Driver/Gunners... NO! - Page 48

Flaropri · 2012-07-16, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by Azren

Debates end when we find a solution both sides can agree on. That is what I posted in the idea vault (was actually suggested several times in this thread).

My point was that debates won't end if people fail to compromise or fail to acknowledge (not necessarily agree mind) what the argument is actually about, which people often do both in this thread an elsewhere.

Nothing constructive was posted here for the last 20 pages, I think it is time to end the debate and talk of the solution's details.

Hey! I posted constructively! Well... sometimes...

I think the Idea forum threads are a better place to discuss details (though I wish they'd only had one thread instead of two), but I also think we still lack too many details and will continue to until at least 2-3 iterations into Beta to really work on specific details instead of just concept.

KaB · 2012-07-16, 02:23 PM

vVRedOctoberVv you should edit your first post adding a list of ideas and constructive arguments which have been already said again and again, so we can say to any further replies "see first post" if it's been already said, or "we dont care about your life bro" when it comes to be a personal experience absolutely unable to convince anyone, like "I dont want it because I dont lke it" (I dont say it's forbidden, but we'll invite you to clarify it in order to make it more convincing).

fod · 2012-07-16, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

Unified Driver/gunner works well in numerous other games.
This game was designed with unified driver/gunner in mind.
Team-play minded individuals are given an additional configurable crew slot that enhances the tank's lethality and, presumably, survivability.

It's really that simple. You don't have to like any of those points, but they are all, in fact, true.

1 separate driver gunner works well in ps1 which is closer to ps2 than any other games

2 can game designs not change? (see killcam) and would giving us an option to play the way we like (choice of driver/gunner OR dedicated driver and dedicated gunner) really change the balance or break anything? no it will not

3 yes this is true but it doesnt help with pure tank driving those "Team-play minded individuals" like to concentrate on a single task what they can do well (drive or gun main cannon) and this has been taken away which cannot be replaced with a 2nd weapon

maradine · 2012-07-16, 05:40 PM

Hey man, I already said I'd like it both ways

fod · 2012-07-16, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

Hey man, I already said I'd like it both ways

ahh sorry i missed that
i want options for both ways also

(not against driver/gunner but im against it ONLY being that way)

Furber · 2012-07-17, 01:48 AM

For the sake of the game, I really hope they allow both ways. The balancing can be sorted out in beta, that's part of what beta's for.

Xeller · 2012-07-17, 01:53 AM

Please forgive me if this has already been said, but I don't want to shift through the previous 700+ posts.

I believe the compromise is that people who want to do a driver/gunner configuration have the Lightning, and those who want to do a tactical driver plus gunner configuration has the main battle tank. This was how it was in PS1 and I think it worked really well. My concern is that the driver/gunner option was added in PS2 to add accessibility to new players. The REXO being able to drive closed vehicles is another example of this.

Azren · 2012-07-17, 02:06 AM

If you want the option to use a driver-only MBT, support the suggestion in my signature.

Xyntech · 2012-07-17, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by Xeller

I believe the compromise is that people who want to do a driver/gunner configuration have the Lightning, and those who want to do a tactical driver plus gunner configuration has the main battle tank. This was how it was in PS1 and I think it worked really well. My concern is that the driver/gunner option was added in PS2 to add accessibility to new players. The REXO being able to drive closed vehicles is another example of this.

The point about the Lightning is a fair one, but the point about rexo is not.

There is no rexo in Planetside 2, end of line, period.

HA is not really PS2's version of Rexo beyond some superficial similarities. HA is a class that is balanced against the other classes. HA has not been shown to be a superior AA or AV platform like the MAX, and therefor there is currently no reason to exclude it from driving. If HA can't drive, than neither should LA or Engi, because those look to be pretty effective combat classes in their own right as well.

But back on topic, I think that the main reason they are going with driver controlled main guns on MBT's is that without a gun to control, tank drivers don't have that much to do. I'm not knocking the PS1 system which I actually prefer, but the control scheme for MBT's in the first game is kind of light.

Compare MBT's to something like the Liberator (in both games). Flying uses up all of your mouse and keyboard movement controls and is a lot more engaging to fly, yet the Liberator also gets a nose gun for the driver to control on top of all of that. I think they just want to bring MBT's up to Liberator standards.

In some ways, this subject is going to come down largely to how effective the secondary guns are. Obviously AA guns will be powerful air defense, but if the guided AV rockets end up being even more powerful against vehicles than the drivers main cannon, we may end up with solo MBT's who universally get slaughtered compared to tanks that either protect themselves further from aircraft or infantry, or who are extra devastating in tank vs tank battles with a secondary AV weapon.

I'm assuming the developers aren't oblivious on the MBT vs Lightning issue, so for the time being I'm going to assume that there are going to be legitimate power and resource reasons why you would want to either bring 2 people in one MBT instead of 2 solo MBT's, or just bring a Lightning or two instead. For me, until I get in game and see otherwise, I'm going to assume it will be balanced out by various factors. Either the system is totally broken and they'll have to fix it, or it will work pretty well and there will be nothing to worry about.

In my opinion, the debate over solo-able vs mandatory 2 man MBT's is entirely about personal preference. The preference of some tank drivers to put all of their focus into driving, and not having to worry about shooting, or losing combat effectiveness because they aren't shooting.

In regards to the subject as a matter of personal preference, I think that a sidegrade to unlock dedicated driving which releases the main gun to the gunner would be perfect, especially if the cert increased the power of the main gun to compensate for the loss of extra firepower. It wouldn't be a balance issue as long as the regular MBT's are still much better with 2 people than one, it would just be a gameplay preference thing.

This is why I think it will work fine to have driver gunned MBT's be the default option, with a dedicated driver sidegrade being a short way into the customization tree. Remember that players can put cert points into one area while playing in another, so if you absolutely refuse to ever get into a driver gunned MBT, you can just wait a little while and dump all of your cert points into unlocking the dedicated driver sidegrade before starting to drive your MBT.

Figment · 2012-07-17, 03:48 AM

No Xyntech, it's not fine to give out an optional driver=gunner for the same unit others can use with one person or even two persons less.

This is simply not fair.

Anyone suggesting it is doesn't understand manpower is a resource a group of players can never adjust. Putting self imposed limitations on unit numbers without getting something substantial in return is simply unfair to players that want to work together in this particular manner (and no, driving maneuvrability is NOT worth it ALONE).

It is a playstyle preference, but any compromise where the solo unit ends up more powerful in numbers plays favourites for solo players and makes teamwork the stepchild. That is not a compromise that is acceptable. It is either solo or teamwork. NEVER both, UNLESS you put much greater constraints on the solo player: something like a solo mag that can't strafe, solo tanks can only fire forwards. That would be fair towards team vehicles, but not for solo mbt users wrt lightning users, nor fun or logical or even implementable.

Give a unit a separate shield (each worth 100% tank armour) for every player that is inside and you get somewhere. Balance has to be done per player, not just per tank and then add x players to the exact same unit. You can't balance the exact same unit for various amounts of crews. You can't!

I'm however very sad that the main reason for this decision in a MMO is egocentric selfishness and has nothing to do with providing healthy game play nor catering to various groups of players and is even based on fear and incompetence argumentation that underestimates all players on the premise of the incompetence or rather, laziness of a minority that 'can't find a gunner' and cries murder over having to find a gunner to use a really powerful, instant kill weapon.

Disgusting attitude, absolutely detestful, but now SOEs core fps target group. Hooray.

This decision only considers one target group who already had been catered to wealthily. This is utterly retarded from the perspective of teamwork, social and dynamic (quality) game play and community building.

It is one in a string of design decisions I not just dislike, but dread. Because it indicates what we can expect in the future: more ill-thoughtout design decisions to please noobs who never learned to participate in the community properly. Yes noobs, because anyone with a half decent outfit or even half decent driving and communication skills has never had problems with finding and working together with gunners.

If you had, consider you may have been doing things wrong, it is not always down to the game to simplify itself just because you can't cope!

This IS therefor dumbing down the game, simply because bad team players are being rewarded at the expense of team players.

Anyone okay with that can sod off to EA games afaic.

Xyntech · 2012-07-17, 04:24 AM

Remember back in the first Planetside? Remember how you could fly a Liberator solo, just using it's 35mm cannon to shoot at people?

I do. I've done it several times and it's always a lot of fun. It could actually be pretty effective as well (haven't recerted it in years, so I can't speak of more recent changes).

But whenever I did that, I was nowhere near as effective as when my Liberator was fully crewed, and I got chewed up and spit out by solo Reavers and Mosquitos too.

There's no need to be so dramatic about it. There is plenty of room for MBT balance to go in either direction, where it's dumbed down and imbalanced compared to Lightnings and 2 man MBT's, or where it's well balanced and all options are viable in their own way. Certainly there is room to speculate on how it could turn out for the worst, but there are also plenty of ways where driver controlled main guns on MBT's get incorporated naturally and fluidly into a balanced Planetside 2.

The problem the dev team is addressing is that tanks are meant to be combat vehicles not logistical vehicles like the Galaxy and Sunderer, and simply driving around doesn't feel particularly engaging to a lot of players the way that both driving and shooting at the same time does.

It's a matter of taste, pure and simple, and if there is a way to balance it to have both options, then everybody wins. If there is no way to balance it, I would default to supporting dedicated drivers being mandatory, but I think it's ridiculously narrow minded to think there's no middle ground available, especially when it has already worked for another multi-crew vehicle in the first Planetside.

If it requires giving dedicated driver certed MBT's a more powerful main gun and more armor, or giving gunner turrets on the current PS2 style MBT's access to ridiculously powerful AV guns, so be it. I really don't think it's going to be that hard to strike a good balance.

StumpyTheOzzie · 2012-07-17, 04:35 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

That's a questionable claim if you get more of an advantage by not filling them. Which IMO very unfortunately, the current system seems to do.

Meaning if you can run with all your tanks gunnerless and be better for it, you will. The perks of having them gun needs to outweigh the perks of not having them gun. Currently, they do not seem to.

Whatever happens, I'm going to assume that like any gamer, you'll go with whatever makes your group the most effective and exploit the game's systems in a legit manner to the utmost efficiency.

The way we play, 3 full tanks in tight formation will make a neater hole in the enemy than 9 spread out tanks which won't have as clean lines of fire to the target. 3 tanks lined up over 30m will be able to bring more guns to bear on the same target than 9 all spread out over 90m, unless the terrain is billiard table flat. The 3 "professional" drivers we have can keep tighter and neater formations if they don't have to worry about gunning too.

In addition, 3 tanks are easier to wrangle around. You can run at higher speeds easier than 9 tanks. Turns, wheels and point rotations are easier to accomplish. Calling out targets and distances are more clearly defined. Point's 2 o'clock is more likely to be everyone's 2 o'clock. If you have too many tanks all over the shop, calling 2 o'clock isn't as accurate.

You can run away easier while maintaining fire.

You can probably repair faster.

If your column is destroyed, you can get back into it faster at lesser resource cost.

If you are attacked by air or infantry you can fight back.

KaB · 2012-07-17, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by Xyntech

Remember back in the first Planetside? Remember how you could fly a Liberator solo, just using it's 35mm cannon to shoot at people?

I do. I've done it several times and it's always a lot of fun. It could actually be pretty effective as well (haven't recerted it in years, so I can't speak of more recent changes).

But whenever I did that, I was nowhere near as effective as when my Liberator was fully crewed, and I got chewed up and spit out by solo Reavers and Mosquitos too.

That's fun because I dont remember the planes' pilots could control and aim the gun like we can do in tanks, which mean in a different direction than the vehicles' direction.
If it wasnt the case I invite you to stop being an idiot and return back to the main subject : the tanks.

Xyntech · 2012-07-17, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by KaB

That's fun because I dont remember the planes' pilots could control and aim the gun like we can do in tanks, which mean in a different direction than the vehicles' direction.
If it wasnt the case I invite you to stop being an idiot and return back to the main subject : the tanks.

The PS2 Magrider can only aim in the direction that the vehicle is pointing as well, and the Liberator is perfectly capable of strafing. Considering that the Magrider will be balanced to be comparable to the other two MBT's despite this difference in control scheme, I'd say that the analogy is pretty appropriate.

The Liberator is a multi-crew vehicle which is at its best with multiple people, but which can also be used as a solo platform. The analogy isn't really meant to go any further than that, but that's far enough. Obviously there are a lot of different balancing concerns with a land vehicle versus an air vehicle, such as the fact that a tank driver can switch to a gunner seat without worrying about his aircraft falling out of the sky, but most of that shit can get sorted out in the details.

The point still stands, that we have first hand evidence from the original Planetside itself. You can absolutely have a multi-crew vehicle that can be effective solo, but that is still nowhere near as effective as the same vehicle with a full crew.

MBT's in Planetside 2 just need to find a way to strike that same balance as Liberators from Planetside 1, or else they will absolutely be stupidly imbalanced as solo capable vehicles.

Figment · 2012-07-17, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by Xyntech

Remember back in the first Planetside? Remember how you could fly a Liberator solo, just using it's 35mm cannon to shoot at people?

I do. I've done it several times and it's always a lot of fun. It could actually be pretty effective as well (haven't recerted it in years, so I can't speak of more recent changes).

But whenever I did that, I was nowhere near as effective as when my Liberator was fully crewed, and I got chewed up and spit out by solo Reavers and Mosquitos too.

I believe I made that argument before, but indicated this is primarily because a Liberator's multi-crew role differs and for solo aircav there are simply better options.

The comparison falls flat there for the MBT, because the Lightning is not the better solo option for for instance AV and since the main gun DOES instantly kill infantry, it's questionable if it's better for AI. At close range turret rotation speed may be important, but at longer ranges (over 40 meters) it's rather irrelevant since the sideways speed of infantry will only make for a few degrees/second rotational speed need. So honestly, that's more of a situational advantage than a clear-cut advantage.

There's no need to be so dramatic about it. There is plenty of room for MBT balance to go in either direction, where it's dumbed down and imbalanced compared to Lightnings and 2 man MBT's, or where it's well balanced and all options are viable in their own way. Certainly there is room to speculate on how it could turn out for the worst, but there are also plenty of ways where driver controlled main guns on MBT's get incorporated naturally and fluidly into a balanced Planetside 2.

ONLY if they're treated as they should be treated: on their own merits. Not on the basis of the same unit being fully operable (as in, combat effective) with a different amount of crew.

The problem the dev team is addressing is that tanks are meant to be combat vehicles not logistical vehicles like the Galaxy and Sunderer, and simply driving around doesn't feel particularly engaging to a lot of players the way that both driving and shooting at the same time does.

Bull, as MANY HAVE SAID BEFORE, that playstyle is well provided for so to argue every combat vehicle HAS to have that is absolute bullox. Look at PS1, look at how long this thread is. It's a complete myth propelled by people who only care for solo play. There are players who like to drive and gun and there are players who just like to drive or just like to gun. PROVIDE GAME PLAY FOR ALL OF THEM BY CREATING UNITS SPECIFICALLY FOR EACH GROUP OF THESE PLAYERS. And the first group has plenty of those. They don't need 100% of the combat units! If they don't care for the driver only units, so what!? DON'T USE THEM THEN.

Nowhere does it say that only transportation units should have multiple crewmembers to be worthwhile. In fact, this whole setup makes transportation units LESS interesting because you provide players with more options to do things on their own and be independent from another driver.

That has always been the main reason people didn't jump into Galaxies or Sunderers. Being able to do things alone.

It's like public transportation vs an own car. A lot of people will by default prefer personal transport, whether this is good for the environment (the game and game play) or not. They need incentives to work together and when you provide these, it can be glorious. But you have to invest in making it work. Putting together some sloppy token option isn't going to make anyone happy and even discourages the idea that teamwork units are viable.

It's a matter of taste, pure and simple, and if there is a way to balance it to have both options, then everybody wins. If there is no way to balance it, I would default to supporting dedicated drivers being mandatory, but I think it's ridiculously narrow minded to think there's no middle ground available, especially when it has already worked for another multi-crew vehicle in the first Planetside.

Name one. Prowler is the main example of why it didn't work, because that third gunner slot was usually not filled and the only reason it did get filled was that the third guy didn't have a better option. The main reason the Prowler was still viable with three crew was that the dual 100mm put out significantly more damage over time than the others, at the cost of higher arc and lacking AA (without switching).

If that third guy was BR40, like everyone in PS2, there's no reason for this person to man the third gun if he can get his own unit. In PS1 you could run out of certifications, you can't in PS2 after all.

If it requires giving dedicated driver certed MBT's a more powerful main gun and more armor, or giving gunner turrets on the current PS2 style MBT's access to ridiculously powerful AV guns, so be it. I really don't think it's going to be that hard to strike a good balance.

There's definitely going to be need for adapting to higher player count.

Unfortunately it can well end up a balancing nightmare, tbh. It would be much better if they just design units for specific manpower uses and then provide an additional support structure for this in game in order to find gunners.

Players who just like driving and gunning alone have no reason to complain for they already have their units. You can completely ignore this group of players (beyond fair balancing obviously) as they've been provided for in their game play. As a group, solists rather than as a given, existing background context (meaning other units to balance fairly with), are absolutely of no interest for this entire debate. They don't need to be catered to further, their part within game play is thoroughly provided and taken into account already with the ATV, all forms of infantry (yes they count as units), the Lightning and aircav. Why should they get to be the exclusive target group for everything designed for participation in direct combat? That doesn't make any sense!

So who should be considered then? Well what SOE did so far and some people here also indicated, was detect a group of players that couldn't find gunners. Again, a small group of players (who I still deem incompetent and at fault for not finding any, but fair enough, they're there). So that SOE noticed is good in and on itself, as apparently there was an issue for some players and they noticed it.

What SOE then did however, was retarded. As usual when SOE performs "fixes" to a game, they completely overreact. Look at their history of changes to core game play and balance patches and notice how they're never capable of striking a good balance, nor capacity for making subtle stepwise changes. No, it's always some sort of see-saw changing. Shades of grey aren't explored at all.

For instance, what they could have done was go out and find new ways to facilitate the searching for (a) gunner(s), stimulate and facilitate good interaction between driver and gunner(s) (even ignoring they already fixed part of this issue by providing quick and easy in game VoiP). Instead, they went and completely removed the need for gunners altogether by removing combattive team work vehicles completely (!). NONE are left aside from the Liberator. The MBT doesn't count right now and the transports are discard on destination units.

Prevention is better than curing? It would be, if it wasn't for the fact they NOW didn't at all consider those players who never had problems and loved the type of interdependent game play. Rather than also improving the game play of these people (with VoiP etc), they completely trashed it and basically told them all to become solists. How the bloody hell is that making good design decisions and catering to all groups? The majority of team players got screwed over royally and then some by this vocal minority of "waaaaah I can't find a gunner, waaaaah, I have to wait a minute because I don't know where I can find potential gunners, waaaah" and SOE responding in typical SOE style.

The compromise of "certing into a dedicated driver" that Higby said was something they might do, simply shows their complete disrespect and disregard for the entire game type and general team vs solo game play balance. If they took it serious, they'd design units and systems specifically for that type of game play, but they don't. They patch up solo vehicles for multi-crew use as a rather panicky response to these threads, hope that's enough to pacify the players by saying "Waitwaitwaitwait wait! See? We did have something for you! We listen to you! Really!" and call it a day. No.

That's not enough. Design specific solutions for the play style that are fair and balanced and not some sort of half arsed token solution where you can still clearly see the last minute stitches and patchwork.

As someone else in this thread said by refering to adding a cavalry mounted role in a game without horses: if you design a game for one type of thing, hot fixing it simply won't provide a workable solution. It has to be an integral part of the design philosophy and not a token solution.

I don't mind if it's not in at start of beta or even at launch, but team work combattive vehicles should be an intrinsic part of the PlanetSide design philosophy and currently it's the little stepchild that gets to mob the floors while the stepsisters go out and have a ball with full support from the parent.