Vehicle Combat Feedback - Page 4

NumbaOneStunna · 2012-07-17, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

That's all well and nice, but I believe I was the first to denote he took some damage from a rock, so that's actually taken into account. =p

And from the looks of it, it wasn't much. Look at how much damage each single hit does. You can't pretend the calculations "don't hold water" if you can't indicate that it made a significant difference to the calculations.

If you a closer look instead of being very full of yourself, you'd have seen that in the death statistics, it clearly states that one Lightning did 9% damage, the other Lightning did 88% damage leaving a whopping 3% damage (which isn't even mentioned) due to collission damage by Hamma's driving.

So yeah, ONE Lightning basically took him out.

Your turn? Yes, I do believe it was.

Yeah, first salvo did around 35% damage I'd say.

Dude, I don't know if you know this or not because your brain is so fried from WoT, but a single shot from an anti tank round to a modern tanks rear armor would be a catastrophic hit.

The Magrider having the lowest armor of all the MBT's in PS2 taking 3 direct hits to the rear from the lightning is very generous from the devs.

Trip · 2012-07-17, 01:30 PM

This is how I feel reading figments posts.

Haro · 2012-07-17, 01:32 PM

So is our comment system on vehicle combat now based on how many hours you put into an unrelated game, and so if you don't like or don't play WoT then you're opinions, no matter how rational or valid, are easily dismissed? Must have missed that memo.

Now that Higby's has confirmed that he was, in fact, getting shot from behind, possibly by two lightnings, I'm honestly not that worried. MBTs were horribly balanced as far as manpower and resources went. You needed more people to put more cert points into lightnings than you needed for one MBT, and yet you would still have a bitch of a time killing a tank you outnumbered. And that was in the rare instance that you could outnumber a MBT with lightnings, because no one wanted to use them, and MBTs were more popular than God.

Also, remember Higby's video? The one whee he managed to take two full, frontal salvos and still polish off a lightning with little problem. If we are honestly saying that a pack of lightnings shouldn't be able to quickly take out an MBT that they've all attacked from the rear, then I fear for the sanity of this forum.

If anything, this video has made me more comfortable about the idea of bringing back stronger, 2 man tanks, because I think the current developers could fit that in without breaking the whole system.

Figment · 2012-07-17, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

Good catch. I didn't notice the percentages first time around.

They're hard to miss due to the colour choice (using a contrasting colour like lime green or yellow would have help IMO, I think the newer footage has better colours, but not sure, haven't checked).

I guess the moral to this story is to bring a secondary gunner to help you spot and kill the Lightning much like the Magrider did to Higby's Lightning during his playtest stream. So it's not a good idea to let a Lightning fire round and round right up your ass.

It's good to know directional damage is important so that you will try to manuever to get to somebody's rear instead of being stagnant and not move at all.

It'd definitely help, but if one gets flanked, both get flanked and if the driver doesn't return fire because he's busy driving, you got way too much loss in firepower to win the engagement.

And if he is gunning, it's quite likely the driver becomes preoccupied with gunning (more likely to stand still and forget about his hull). Most people can only do one thing at a time, tracking enemies, aiming for enemies and driving at the same time is too much for the majority of people, so they will opt to do just two of those (either tracking and gunning or tracking and driving).

Which is one of the main reasons I bring up WoT, because getting the enemy to show their weak spots is often the only way to deal damage in the first place (a lot of guns can't pen from the front or even the majority of the side of tanks and have to be aimed at specific weakspots).

From what I've seen, I don't think the angle of a tank towards an opponent means something in PS2 (unlike in WoT, where you can deflect shells completely by putting your tank at a 20-45 degree angle to your enemy). Meaning that if there's even a glimpse of your side showing, you will take full damage when hit there.

Speaking of which, I doubt they can keep track of angles and utilise a similar deflection system in PS2 anyway, way too many factors to consider, calculate and transmit. Would help in making the damage mitigation more useful and up survivability for smart players, but doubt it can be implemented on this scale.

Originally Posted by NumbaOneStunna

Dude, I don't know if you know this or not because your brain is so fried from WoT, but a single shot from an anti tank round to a modern tanks rear armor would be a catastrophic hit.

The Magrider having the lowest armor of all the MBT's in PS2 taking 3 direct hits to the rear from the lightning is very generous from the devs.

Ah yes, can I get to say "this is a game", for once?

Also, a LOT of tanks blow up in one shot in WoT (while often needing 20-infinite shots themselves to kill their opponent even if they outmaneuvred them). Those players tend not to be happy... Look up some KV-107 or KV-152 pwnage vids. Here's one for you.

Raymac · 2012-07-17, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

They're hard to miss due to the colour choice (using a contrasting colour like lime green or yellow would have help IMO, I think the newer footage has better colours, but not sure, haven't checked).

And if he is gunning, it's quite likely the driver becomes preoccupied with gunning (more likely to stand still and forget about his hull). Most people can only do one thing at a time, tracking enemies, aiming for enemies and driving at the same time is too much for the majority of people, so they will opt to do just two of those (either tracking and gunning or tracking and driving).

Yeah, I just missed the percentages because I was watching on a small screen at low resolution because I'm supposed to be working. I do love the kill screen though.

Also, moving and shooting is not as hard as you make it sound. I've been doing it since I strung a phone cord between 2 dorm rooms to make my first LAN for the game Descent back in the stone age. Granted that's not exactly the same as we are talking about here. The chances of running into something or off of a cliff go up when you don't look what direction you are driving, but that brings us back to our fundamental and unshakable difference of opinion. I see that as a small price to pay for tank drivers getting to shoot, and you see it as game breaking. We've alread hashed that out in a couple threads.

Basically, I still think that your now OP on this thread is the epitome of chicken little talk. There is no way in hell you can make those conclusions, and yet you are convinced that you can. More and more you really do remind me exactly of Sheldon Cooper.

Figment · 2012-07-17, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

Yeah, I just missed the percentages because I was watching on a small screen at low resolution because I'm supposed to be working. I do love the kill screen though.

Meant to say in that quote easy to miss, but I take it from the remainder of the post you got that out of it. Don't blame you for that, but I do get very, very tired of being accused of not having information that's readily available for those who look for it. :/

Ask yourself how often you look for hidden information in footage? Things like suitable Galaxy landing and deployment zones if someone does a fly over of a base? :/

Also, moving and shooting is not as hard as you make it sound. I've been doing it since I strung a phone cord between 2 dorm rooms to make my first LAN for the game Descent back in the stone age. Granted that's not exactly the same as we are talking about here. The chances of running into something or off of a cliff go up when you don't look what direction you are driving,

Cluttered environment. WoT is less cluttered. People still don't fire on the move even if they can't miss due to close range. Even if they don't have to aim for weakspots. Standing still is just easier.

but that brings us back to our fundamental and unshakable difference of opinion. I see that as a small price to pay for tank drivers getting to shoot, and you see it as game breaking. We've alread hashed that out in a couple threads.

Actually we agree it's a small price to pay for the solo driver. I've only said it's worse quality play and I've also noted hat I'd say someone loses about 20-40% efficiency, depending on how good they are as a driver. The majority of people suck though (no other way to put it sadly). Typically I find people switch between the two options I gave (tracking + driving or tracking + gunning) when they have to aim sideways or backwards and only if they drive and aim forward will they drive and shoot (granted, I never did make the latter clear). That goes for most people and I happily make use of that fact while predicting an enemy's probable movement.

It's however quite limiting to your own movement. It's harder to become an erratic target and dodging becomes harder, because you have to know your path in advance and have little freedom to stray from it if there's little space (doesn't go on an empty field or on water, obviously).

What we disagree on though is what in that context is the effect on the merit of a driver + gunner. IMO it's advantage is negligible if not worse, while you draw the conclusion it's perfectly fine but I simply can't see on what grounds you make such an argument.

In fact, in your opinion there's apparently next to no positive effect of not gunning while driving, since you already claimed the negative effect on you is negligible. Correct? (You say you don't suffer from it at all after all and so does Aurmanite).

So how can you then claim:

A) That someone who requires a third crew member, under the cert compromise, gains an advantage worthy of that cert?

(Meaning do you really think that it outweighs getting an own tank? Would you personally rather fill a gunner seat if your buddy has enough resources? Note that someone recently suggested after having played at SOE live that it's easy to regain the resources in the life of that tank).

B) How could you suggest that a two crew tank where the gunner guns both guns is balanced to a unit that doesn't give up a gun if the positive maneuvring effect is negligible?

By your own argumentation that gunning while driving doesn't make a huge difference, neither A or B can be a good compromise. Correct? So how could you proclaim it'd be a very useful addition? How could you possibly, if you're being fair, support the idea of the compromise without becoming a hypocrite? :/

If it's not a real disadvantage to not have a dedicated driver, then you can't claim it's a sufficient benefit to not having to change tank specs when a dedicated driver is in. Meaning dedicated drivers MUST have their own unit balance.

Basically, I still think that your now OP on this thread is the epitome of chicken little talk. There is no way in hell you can make those conclusions, and yet you are convinced that you can. More and more you really do remind me exactly of Sheldon Cooper.

That's unwarranted. I've got a different opinion, but it's fully argumented. You simply disagree with the argumentation, sometimes it seems because you make hasty observations. I mean a few pages ago people questioned and ridiculed me for suggesting that one Lightning pretty much pwned Hamma.

You're the only one who admitted he overlooked some facts though. I do give you credit for that. But an apology out of some of those others? Hah. Riiiight, they're too busy trying to discredit me to be fair.

PS: btw, I'd say merge this thread with the other driver/gunner debate.

DeltaChan · 2012-07-18, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

BF3 can be a decent comparison, but I won't compare to it since I don't play that very often and besides, its tanks don't have competition from other vehicles and thus little to do with balancing different types of tank combat with one another.

BF3 is probably the best possible comparison available for tank combat because of the sheer power that the tanks have in that game. Tanks in BF3 can one hit all infantry, jeeps, buggies, helicopters and jets, 2 hit light armoured vehicle and 2-3 hit enemy tanks. Tanks are a scary force and as soon as you get in one, every single engineer, c4 carrying support, tank, heli and jet comes straight out to hunt you down. The second you become static, you become dead. I'm saying this because I am not a very impressive infantry player, but I have racked up 32-0 games in BF3 just sitting in a tank and playing well and staying on the move with good combat awareness. I have racked up 2 service stars on tanks and have racked 616 tank kills in under 20 hours of tank play. I got bored of BF3 cos of repetitive maps and simply repeating the same battle over and over.

Bear in mind that BF3 tanks were also made of glass; Jet's can one hit tanks, heli's can kill a tank in one strafe run. 2 mines placed together will 1 hit a tank, 2 C4's will one hit a tank. 4-5 handheld AT rockets/rpg will kill a tank.

The gameplay in PS2 as seen so far is not nearly as volatile as BF3. Tanks cannot 3 hit each other, even the lightning does not die in 2 hits from an enemy MBT unless hit in the rear twice.

Now how does that compare to BF3? Well, the light armoured vehicles in BF3, if customised with the armour piercing rounds, can fight a tank in certain circumstances just as the lightning can fight an MBT in PS2. The LAV must use the environment to dodge/block tank shells while successfully land multiple salvos as well as land several AGM guided missles to destroy an MBT. The map that this occurs most often is the Noshahr Canals map. The LAV driver must be extremely good to outmatch a MBT since 2 rounds from the tank will end the LAV's miserable life.

So why do you need to have the secondary gunner? Well, yes once you unlock the coaxial machinegun on the tank, the gunner becomes less important on a MBT in context with ground level combat, but the second gunner is essential to fending off aerial attacks as well as an indispensable asset in urban warfare. Due to the vertical nature of urban warfare and aerial assaults, the driver cannot have complete combat awareness and the gunner is a necessity to picking off enemy AT infantry on high ground or flanks as well as deterring and destroying enemy aircraft while the driver is focussed on the ground assault. A good driver/gunner combo will almost never get surprised by enemy attacks. One more thing that a driver/gunner combo can do is repair as you push. If the tank runs into heavy fire, the gunner can get out immediately and start repairing the tank while the drive continues to try and outgun the enemy. When the battle dies down, 2 people can repair the tank much quicker to get it back in action. if 1 dies, the other can squad spawn straight back into the action and get back into the tank. This applies to both BF3 and PS2, but the fact that you can customise the weapon on the gunner seat in PS2 means that the gunner could cause even more chaos and the tactical options become even more diverse.

While PS2 gameplay is designed to be less volatile than BF3, you have 3-5x more players in the same area regularly. So while in BF3 there may be 2 engineers trying to kill you with RPGs and need 4-5 shots, in PS2 there are 8-10 HA that need 6-7 rockets instead. So while you take less damage from each individual shot, there are alot more rounds being fired in your general direction and it will take a skilled team to play the MBT role well.

So in a nutshell, the Lightning tank will in general need a significant skill advantage or tactical advantage to beat a MBT, it won't happen often, but it will happen and it won't usually happen with the lightning standing still even though in this case it was. It would only win due to either a huge skill gap between a complete nub MBT driver and a really good Lightning pilot and/or the element of surprise. The gunner is mandatory for urban assault and for defending against infantry flanks and aerial attacks. The gunner also provides on demand healing by jumping out of the tank and repairing as well as providing squad spawn opportunities should either one of the two die.

On a side note, in my opinion, the VS hover tanks have a huge strategic and tactical advantage over the threaded tanks of the 2 other factions. Being able to move quickly from cover to cover with guns blazing without exposing side/rear armour is a huge boon. The threaded tanks must turn the hull to change directions while the hover tank does not, which means it can navigate obstacles much more rapidly than the other 2 tanks as well as having much more unpredictable movements in battle. That, and the magriders can also drive over each other without any problems at all which could come into play in some areas with lots of height changes. So with that in mind, I will be joining the VS

. Can't wait to demolish my static minded foes hahahahaha

Sorry for the huge essay, but I hope it is insightful.

VaderShake · 2012-07-18, 01:52 PM

My response will simply be this...

We can only play in the environment we are given with the toys we are given to play with so learn, adapt, and overcome/maximize your effectiveness with the system we are given and provide positive and negative customer feedback to those who can change it or leave it. No whining allowed...we all have the same stuff.

Infernalis · 2012-07-18, 02:27 PM

On a side note, in my opinion, the VS hover tanks have a huge strategic and tactical advantage over the threaded tanks of the 2 other factions. Being able to move quickly from cover to cover with guns blazing without exposing side/rear armour is a huge boon. The threaded tanks must turn the hull to change directions while the hover tank does not, which means it can navigate obstacles much more rapidly than the other 2 tanks as well as having much more unpredictable movements in battle. That, and the magriders can also drive over each other without any problems at all which could come into play in some areas with lots of height changes. So with that in mind, I will be joining the VS . Can't wait to demolish my static minded foes hahahahaha

BF2142 had both and it was fairly balanced between the hover tank and the normal one despite both having the same armor and damage.

Landtank · 2012-07-18, 02:50 PM

My response to this thread: No one knows.

It's as simple as this: you argument, calculations, conclusions, everything, is based upon absolutely 100% UNCERTAIN information.

Not trying to stifle discussion, just don't want people throwing around their opinions like it's the one and only truth.

maradine · 2012-07-18, 03:21 PM

Seconding the validity of the BF3 comparison. I'm on my 4th armored warfare medal with more relative seat time than 99% of the BF3 playerbase. In WoT, my post-beta KD is modestly above 2 with about ~650 battles fought. I've done a lot of tanking.

The BF3 MBT is indeed a scary beast. In good circumstances, it will destroy anything, and quickly at that. However, if a LAV-25 (or BMP, if you prefer) rolls up behind it with APFSDS loaded, the tank won't even get its main gun around before it's all over. This tends to only happen to MBTs that get outmaneuvered on urban streets vs. in open fields, but the lesson still applies - if you are caught with your pants down, you're probably gonna die.

Based on what I've seen, I think the Lightning/Prowler, LAV/Abrams comparison is pretty solid. Two lighter tanks in your rear sector should and will disassemble you. The teamwork is in keeping light tanks out of your nethers.

Emperor · 2012-07-18, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by VaderShake

We can only play in the environment we are given with the toys we are given to play with so learn, adapt, and overcome/maximize your effectiveness with the system we are given

This is the only post in this thread that matters.