Vertical stabilizer for vehicle turrets?

Azren · 2012-02-13, 04:30 AM

What are your thoughts on vertical stabilizers for vehicle turrets? Do you want them in game or not? Please write an explanation to your answere.

If you are unclear on what I mean; a vertical stabilizer would help the gunner keep aim while the vehicle moves up and down on obsticles. In PS 1 we have this system in most ground vehicles, but only for horizontal movement (for example, when a tank turns, your turret does not turn with it). Unlike in PS1, there would be a maximum speed at which the turret can adopt to the changes, so very rough terrain would still make aiming very hard.
How this would affect gameplay mostly is by enhancing the speed the vehicles can move while still being at their full potential.

Redshift · 2012-02-13, 04:32 AM

I went no, if your driver decides to drive over stupid terrain that's his own fault

DayOne · 2012-02-13, 04:35 AM

No stabilisers makes for realistic and interesting game play that means the driver has some responsibility rather than just getting from point A to point B.

Yes it's annoying over rough terrain so you NEED to slow down to shoot properly.

But if this method is used then turrets need as much movement as possible, 360 degrees if possible.

Edit: I know realism isn't a huge factor in this game but immersion is.

Azren · 2012-02-13, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by DayOne

No stabilisers makes for realistic and interesting game play that means the driver has some responsibility rather than just getting from point A to point B.

Vertical stabilizers are standard for all of today's tanks, this would not change in the future. Check this video for an example:

DayOne · 2012-02-13, 04:47 AM

I imagine if this were realistic then they'd have all manner of stabilizers on their vehicles. But that would be boring as hell.

Kaotc · 2012-02-13, 04:52 AM

No, the driver is gunning, so if he wants to shoot properly, he needs to drive properly.

its already to easy in the fact that the driver can gun his own turret, adding in aids for him doing so is a non-starter for me.

Shade Millith · 2012-02-13, 04:59 AM

The driver already guns himself. We don't need to make it any easier than it's already become.

ringring · 2012-02-13, 05:07 AM

Well the driver is the gunner. Also, the floating magrider has a softer ride meaning that no stable-izers hurt TR and NC more and possibly TR more than NC since the prowler is to become the fastest tank.

Even so, I voted no.

I suppose many things go together into the 'balance topic', namely how is easy is it to drive, how easy is it to gun, speed, armour, firepower (both in tank vs tank and tank vs other units on the battlefield) - and we won't know that for certain until beta and after a couple of balance passes.

*usual plea to not have self-gunning tanks

Azren · 2012-02-13, 05:31 AM

This topic should not be limited to tanks. Sunderers and the TBA buggies should also be part of the conversation.

I would like to see a turret stabilizing option as a possible sidegrade. Maybe as a "stabilization / turing speed" sidegrade.

I do agree with the above though. A self driven/gunned vehicle needs no such system, maybe make it exclusive for the guns which require a gunner?

Kaotc · 2012-02-13, 05:51 AM

i dont think secondary gunners are going to be affected any where near as much as the main gun, you hardly need stablisers on dual 15mm chainguns ontop of a tank, they move fast enough to be able to compensate manually.

AncientVanu · 2012-02-13, 06:00 AM

More like limited stabilization would be ok. The gun should not be completely stabilized, as that would make the gunner pretty deadly. On the other hand a complete lack of stabilization is terrible cause when the vehicles is on the move the gunner can't hit anything, you've seen the terrain in PS2, every little bump is going to make you miss big time.
Limited stabilization would mean the gun is stabilized but not dead on, the terrain still affects the aim and would require minor corrections but not as huge as when it has no stabilization at all.

DayOne · 2012-02-13, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by AncientVanu

More like limited stabilization would be ok. The gun should not be completely stabilized, as that would make the gunner pretty deadly. On the other hand a complete lack of stabilization is terrible cause when the vehicles is on the move the gunner can't hit anything, you've seen the terrain in PS2, every little bump is going to make you miss big time.
Limited stabilization would mean the gun is stabilized but not dead on, the terrain still affects the aim and would require minor corrections but not as huge as when it has no stabilization at all.

So minor dampening? Perhaps as a side grade?

Aractain · 2012-02-13, 06:13 AM

Sounds like a easy cert tree option to meeeee!

Gortha · 2012-02-13, 06:36 AM

No, i am against this.

This would take a lot of Skill out of the game.

I wonder why some of you don´t start polls about implementing aimbot in the game... lulz

Hmr85 · 2012-02-13, 07:02 AM

I voted no, the driver needs to pay attention to what he is doing and line his shot up for the gun.

View Poll Results: Vertical stabilizers for ground vehicles, yes or no? Explain below.
Yes	46	52.27%
No	42	47.73%
Voters: 88. You may not vote on this poll