or skill tree when your reached lvl10.

Choices in Planetside are not a source or grief, they are what the whole game is about !

You have access to all those classes and each one is specialized for a role. The whole game is about choosing the role you like playing or the class most appropriate to the challenges you expect to face during this spawn.

It's what all teamplay class-based FPS are about. Choosing the correct class at the correct time is part of the game. You should clearly regret choosing to pull a tank when you want to participate in a base-fight because that choice is terrible; however, if you pulled it because you had the foresight to prepare for next phase of the field war because the base is about to be taken, I do not see why you would regret it...

And if you play the class that you like the most rather than choosing flavors of the month, why should you ever regret it ? Choice regret is for min/max players or those people who suffer from "achievements disease" in WoW. It's more about obsessive behavior than gameplay options.

How could someone regret making a choice that will only be valid for the duration of a spawn ? Do you really suffer from "choice paralysis" when you are offered a class choice or vehicle choice ?

I see your point when it comes to F2P items that you buy or for which you spend points/cash. But when it comes for diversity of vehicles or diversity of classes or diversity of gameplay, I totally disagree.

PS1 offered a lot of vehicle designs with specialized roles. Yet it was hardly convoluted or confusing: you do not pull an Aurora to go Reaver hunting.

ThGlump · 2012-03-17, 12:02 PM

Come on with that bf style! How many interesting tank battles you see in bf? Tanks sitting in distance shooting, or moving in straight lines, stopping and killing around. Thats what i call static tank play, and its boring. Compare it to ps1 where tanks were mobile, you can hunt running tank for long time in high speed while shooting each other. Thats the power of dedicated driver, thats the gameplay we will lose without it. Give us 3 manned tanks.

sylphaen · 2012-03-17, 12:05 PM

On-topic:

I appreciate that devs are thinking about giving an option to the tank owners to specialize on driving and pick up a gunner.

EVILPIG · 2012-03-17, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by basti

Okay, more detail then:

Speed: W and S
Rotating the turret: Mouse
Strafe: A and D

Now, how do you turn the tank? add Q and E to the mix? Bu tthose keys are already used. Even if not, its a rather complex and new thing for the usual gamer these days.

Yes, in descend we managed, because it was us, the old breed. We were used to games being a challenge, to have them tell us something new, to learn from them. But todays gamer? Dont think they would understand, sadly.

You could put all movement on WADS and add that when you hold shift, A and D become strafes. It seems a fluid way of doing it. Would require some skill, but would not spread your fingers too thin.

Tatwi · 2012-03-17, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Bags

I'd be fine with it as an option.

It takes more players, but you get the added bonus of better control and main gun accuracy.

That's how I feel about a lot of the "stuff" in the game. If three (or more) people want to team up for something and divide up the available rolls amongst themselves, then a community based game like an MMO should give those players the tools to do so. It's kinda the point of the game.

As for a Driver/Gunner/Gunner tank specifically, I think it would something that would be "overpowered" when three good players are using it together, because each one could focus 100% on their given roll. I liked gunning in a Magrider, because I could focus on keeping the enemy in the cross hairs regardless of where we were going. Even though the driver also had a gun, I noticed that in a field/hill battle, most of the time he was focused on positional strategy - making sure I could fire and we weren't being killed. It's a fun dynamic and for the right person driving the tank is rewarding enough.

So to me, having a "driver only" spot as an option for a tank is something that I think lots of people would enjoy using.

Shogun · 2012-03-17, 12:35 PM

i really want an option to release the gunning and concentrate alone on driving! it just has to be in the game, because tank battles are really more dynamic this way.
keep the existing driver-maingunner/ secondary-gunner system for those who like bf tankstyle, but give the real good tank-crews the option to play it in an effective way.

i don´t know if it´s necessary to do this with a third person. just giving a customisation option to link all weapons to the gunnerseat rendering the driver defenceless if he has no gunner would do the job in my opinion. but if the devs think a third person has to be involved for some balancing reasons or whatever, i´m fine with that, too.
as long as we will get the option for dedicated driving in some way.

i never used the lightning at all because having to drive and gun at the same time was extremely hard to do. and when i rolled a vanguard to go hunt for lightnings, they almost never fought back in an effective way. they were almost everytime standing still while shooting back, or they ran away, shooting very inaccurate, not hitting anything. but hunting down one of the MBTs was always exciting because they could move and fire at the same time.

edit: when i talk about third person up there, i don´t mean 3rd p view but the third player slot

Coreldan · 2012-03-17, 12:37 PM

I think third person for dedicated driver would be cool. I mean, all he can do is drive, so it would at least be nice to be able to better dodge fe. rocks and stuff when going backwards, instead of being forced to basically a forward facing PoV.

Or have it optional too like in PS.

But yeah, I think if one dedicates himself as a driver, third person view to help making him as efficient as possible in driving is justified.

I think the "skill" in driving should be more about the combat positioning stuff, not so much if you are good at dodging trees and remembering where each rock is/was.

Figment · 2012-03-17, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Stop calling it a slippery slope. It is not.

I was hoping to have you define where the line is drawn between enough classes/choices/etc and not enough.

Because you did not aside from saying "more is not necessary" (which is a completely subjective opinion at this point, as you don't even know how many choices there are right now within these units).

By saying "less is more", you refered to a design philosophy without actually stating how it must be applied in this case. "Less is more" could be applied until there is nothing left. In practice, design is about retaining the absolute necessary and game design is about giving players options to work with. Fear of choice resulting in negative emotions etc is a rather... moot point as it has no content where it says "here is enough, that is too much, this is too little" and you left no room for discussion despite of that. You don't even know if you can undo made choices. If you mean this by selecting specific gear for instance and bringing the wrong load out, that leads to earning experience in making decisions and the next time you may choose differently.

Yet you drew some farreaching conclusions out of it. I'm sure you got a certain idea of how it's supposed to be and what you would or would not like to see, but as long as you don't convey it fully, there's little to argue with and it's subjective opinion and speculation.

One cannot argue with a point that is not actually made or only half made.

On top of that, choice paralysis has never strongly effected people in PlanetSide (recert option) and if they make a choice in PS2 they didn't like? Big deal, especially with the current setup, just get some more exp and unlock something else. I don't think the point you are trying to make is extremely valid and remains a bit too much in the realm of fearmongering.

igster · 2012-03-17, 01:40 PM

3 Man Tank Sidegrades
I saw the move to 2 man tanks in ps2 for all empires as a great leveller - I always felt that the TR were always penalised for having a 3 man tank that had to fight against 2 man tanks.

Dont forget that players themselves are resources and the more resources a tank consumes, the less resource is available elsewhere

If you have 20 people defending/attacking an objective and that it would be best to have some armour helping to defend that base what are the options
- 6 people in 3 tanks and 14 available for other types of defence/attack
- 6 people in 2 tanks and 14 available for other types of defence/attack
- 9 people in 3 tanks and 11 available for other types of defence/attack

The one thing about having an option to have a third person in a tank is the strength versus effectiveness ratio. A 3 person tank should be stronger than a 2 person tank. Because it takes more resources to operate that armour unit.

This is the issue at the moment with the prowler. 6 players would be stronger in 3 tanks than in 2 x 3 man tanks. The fully manned prowler is stronger, however, it is not so much stronger that it is worth losing the extra resource needed to gun it.

If all tanks have a 3 person option which is stronger are you then making a 3 tier tank grade with a light, medium tank and heavy tank? I thought that this was already covered with the 1 person light tank versus a 2 person main battle tank.

Keep it simple. If you want to make a heavy tank which is a 3 player strength, then make a similarly powered unit for all empires. heavy prowler, heavy vanguard and heavy magrider. It's a new class of tank with the appropriate strength to match the 3 resources needed to man it.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-17, 02:03 PM

I'm starting to lean towards the 2-man tanks.

1) Balance with aircraft. Aircraft population in PS2 got to the point of ridiculous and not a lot of ground to match it. Since aircraft are 1-seaters, making tanks 1-seater with the option of a second gunner helps balance out the populations. Resources can also do this, but I feel that as long as aircraft are 1-seaters they will always be preferred over tanks that require 2 players. You get more bang for your manpower investment. Manpower is a limited resource as well, and empires, squads, and outifts that manage manpower well will be more successful, just like any quantifiable resource in the game.

2) Resource risk vs reward. If I put in a significant amount of resources to pull a tricked out tank, it sucks if I'm relegated to being a chauffeur for someone else to reap the enjoyment of my resources.

(Galaxies and Sunderers may also have this problem but the deploy & heal/repair benefits might compensate for this by giving the driver some a higher score. If outfits have a bank-like system where they can allow members to withdraw from the outfit resource supply then it also reduces or eliminates this issue for those transport vehicles)

3) If 2-man or 3-man was an option, I don't think it would be an option that was utilized all that much. 3 players is a big investment in manpower resources, so I expect that it would be better to have a 2-man crew and let the 3rd player get another vehicle or go as heavy infantry with an ATV or something along those lines. The man power investment just doesn't seem to pan out if it's an option. I expect very few people will utilize the 3 man sidegrade.

ThGlump · 2012-03-17, 02:11 PM

Its still better than possibility of 1 manned tanks.

With 6 ppl:
driver/gunner
6x1manned - 6xmain gun, 6xHP
3x2manned - 3xmain gun, 3x secondary, 3xHP

dedicated driver
3x2manned - 3xmain gun, 3xHP
2x3manned - 2xmain gun, 2xsecondary, 2xHP

Taking gunned into driver/gunner tank brings almost no positive (3 secondary guns cant match 3 main gun). You could want AA, but you dont need it on all tanks in column so 1manned tanks will be common.

With dedicated driver and 3 seated tanks, both 2 manned and 3 manned tanks are acceptable, as 2 secondary guns could be compared to 1 main gun, but bringing more variety as theyre customizable. So only less overall HP is in favor 3 tanks.

Third person in prowler was a joke and used only if you had odd number of ppl. But if secondary weapons will be viable, there could be more 3manned tanks than 2manned this time.

So changing ALL tanks to 3 manned seems to be good idea. For those who want to drive and gun there will be lighting which will have almost same HP as a main tank so it wont be deathtrap this time. We dont need 2 different driver/gunner tanks

basti · 2012-03-17, 02:20 PM

why do you guys assume that there is only one way of doing things? Truth is, there could be a option to choose between a dedicated driver, or not. Means its up to the guy who pulls the tank if he wants to control the main gun or not.

and why do you assume that more people should mean more power? Quite the opposite, there should be absolutly no difference between a 3 manned tank and a 2 manned tank. Why? Because thats the entire point! Thats the very reason why we should have the option to have dedicated drivers. Because the thing that buffs a 3 man tank IS THE DRIVER!
Whoever assumes that they can drive and gun at the same time as good as they could just drive or just gun is a fool. Because you cant. Its literally impossible to drive into one direction, gun in another, plot your path, avoid obstacles and figure out how to best aim your shots ALL AT THE SAME TIME! If you dont believe me, play world of tanks.
Because of that, you quickly result into the only option you have: being somewhat stationary. You sit and shoot, then move, then sit and shoot again. Tanks would stop being actual tanks, and would become stationary turrets, and nothing else. This needs to be avoided at all costs. Otherwise the entire game would result in rather long and extremly boring camping wars.

And stop this idiotic math already, it has no place. You cant measure the effect a dedicated driver and a gunner have. Tanks should not be more powerful because of them.

and for those assuming that the optional 3 man tank wont be used that much: your wrong, VERY wrong.
Every vet will use them, as they know its the only way to have an effective tank
Every noob who wants to become a good driver will use them, as they learn rather quickly that you cannot drive and gun at the same time.

Besides that, the entire driver = gunner thing is a rather bad idea to begin with, as it causes a extremly big issue with the class system: Everyone can gun!
Means, because of the class system, everyone can grab a basic tank. Because of the driver=gunner thng, everyone would gun. Means you wont ever see people getting into infantary, because for what reason should they? They are faster in their vehicles, better protected, and have more firepower.