Crewed MBT's for one week

[Koxigori]

So since we are still in beta, why not take advantage of that and test this while we still can? I suggest changing the MBT's to having a dedicated driver for one week (or less?).

There has been a lot of depate over crewed MBT's, but most of the arguments are speculative or based on experiences from PS1. So why not actually test this? We are still in beta and isn't that what beta is for? And this is not meant to be for or against crewed MBT's, but both sides could benefit from actually testing this. Instead of just discussing how it might affect gameplay, poeple on both sides could make more meaningful arguments derived from real testing.

Though, it may be that with the launch date closing (too) fast, all time should be concentrated into making a release-ready product.

I'm sorry if this particular idea has been discussed already. It's just that there are ten topics on crewed MBT's with ten pages each, so I didn't go thrue them all. If so, please lock.

[RodenyC]

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/4159/img0469f.png

[Gatekeeper]

That sounds like a good idea in theory, but in practice it wouldn't be that easy a change to put in place - so it's very unlikely to happen with release only a few weeks away and lots of bugs and features still needing to be sorted before then.

The big problem is the Magrider - it doesn't have a turret for the main gun in PS2, so you can't give control of it to the gunner - because it will still be the driver who has to aim it by turning the tank. That means that in order to implement this change the devs would actually have to produce a new model for the Mag, which would be a fairly significant change.

The devs have said they might put in some kind of cert to allow MBTs where the gunner controls the main gun, but I wouldn't expect to see it anytime soon.

[Qwan]

I have to diagree with smedley on this one, driving while gunning sucks ass. And dont get me started with the vs tank OMG I rarely very rarely waste resources on this tank, If they are going to keep the tanks this way then get rid of the lightning makes no sence.

[Hamma]

I also disagree with Smed on this one.

And it would be cool if they could add it on the fly but they simply don't have the code support to do so. I've asked Kevm0 about it a couple times.

[Littleman]

"Majority of fans have fun driving than gunning."

I'm gonna call bull$#!%, as we wouldn't have dime a dozen MBT's rolling solo and even locking their tank from outsiders using the secondary if that were the case. It's fun to drive and gun, and it shows in game. It shows in just about every other game with tanks in it. It's the norm.

The problem is, the lightning is only good for it's Skyguard component, and that is about the only real reason MBT's should go for multi-crew requirements - a little inconvenience to limit the tank population. Though honestly, I'd prefer if the lightning out shined in more effective ways than just as a single man capable (AA) platform.

And just to set the record straight, there's no reason why they can't put a turret where the secondary is without modifying the base Mag Rider design. It's just an object told to pivot on a set X,Y,Z point of the craft.

[Sturmhardt]

Good idea, but it's not gonna happen I guess, Smed is too ignorant to try something like that.

[PoisonTaco]

I think once they make it so you need a tech plant to spawn MBT's that will limit their production. That and lightnings will be used more.

[Tamas]

If Nov 20 is release date, then spending time on something like this is a waste of time - there are FAR more important issues to sort out and time is very limited. Of course if they pushed back release date, then this is something to be tested out.

Personally - I hate only driver/only gunner. The way it is now is great and fun. You can always add a normal gun for the gunner and have him do amazing things.

Lets see what happens - you make driver and gunner only. People will lock vehicles and simply switch seats - yeah that will improve things, certainly better support for my infantry ass, when a Magrider sits stationary and takes shots, while getting hammered. Or when 2 pugs don't coordinate 1 moves as he wills and the other cant hit anything.

Don't delude yourselves that this will somehow improve teamwork on any noticeable scale. If you are in an outift, teamwork is "ON" by default. IF you think that restrictive features will change today's average player, you might be too far from reality.

There is a segment that PS2 wants to attract, because if only PS1 vets play the game, it will fail. To attract new players, you need to appeal to what they want. There is no freaking way players who wish to play the game for 1-2 hours will want some random idiot driving the tank off the cliff while they can't hit anything.

They mentioned Certing as an option. So I agree with this part - players who wish strict roles can have driver+gunner. Players who wish to drive the tank with a dam gun get their cake as well. Unless of course there the types that "my way is the correct way, screw everyone else".

[Figment]

That sounds like a good idea in theory, but in practice it wouldn't be that easy a change to put in place

Dev work:

Find: code for tank controls input:

Dev finds the following variables:

Hull controls:
Forward: W, source: player A
Backward: S, source: player A
Left: A, source: player A
Right: D, source: player A

Main turret controls:
Rotate left: mouse left, source: player A
Rotate right: mouse right, source: player A
Angle gun up: mouse up, source: player A
Angle gun down: mouse down, source: player A
Fire gun: left mouse click, source: player A

Mini-gun controls
Rotate left: mouse left, source: player B
Rotate right: mouse right, source: player B
Angle gun up: mouse up, source: player B
Angle gun down: mouse down, source: player B
Fire gun: left mouse click, source: player B
Alternate fire: right mouse click (hold to lock if option), source: player B

So what needs to change?

Input turret controls: player A needs to become player C. Use same code as for the turret to look around for the driver, but delete the bits that link it to the angles of the turret itself.



DONE! D:

That's really, really hard to accomplish I'm sure. Luckily it's not been done yet on every vehicle in PlanetSide 1 that has a gunner so they can't even copy parts of already made and completely bug tested code for this.


Oh, wait.

Look people, we don't even need new animations for it, it's just a matter of input code! The only additional things are a small HUD change by adding a gunner spot there, again: mostly copy-pasta, a minor graphical UI change and a minor change in the vehicle locking window. I don't get what the big deal is with not at the very least trying it. :/

[PredatorFour]

Great idea, strongly disagree with Smed on this issue. Tbh they shouldve thought about testing this idea months ago when we had all those topics active everyday.

[Koxigori]

Thanks Gatekeeper and Hamma for pointing that out. Magrider issue didn't occur to me.

I just feel this mechanic (for either way) is a really big and defining aspect of PS2, so it's a shame if this is decided without actual testing. Maybe we can hope for a post-launch test server? Although, how it is in release, probably is how it's going to be forever after.

As for this topic, if it ends up another MBT crew debate/rampage, feel free to lock it up. There are enough threads for that already.

[Hmr85]

I have to disagree with Smed on this also. I really really want to see the PS1 style of tanking make a return with a dedicated driver/gunner. I personally cannot stand the setup we have at the moment. I miss my dedicated gunner Jamman from PS1. We made a hell of a team when it came to knocking out enemy tanks.

[Figment]

With regards to the Magrider, what I don't get is the need for people to either retain the front mounted heavy gun, rather than either removing it, weakening it or placing it on a turret of its own.


OR, simply create a new tank and move the Magrider from MBTs to a tank destroyer class.

[Fear The Amish]

Dev work:

Find: code for tank controls input:

Dev finds the following variables:

Hull controls:
Forward: W, source: player A
Backward: S, source: player A
Left: A, source: player A
Right: D, source: player A

Main turret controls:
Rotate left: mouse left, source: player A
Rotate right: mouse right, source: player A
Angle gun up: mouse up, source: player A
Angle gun down: mouse down, source: player A
Fire gun: left mouse click, source: player A

Mini-gun controls
Rotate left: mouse left, source: player B
Rotate right: mouse right, source: player B
Angle gun up: mouse up, source: player B
Angle gun down: mouse down, source: player B
Fire gun: left mouse click, source: player B
Alternate fire: right mouse click (hold to lock if option), source: player B

So what needs to change?

Input turret controls: player A needs to become player C. Use same code as for the turret to look around for the driver, but delete the bits that link it to the angles of the turret itself.



DONE! D:

That's really, really hard to accomplish I'm sure. Luckily it's not been done yet on every vehicle in PlanetSide 1 that has a gunner so they can't even copy parts of already made and completely bug tested code for this.


Oh, wait.

Look people, we don't even need new animations for it, it's just a matter of input code! The only additional things are a small HUD change by adding a gunner spot there, again: mostly copy-pasta, a minor graphical UI change and a minor change in the vehicle locking window. I don't get what the big deal is with not at the very least trying it. :/

Oh great you have figured out how to make 2 out of the 3 MBT's crewed for 2 now tell me how you get the mag to do that.... ill be waiting for your response with baited breath.

[Ritual]

Let the idea of crewed tanks DIE please.

If you want a crewed tank, ask for a cert to make it an optional sidegrade.

The only thing that needs to be changed is MBT's should need tech plants to spawn, and lightnings should be spawned from the rest of terminals. That would be real "balance" not some anti fun nazi restriction of needing a crew to shoot your gun for you that you just spent all your resource points on.

I don't know how many years it took Planetside 1 players to get good at gunning tanks.

It was painful for so long. I wanted to slit my wrists every time I was a driver. Gunners were incompetent. Tank battles looked like Monty Python scenes. People driving around in circles around the enemy trying to hit each other. Having to stop the tank so your gunner could get a steady shot off. Having to move 3cm right or left so they could get line of sight over a stupid rock.

Its just dumb and i'm glad to see it go.

I understand the points behind crewed tanks. I was a badass tank driver and gunner in PS1. But I also know all the negatives. I would rather have non crewed tanks. If I want a crew I can still do that and we can go blow shit up, if I want to go out on my own I can do that too. No brainer design decision there.

As smedley says, trust me and STFU. ;););)

[PredatorFour]

It was painful for so long. I wanted to slit my wrists every time I was a driver. Gunners were incompetent. Tank battles looked like Monty Python scenes. People driving around in circles around the enemy trying to hit each other. Having to stop the tank so your gunner could get a steady shot off. Having to move 3cm right or left so they could get line of sight over a stupid rock.

Its just dumb and i'm glad to see it go.



As smedley says, trust me and STFU. ;););)

Im sorry you never had a decent gunner in PS, shouldve joined up with an outfit and let your friends gun. Then you wouldve learned valid tactics instead of trying to encircle your enemy whilst trying to pound them i.e. something out of Monty Python.

[EVILoHOMER]

SOE really showed their true colours this past month, I cannot believe they're rushing this broken mess out :\ It has so many issues, they said it'll release when it's done and yet it is so far off that and they wont fix them within these last 20 days or so.

I just cannot believe that they've learnt nothing, like I feel stupid after being burnt by them time and time again, why did I give them this chance? I tell you if Planetside 2 doesn't get a miracle patch... never will I touch an SOE game again.

[SpottyGekko]

The majority of PS2 players are not going to be joining an outfit and playing as a co-ordinated team. They will be solo, the same way that they play BF3 and CoD and whatever other FPS they play.

I have no problem with the idea of dedicated driver separate from dedicated main gunner, but ONLY if that is an option as opposed to the only way.

Smed has it right on this one.

[EVILoHOMER]

The problem is lightnings are useless as they should be the 1 man tanks and 2 MBTs are better than 1 because not only do you have more targets but twice the fire power and none of the passenger guns are as powerful.

Then with fast seat switching which is like a second and you're good to go... what is the point of having a gunner seat?


It's so poor, Smedley has no idea once again.... I mean why have the lightning in the game at all?

[Bravix]

Oh great you have figured out how to make 2 out of the 3 MBT's crewed for 2 now tell me how you get the mag to do that.... ill be waiting for your response with baited breath.

Just make it like it was in PS1. Mag had a forward fixed gun for the driver. Wasn't anything incredible, didn't decimate the enemy, but it had its uses.

Could just nerf the VS driver gun and buff the HRB a bit. Problem solved!

[maradine]

It's so poor, Smedley has no idea once again.... I mean why have the lightning in the game at all?

Because, with AP rounds, it's an excellent high-speed tank hunter. With HE rounds, its a mini solopwnmobile at facilities fights. Add a few ranks of climb and it's practically spiderpig. It also fits through gaps you can't wedge an MBT through.

No love man, no love . . .

[Mox]

Smed loves only casual solo noobs. I think he has no idea about playing in a group.
Being part of a 3 men attack-vec crew and successfull working togeher is a wonderful experience. I think there should be at least one ground vehicle that allow such an experience as the liberator do in the air.
For solo players we already have the lightning. Not every vec has to match this kind of playstyle.
By the way: No one really needs casual solo players! They will play the game some months for free and move on afterwards.

[Figment]

Oh great you have figured out how to make 2 out of the 3 MBT's crewed for 2 now tell me how you get the mag to do that.... ill be waiting for your response with baited breath.

Please note I already adressed the Magrider issue before you even posted. It's not an issue at all unless you want every empire to always have the exact same thing.

See, if they had listened to us a year ago, they'd have had a better MBT design for the Magrider already.

The main gun's damage should be reduced significantly, to about 20% of the current DPS. Lower the total hitpoints of the vehicle such that three Magriders equal two three crew tanks. That's not a new balancing concept, look at C&C Red Alert: only the Soviets had Heavy Tanks and even Mammoth Tanks, but the Allies simply had larger numbers of light and medium tanks to compensate. The VS would thus get both a maneuvring and numerical advantage, but they'd have to compensate for that by having reduced power and endurance per vehicle.


Kinda why the Magriders in PS1 had 3500 hitpoints oppposed to the 4000 of the Prowler, the 4500 of the Vanguard and the 3000 hitpoints of the Deliverer variants and a very weak front mounted gun that was primarily aimed at fighting infantry. It's not an issue at all unless you demand every unit regardless of manpower inside is equal one on one, instead of balancing by manpower. Think out of the box will you?



On the longer term they can do the following:

They created a floating and therefore strafing tank destroyer. Deal with it as such. Ideally they should either simply scrap the frontal gun in favour of a turret design with weaker hull due to the increased dodging capacity, or they should make a new MBT in due time (not during beta) and TD models for the other empires. When they'd opt to make it a true Tank Destroyer, remove the HE and HEAT cannons from this tank, weaken its sides and rear more and lower its hitpoints closer to the Lightning.


Another alternative is to simply treat both the Prowler and Vanguard as two crew vehicles and have the gunner switch guns, as the Vanguard in PS1 had. In that case, you can simply half the AVERAGE damage of both Magrider guns combined (for instance go from 100% (100% + 100%) to 50% (25%-75% or 33%-67%) with the lower damage being dealt by the driver of the Magrider so that it heavily relies on at least one gunner.



If you're too stuck on the status quo that you're incapable of looking at the design and specifications of the vehicle as a whole (the sum of the parts is the actual design), then that's your problem.

[Figment]

Let the idea of crewed tanks DIE please.

If you want a crewed tank, ask for a cert to make it an optional sidegrade.

The only thing that needs to be changed is MBT's should need tech plants to spawn, and lightnings should be spawned from the rest of terminals. That would be real "balance" not some anti fun nazi restriction of needing a crew to shoot your gun for you that you just spent all your resource points on.

I don't know how many years it took Planetside 1 players to get good at gunning tanks.

It was painful for so long. I wanted to slit my wrists every time I was a driver. Gunners were incompetent. Tank battles looked like Monty Python scenes. People driving around in circles around the enemy trying to hit each other. Having to stop the tank so your gunner could get a steady shot off. Having to move 3cm right or left so they could get line of sight over a stupid rock.

Its just dumb and i'm glad to see it go.

I understand the points behind crewed tanks. I was a badass tank driver and gunner in PS1. But I also know all the negatives. I would rather have non crewed tanks. If I want a crew I can still do that and we can go blow shit up, if I want to go out on my own I can do that too. No brainer design decision there.

As smedley says, trust me and STFU. ;););)

Maybe MBTs just aren't for you. Maybe you should learn to communicate or first train a gunner or work with people on a regular basis and otherwise simply use the damn Lightning? And for your information nobody made you spend your certs on those tanks. Nobody told you in advance those certs were being spend on YOUR power, you spend them on the Empire's power too! If you're too bloody egocentric to think of it in that way, then maybe you should not drive team vehicles eh?

Let's see what would happen if tech plants were required for MBTs... Oh wait, you haven't thought about what a difference of 30 tanks would mean in a fight.

It's also clear you have no idea what the impact of manpower differences is when given the choice between getting three tanks (3x 1 crew), two tanks (2 crew + 1 crew) or one (3 crew). I'll tell you though: the one tank would always be the worst choice and would never be used with a full crew complement unless the players inside are dumb, were too lazy to fall back and get their own vehicle or for some odd reason (probably due to losing or facing superior numbers) had no own access to a vehicle.

[Zerikin Loukbel]

I greatly prefer the current tanks. I don't want to just drive one around all day while someone else shoots.

[RodenyC]

I greatly prefer the current tanks. I don't want to just drive one around all day while someone else shoots.

There is the lighting.

[PredatorFour]

I would happily cert everything into my tank and let my gunner get the kills so we can work as a TEAM.

[Dagron]

I greatly prefer the current tanks. I don't want to just drive one around all day while someone else shoots.There is the lighting.

I would happily cert everything into my tank and let my gunner get the kills so we can work as a TEAM.

^This.
Lightnings should be the choice if you prefer not to depend on someone else to drive/shoot, but there should be a way for those of us who want to play as a team to do so. Would it be harder to use? Sure, but once you learned to coordinate your actions it should be more effective than someone who dreams of being a one man army.
Lone wolfing shouldn't necessarily be discouraged, but team work should be actively encouraged.

[Zerikin Loukbel]

I like working with or as a gunner, just not the exclusion of having no weapon of my own. Maybe give the driver access to the secondary weapon in that config and let the gunner control the turret? That would also give the driver superior visibility since the secondary weapons traverse much faster.

[Dagron]

I like working with or as a gunner, just not the exclusion of having no weapon of my own. Maybe give the driver access to the secondary weapon in that config and let the gunner control the turret? That would also give the driver superior visibility since the secondary weapons traverse much faster.

It's a decent compromise imo. I wouldn't complain if they gave the secondary weapon to the driver, i just don't want the MBT to be the solo people's first choice... which is exactly what happens when they give the driver the ability to also control the main gun.

[AThreatToYou]

I'm with the camp that MBTs should require multiple crew members.
I'd very much like a dedicated driver, but we do get more balance issues between the tanks. There are many potential ways to solve the problem, but I just want to focus on driving not shooting and driving.

[Whiteagle]

If Nov 20 is release date, then spending time on something like this is a waste of time - there are FAR more important issues to sort out and time is very limited. Of course if they pushed back release date, then this is something to be tested out.

Personally - I hate only driver/only gunner. The way it is now is great and fun. You can always add a normal gun for the gunner and have him do amazing things.

Lets see what happens - you make driver and gunner only. People will lock vehicles and simply switch seats - yeah that will improve things, certainly better support for my infantry ass, when a Magrider sits stationary and takes shots, while getting hammered. Or when 2 pugs don't coordinate 1 moves as he wills and the other cant hit anything.

Don't delude yourselves that this will somehow improve teamwork on any noticeable scale. If you are in an outift, teamwork is "ON" by default. IF you think that restrictive features will change today's average player, you might be too far from reality.

There is a segment that PS2 wants to attract, because if only PS1 vets play the game, it will fail. To attract new players, you need to appeal to what they want. There is no freaking way players who wish to play the game for 1-2 hours will want some random idiot driving the tank off the cliff while they can't hit anything.

They mentioned Certing as an option. So I agree with this part - players who wish strict roles can have driver+gunner. Players who wish to drive the tank with a dam gun get their cake as well. Unless of course there the types that "my way is the correct way, screw everyone else".
Ok, question:
What the fuck is the Lightning to you?

Seriously, you Lone-wolves always complain about how crewed Tanks wouldn't allow you to use the big guns you unlocked, when you should have been certing into the ONE-MAN TANK the entire time...

Oh great you have figured out how to make 2 out of the 3 MBT's crewed for 2 now tell me how you get the mag to do that.... ill be waiting for your response with baited breath.
Actually that one is even easier:
Replace the front gun with Secondary equivalences, and make the top gun options all Main Cannons.

Hell, it's not like the Mag doesn't already have people running the same weapon in both slots anyways...

I just cannot believe that they've learnt nothing, like I feel stupid after being burnt by them time and time again, why did I give them this chance? I tell you if Planetside 2 doesn't get a miracle patch... never will I touch an SOE game again.
I'm kind of glad I've never touched an SOE game before now...
I mean, I'm actually wondering if the Original game will be Free-to-play, since this 'sequel' is shaping up to be nothing more then a generic FPS on a huge map...

Because, with AP rounds, it's an excellent high-speed tank hunter. With HE rounds, its a mini solopwnmobile at facilities fights. Add a few ranks of climb and it's practically spiderpig. It also fits through gaps you can't wedge an MBT through.

No love man, no love . . .
Indeed, this is EXACTLY why MBT's need to be crewed.
If everyone can just solo one, why bother with 'wimpy' Lightning?

I like working with or as a gunner, just not the exclusion of having no weapon of my own. Maybe give the driver access to the secondary weapon in that config and let the gunner control the turret? That would also give the driver superior visibility since the secondary weapons traverse much faster.
Yeah, this is something I'd much rather see.

People always argue that the "Compromise" should be letting people certify into crewed Tanks, when really this does nothing more then punish dedicated Tank Crews and, as I've just pointed out, makes the Lightning redundant.

Giving the Driver a Secondary at least lets him feel less defenseless while also making the MBTs the true ground equivalent to the Liberator AND makes the Gunner position more then just an optional supplementary armament.
I mean, it's not like the Driver isn't going to get Experience bonuses for Gunner Kills anyways, and it would allow him that much greater situational awareness.

[maradine]

I've actually come around on this issue since joining on here - I'm pretty much neutral on the whole thing now. That said, I offer the following logic exercise for the people who think making the MBTs mandatorily multi-crewed is the way to solve tank spam:

Does replacing MBT zerging with Lightning zerging actually solve your perceived problem?

[Whiteagle]

Does replacing MBT zerging with Lightning zerging actually solve your perceived problem?
Not necessary, but it does help when it comes to balance issues.

Lightnings don't have the staying power of MBTs; Their armor only requires two to three rocket/turret hits as opposed to four or five.

Furthermore, the Lightning is suppose to rely on its speed and agility to keep itself alive, which naturally inhibits its ability to aim at a specific point for long periods of time.
It can't just sit there and camp an exit, because it's nearly as easily killed as an Engineer doing the same.

[SixShooter]

^This.
Lightnings should be the choice if you prefer not to depend on someone else to drive/shoot, but there should be a way for those of us who want to play as a team to do so. Would it be harder to use? Sure, but once you learned to coordinate your actions it should be more effective than someone who dreams of being a one man army.
Lone wolfing shouldn't necessarily be discouraged, but team work should be actively encouraged.

I'm still not sure, even after reading through a hundred threads on this topic, how the current setup prevents players who want to work as a team from doing so. What exactly is stopping you? I know I plan on certing the hell out of my secondary guns for my Mag and will spend more time with a gunner than without. What is it that's stopping others from doing this as well.

Watching the driver/gunner threads is like watching bad politics, it's an old and tired debate where everyone thinks that their way is the only way and nobody can see past the end of their own nose.
:cheers:

[Tamas]

Ok, question:
What the fuck is the Lightning to you?

Seriously, you Lone-wolves always complain about how crewed Tanks wouldn't allow you to use the big guns you unlocked, when you should have been certing into the ONE-MAN TANK the entire time...


Actually that one is even easier:
Replace the front gun with Secondary equivalences, and make the top gun options all Main Cannons.

Hell, it's not like the Mag doesn't already have people running the same weapon in both slots anyways...


I'm kind of glad I've never touched an SOE game before now...
I mean, I'm actually wondering if the Original game will be Free-to-play, since this 'sequel' is shaping up to be nothing more then a generic FPS on a huge map...


Indeed, this is EXACTLY why MBT's need to be crewed.
If everyone can just solo one, why bother with 'wimpy' Lightning?


Yeah, this is something I'd much rather see.

People always argue that the "Compromise" should be letting people certify into crewed Tanks, when really this does nothing more then punish dedicated Tank Crews and, as I've just pointed out, makes the Lightning redundant.

Giving the Driver a Secondary at least lets him feel less defenseless while also making the MBTs the true ground equivalent to the Liberator AND makes the Gunner position more then just an optional supplementary armament.
I mean, it's not like the Driver isn't going to get Experience bonuses for Gunner Kills anyways, and it would allow him that much greater situational awareness.

QQ much?

[VaderShake]

I would rather see a LARGER tank/armor variant with a 3+ person crew added down the road. I think there would be a place for it for those who are looking for that type of expirience. Instead of changing what is there now lets add some more options.

[Whiteagle]

I'm still not sure, even after reading through a hundred threads on this topic, how the current setup prevents players who want to work as a team from doing so. What exactly is stopping you? I know I plan on certing the hell out of my secondary guns for my Mag and will spend more time with a gunner than without. What is it that's stopping others from doing this as well.
It doesn't really, but there isn't much in it for the Gunner...

Most of the Secondaries suck for anything that isn't self-defense, and the Driver will still get bonus Experience points for any kills you DO manage.

Salryc made a pretty good thread on the matter here. (http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/why-would-anyone-want-to-be-the-gunner-tank.29524/)

QQ much?
...Bwah?

Is that suppose to be the 'crying emotocon' or is it just some shorthand I'm unaware of?
If it is the 'crying emotocon', I would respond to your rebuttal with a, "'spoiled whining sucalf emotocon' much?"

Problem is, I don't think a 'spoiled whining sucalf emotocon' actually exist...

In any case, if you want to be a solo-tank so bad, do what I do and RUN A LIGHTNING!

I would rather see a LARGER tank/armor variant with a 3+ person crew added down the road. I think there would be a place for it for those who are looking for that type of expirience. Instead of changing what is there now lets add some more options.
Yes, it should have shields and jump-jets and PWN EVERYTHING and you should have to do a long complicated quest in a bunch of confusing caverns to get one! :rolleyes:

Seriously, you want to marginalize the Lightning even more?

[Tamas]

It doesn't really, but there isn't much in it for the Gunner...

Most of the Secondaries suck for anything that isn't self-defense, and the Driver will still get bonus Experience points for any kills you DO manage.

Salryc made a pretty good thread on the matter here. (http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/why-would-anyone-want-to-be-the-gunner-tank.29524/)


...Bwah?

Is that suppose to be the 'crying emotocon' or is it just some shorthand I'm unaware of?
If it is the 'crying emotocon', I would respond to your rebuttal with a, "'spoiled whining sucalf emotocon' much?"

Problem is, I don't think a 'spoiled whining sucalf emotocon' actually exist...

In any case, if you want to be a solo-tank so bad, do what I do and RUN A LIGHTNING!


Yes, it should have shields and jump-jets and PWN EVERYTHING and you should have to do a long complicated quest in a bunch of confusing caverns to get one! :rolleyes:

Seriously, you want to marginalize the Lightning even more?

How about I drive my Magrider like I do now and you continue ranting on forums about how unfair the world is and how everyone should not be having fun. Grinch much?

[Dagron]

(...) how the current setup prevents players who want to work as a team from doing so. What exactly is stopping you?
It doesn't really, but there isn't much in it for the Gunner...
^This. You're only thinking as the driver because you want to be the driver, but don't want to give up firing the main gun. Currently the gunner has no say in where to go or what to do, he has to go wherever the driver wants to and has a pretty small part in combat, as opposed to be as important to the vehicle as the driver. As things are, the tank's crew isn't a team, it's a lone wolf and the guy who gets to be driven around and sometimes has the chance to brush off what's left of the infantry forces the driver pulverized with one shell.

Also:
Seriously, you want to marginalize the Lightning even more?



Watching the driver/gunner threads is like watching bad politics, it's an old and tired debate where everyone thinks that their way is the only way and nobody can see past the end of their own nose.

I find it funny how you say that while completely dismissing other people's arguments without even trying to see their point of view, just because you want to do what the lightning is supposed to do but without giving up the MBT's tougher armor. Doesn't get any more political than pretending you aren't just trying to keep your toys at the expense of others' playstyle.

Unlike our side of the discussion, what your side wants already is supported by an existing vehicle. We want them to add our playstyle to the game at the expense of nothing, you are trying to defend more power to yours (which already exists) while trying to deprive others from even having one.

[Whiteagle]

How about I drive my Magrider like I do now and you continue ranting on forums about how unfair the world is and how everyone should not be having fun. Grinch much?
How about instead of a hovering solo pwnmobile, you try an actual tank for once?
Seriously, the Mag is basically a superior armored, all around faster Heavy Assault from what I can gather from 'the way you drive it now'.

You only want solo-MBTs because the Magrider lets you do nearly everything you could as Infantry except with more speed, a more powerful weapon, a hell of a lot more survivability, and having almost NO drawbacks whatsoever!

Basically, you have "FUN" by rolling the most unbalanced tactic in the game all over your opposition, not through accomplishments won with your own skill or from satisfaction derived from helping your Faction.

You are the WORST type of Lone-wolf; a Munchkin whose sole enjoyment is derived from a false sense of superiority garnered from the abuse of broken mechanics.

Maybe my opinion comes from the fact that I main Terran Republic, and thus have a Default MBT that isn't that much better then the Default Lightning, but your main complaint is that you cannot STRAFE WITH A LIGHTNING!

[moosepoop]

with constant bad decisions and dev team suddenly doing a 180 and having an ignorant, distant, hostile attitude, i feel disappointed.

[SixShooter]

^This. You're only thinking as the driver because you want to be the driver, but don't want to give up firing the main gun. Currently the gunner has no say in where to go or what to do, he has to go wherever the driver wants to and has a pretty small part in combat, as opposed to be as important to the vehicle as the driver. As things are, the tank's crew isn't a team, it's a lone wolf and the guy who gets to be driven around and sometimes has the chance to brush off what's left of the infantry forces the driver pulverized with one shell.

Also:






I find it funny how you say that while completely dismissing other people's arguments without even trying to see their point of view, just because you want to do what the lightning is supposed to do but without giving up the MBT's tougher armor. Doesn't get any more political than pretending you aren't just trying to keep your toys at the expense of others' playstyle.

Unlike our side of the discussion, what your side wants already is supported by an existing vehicle. We want them to add our playstyle to the game at the expense of nothing, you are trying to defend more power to yours (which already exists) while trying to deprive others from even having one.

I'm not sure how you got all of that bullshit from my post but it really goes to further prove my point. Thanks for putting words in my mouth telling me what I'm "trying" to do. I could give a rats ass if they added dedicated drivers to the game but you automatically assume that I'm totally against it.

Thanks again for proving my point and adding more vitriol to the thread.
:cheers:

[Whiteagle]

I'm not sure how you got all of that bullshit from my post but it really goes to further prove my point. Thanks for putting words in my mouth telling me what I'm "trying" to do. I could give a rats ass if they added dedicated drivers to the game but you automatically assume that I'm totally against it.

Thanks again for proving my point and adding more vitriol to the thread.
:cheers:
Yeah, I can see how you see these threads as nothing more then political bullshitting...:rolleyes:

[Dagron]

^This.

[PredatorFour]

Sixshooter, dunno if your trying to stir things up or wateva but we are just saying that it would be nice if we had A CHOICE whether our gunner uses the main gun or not. Be it a different cert progression, or more advanced cert tree. We would like to have the option of using our MBT as a team and not as a lone wolf. We arent denouncing the lone wolf style of play, we are saying both styles of play should be available to use ingame.

[Whiteagle]

Sixshooter, dunno if your trying to stir things up or wateva but we are just saying that it would be nice if we had A CHOICE whether our gunner uses the main gun or not. Be it a different cert progression, or more advanced cert tree. We would like to have the option of using our MBT as a team and not as a lone wolf. We arent denouncing the lone wolf style of play, we are saying both styles of play should be available to use ingame.
Well I'm not...

Seriously, what is the point of the Lightning if an MBT can do all the same things?
A reasonable assumption is that, like the Liberator, the Vehicle controls and the Main Gun controls are both separate thus requiring teamwork to reach the full potential of a powerful weapons platform.

But no, people ignore the Lightning because "it's not an MBT"...
A Main Battle Tank should be fearsome, but it shouldn't be the out and out best option for a single player!

[SixShooter]

Sixshooter, dunno if your trying to stir things up or wateva but we are just saying that it would be nice if we had A CHOICE whether our gunner uses the main gun or not. Be it a different cert progression, or more advanced cert tree. We would like to have the option of using our MBT as a team and not as a lone wolf. We arent denouncing the lone wolf style of play, we are saying both styles of play should be available to use ingame.

I totally agree, I would love to see both.
:cheers:

[Ghoest9]

I agree with Smed.

I liked the old system in PS1.

Then i tried this and i think this is more fun.

[stargazer093]

always thinking they should probably add a NS heavy tank which require 3 person to drive, one driver, whom have access to a machinegun in front of the hull, two gunner, one to man the main gun alone with a co-axial weapon, another to man the secondary weapon on top of the turret:lol:

[moosepoop]

I agree with Smed.

I liked the old system in PS1.

Then i tried this and i think this is more fun.

i like both mechanics and would like both.

[Figment]

Both is not really an option because it is not balanced if you can crew the same unit solo which others need three crew for. Hence the Lightning.

It is a shame so many people failed their maths in high school. They want to compromise as if it were a political issue. Unfortunately it is a mathematical issue. Fun on your own can be had at all times in the Lightning. There is not one single good reason to do that in a much stronger unit as well. There arent't even any other reasons aside from egocentrism. I don't believe egocentrism to be a good advisor in design decisions for a MMO.

This isn't about having some basic survivability as a weak unit like infantry. This is about the strongest ground unit with the most firepower and tank armour in game. Compromises aren't optional.

[Furber]

Disagree with smed for loads of reasons, most of which have already been posted.

It all seems so hypocritical that they want new players to join an outfit and work with other players, yet higby's most common excuse for this 1 man tanking is something along the lines of "New players will log in and hop in a tank and expect to gun it too. They don't want to have to find a gunner". Heaven forbid they actually interact with their team mates. And it sort of implies that new players won't have any friends to play with. You don't have to be in an outfit to operate a crewed tank, me and my friend did it for months in ps1, just the two of us.

These rants wont stop until they add in that dedicated gunner cert (I really have to thank higby for keeping that idea alive), so the sooner post launch that is, the better.

On a side note, Buggies will be driver separated from gunner, so that may have to hold us through until the glorious dedicated gunner cert arrives, whenever that may be.

[Figment]

Yeah let's make buggies seperated and give people a choice between heavy armour and an one shot kill gun for themselves or a two person ATV which you can't fire from alone and a Lightning AA, one shot AI and AP gun...

What will the players pick when given the choice?! :/ customization is really hurting other unit choices for their viability and attractiveness.

[Timealude]

I think the other problem is how would you balance the customization on the mag, not just switch the guns around. What else would you add to the mag that would balance it with the other 3 manned tanks? The other problem I see with this is your giving up any protection against aircraft if you just gain one "Good" gun. As any mag driver will tell you in ps1 you were better off making a pew pew pew noise with your mouth then using that trash front gun on the mag. Then, If you give the mag 3 guns like every other vehicle then its going to be OP because of its hover ability because of its fire power.

[Tamas]

How about instead of a hovering solo pwnmobile, you try an actual tank for once?
Seriously, the Mag is basically a superior armored, all around faster Heavy Assault from what I can gather from 'the way you drive it now'.

You only want solo-MBTs because the Magrider lets you do nearly everything you could as Infantry except with more speed, a more powerful weapon, a hell of a lot more survivability, and having almost NO drawbacks whatsoever!

Basically, you have "FUN" by rolling the most unbalanced tactic in the game all over your opposition, not through accomplishments won with your own skill or from satisfaction derived from helping your Faction.

You are the WORST type of Lone-wolf; a Munchkin whose sole enjoyment is derived from a false sense of superiority garnered from the abuse of broken mechanics.

Maybe my opinion comes from the fact that I main Terran Republic, and thus have a Default MBT that isn't that much better then the Default Lightning, but your main complaint is that you cannot STRAFE WITH A LIGHTNING!

I sense bitterness and intended misinterpretation. Seems the sugar level in your blood is low, cookie maybe?

Broken mechanics? Superiority? The irony is over 9000.

Personal attacks, straw man arguments, misinterpretation, imagining things etc. Clearly you have a closed mind, no critical thinking, not up for a discussion - your way or the highway? Ye, I have a better chance of convincing Higby to join VS, then have a decent discussion with you.

As I said, I will go and enjoy the game, while you can lurk here and continue ranting.

[Dagron]

(...) higby's most common excuse for this 1 man tanking is something along the lines of "New players will log in and hop in a tank and expect to gun it too. They don't want to have to find a gunner". Heaven forbid they actually interact with their team mates.

...or that they use the one man tank, you know, the one made for people who want to drive'n gun. Because let's face it, it's much easier to just make 2 one man tanks with different levels of power than to create a couple of interface lines to let people know they're about to spawn a tank that needs a gunner to fire the main gun.


Clearly you have a closed mind, no critical thinking, not up for a discussion (...)

Yeah, he's the one who posted 3 times in a row without a single argument, just nonsense about blood sugar and all kinds of taunting "umad bro" comments... :rolleyes:

[Gatekeeper]

...or that they use the one man tank, you know, the one made for people who want to drive'n gun. Because let's face it, it's much easier to just make 2 one man tanks with different levels of power than to create a couple of interface lines to let people know they're about to spawn a tank that needs a gunner to fire the main gun.

Absolutely. You'd think they could then use the existence of the MBTs as a lure to convince people to try teaming up with another player.

Solo players would see them, know they're strong - but not be able to use them effectively until they reached out to join a squad or an outfit - or brought in one of their RL friends to help them in the game. Surely that'd be a win all around?

[Figment]

I think the other problem is how would you balance the customization on the mag, not just switch the guns around. What else would you add to the mag that would balance it with the other 3 manned tanks? The other problem I see with this is your giving up any protection against aircraft if you just gain one "Good" gun. As any mag driver will tell you in ps1 you were better off making a pew pew pew noise with your mouth then using that trash front gun on the mag. Then, If you give the mag 3 guns like every other vehicle then its going to be OP because of its hover ability because of its fire power.

The Magrider has special abilities in a number of other departments (strafing, afterburner, amphibious qualities, etc and would also have numerical advantages). I'd therefore say firepower and endurance are good choices for reduced capacity (for instance, no one shotting infantry), while they could be a tiny bit cheaper than other tanks.

Absolutely. You'd think they could then use the existence of the MBTs as a lure to convince people to try teaming up with another player.

Solo players would see them, know they're strong - but not be able to use them effectively until they reached out to join a squad or an outfit - or brought in one of their RL friends to help them in the game. Surely that'd be a win all around?

Too... much... sense... head... explodes! D:


Well not mine, but you get the idea... :/ I don't get the people that say "yeah but I want to drive and gun the MBT, because it's stronger and therefore more fun", so what? What makes it fair that you'd be allowed to? Why is your fun more important than game and unit balance and therefore people's fun in general?

This isn't Animal Farm where all people are equal but MBT drivers a bit more equal.

[TheSaltySeagull]

This is a pointless argument now. Higby has stated they will have dedicated gunner functionality for MBTs coming post launch. You will be able to cert into it and it will unlock more powerful weapons for your tank that will require an extra gunner to man turning the tank into a 3 man vehicle.

This way those who want to solo in an MBT can and those who want to use teamwork can AND they will be rewarded for teamwork with more powerful weaponry. I feel this is the best and fair solution.

[maradine]

Oh, you just watch - someone will be unhappy that everyone gets what they want.

[Figment]

This is a pointless argument now. Higby has stated they will have dedicated gunner functionality for MBTs coming post launch. You will be able to cert into it and it will unlock more powerful weapons for your tank that will require an extra gunner to man turning the tank into a 3 man vehicle.

This way those who want to solo in an MBT can and those who want to use teamwork can AND they will be rewarded for teamwork with more powerful weaponry. I feel this is the best and fair solution.

You never thinking about this yourself? Parrotting Higby doesn't end discussion, it starts it!

1. It is not fair, dedicated players would need more manpower for the same or less firepower and less endurance. Worse, they have to cert into it.

2. What is more powerful than weapons that one shot infantry?

3. Do tank duels really have to be over even faster?

4. Where doen this leave the Lightning, which can be three and two shot already?

The current weapons on the tanks are already semi-overpowered and annoying to fight, you want to make that worse?


This is not balanced, it is not fair, it still discourages teamplay and it does nothing to solve any of the current issues.

[TheSaltySeagull]

Oh, you just watch - someone will be unhappy that everyone gets what they want.

Oh I know. Look at figments post. Its proof that no matter what the devs do people will find something to bitch about.

[TheSaltySeagull]

You never thinking about this yourself? Parrotting Higby doesn't end discussion, it starts it!

1. It is not fair, dedicated players would need more manpower for the same or less firepower and less endurance. Worse, they have to cert into it.

No they are getting more power as they get more powerful weapons.

2. What is more powerful than weapons that one shot infantry?

There are more than just infantry in this game and to answer your question improvements can be things like larger magazine size, better accuracy, better range, etc. Power does not have to equal raw damage.

3. Do tank duels really have to be over even faster?

They could retune tank weaponry across the board. This game will have new weapons added in over time and balance is on going.

4. Where doen this leave the Lightning, which can be three and two shot already?

It leave it where it is now. A light tank that is designed around speed and agility over armor and firepower. Again weapons will be retuned so that its not a one shot by an MBT.

The current weapons on the tanks are already semi-overpowered and annoying to fight, you want to make that worse?

Or they could continue to balance them?


This is not balanced, it is not fair, it still discourages teamplay and it does nothing to solve any of the current issues.

No its a good idea on the part of the devs. The "flaws" you pointed out are easily addressed and I should not have to point that out to you. You are complaining for the sake of complaining because you simply do not want a single person to operate an MBT ever. So even if the devs give a fair and balanced solution you will complain against it.

[Dagron]

I'm not gonna take sides on this part of the discussion yet, i haven't really thought out what the consequences of the new plan will be, so i still don't know if it'll solve things or not.
But i have to agree with one thing: if power balance end up being the only problem, i'm sure they won't leave things broken very long. However, it also might not be as simple as it sounds... just like the AA-liberator-sunderer situation, trying to balance OP tank weapons can trigger a butterfly effect we haven't anticipated yet and might never really end up working very well.

[TheSaltySeagull]

I'm not gonna take sides on this part of the discussion yet, i haven't really thought out what the consequences of the new plan will be, so i still don't know if it'll solve things or not.
But i have to agree with one thing: if power balance end up being the only problem, i'm sure they won't leave things broken very long. However, it also might not be as simple as it sounds... just like the AA-liberator-sunderer situation, trying to balance OP tank weapons can trigger a butterfly effect we haven't anticipated yet and might never really end up working very well.

Indeed however its a plan from the devs that has the potential to make both sides of this argument happy. It should be explored in depth not dismissed off the bat. And I feel it is a far more productive discussion than arguing back and forth about whether tanks should remain as is or be ps1 style. Which is an argument that has be done to death at this point and offers no solution to appease everybody.

[Figment]

No they are getting more power as they get more powerful weapons.

There are more than just infantry in this game and to answer your question improvements can be things like larger magazine size, better accuracy, better range, etc. Power does not have to equal raw damage.

Alpha damage and rof is high. Clipsize is irrelevant, a single tank has up to what, 40 rounds. Pointless as no tank combat lasts that long. Powerful gun is damage over time or alpha damage. Rof is already high on solo tanks. Tank duels already last seconds and without endurance changes, they won't get longer. More alpha damage and higher rof are types of changes that reduce the ttk. Accuracy on a current tank is almost perfect. Improvement is virtually impossible, or you havn't noticed that Magriders headshot snipe people a lot?

They could retune tank weaponry across the board. This game will have new weapons added in over time and balance is on going.

Then MBTs as they are now must be nerfed hard. That isn't going to happen.



It leave it where it is now. A light tank that is designed around speed and agility over armor and firepower. Again weapons will be retuned so that its not a one shot by an MBT.

Which everybody uses only for AA because MBTs simply are better at everything tank related. Speed is irrelevant if you die in three shots.



Or they could continue to balance them?




No its a good idea on the part of the devs. The "flaws" you pointed out are easily addressed and I should not have to point that out to you. You are complaining for the sake of complaining because you simply do not want a single person to operate an MBT ever. So even if the devs give a fair and balanced solution you will complain against it.

You wouldn't know balance if it hit you in the eye. You just want a solo mbt and will pretend it is fair at all time. Just As easy to say, just in your case, it is true.

The "solutions" you mention don't reduce tank spam, they don't provide a more fun environment in a game that already faces instant death everywhere. It doesn't make the Lightning the better solo tank and it doesn't balance out the manpower issue. You have to make up for an entire player worth of solo tank damage and endurance per seat in one unit.

Three tanks worh of firepower and endurance in one tank. Otherwise it will never be an interesting enough choice... See, two lightnings can make up for one mbt that is a bit more powerful and manned by two. But if you can get two MBTs instead of two lightnings... Balance? So now you get one tank for three people... So that'd be equal to three lightnings, okay? Now... Those three lightnings are actually three MBTs driven solo. 3x endurance VS one time endurance since you said yourself: more powerful guns. Nothing about armour, so armour stays the same. The two gunners, even with the firepower of those three tanks combines into two guns won't be able to make up for the endurance difference.

I'm sorry to hear your maths are awful in grammar school and you thought fractions were hard and for nerds, fact is, endurance / firepower difference is simply too great to make it fair.

You have three times 1 / 1 (= 3 / 3) VS 1 / 3. HUGE difference. Try to make up for that gap and call it fair and balanced, please. Oh and remind me how this works out for other units.

[TheSaltySeagull]

Throw a tantrum if you want but they devs wont go back to ps1 style tanks by default. Nor do I feel they should given the current cert system and resource costs for vehicles. And the proposed change adds a middle ground to cater to both playstyles. Your short sighted attempts to dismiss that only shows your own blindness.

Several people in this thread have stated a desire for tanks to have the option to function both ways. And the devs are planning to facilitate that. This is something that warrents time to be implemented and to see how it functions. Why are you so hell bent on trying to shoot it down before it even gets off the ground?

As far as your accusations go I am not a tanker. Whether tanks require 1 person or 10 is irrelevant to me. I will be driving my S-AMS. On the rare occasion I do pull a tank I use the lightning. But as an outsider looking in the devs proposed changes hold promise to allow for both playstyles to be viable. I find that a more interesting point then beating this dead horse that they devs have made clear is NOT open to change.

This may shock some people but players often have different opinions on what they find fun in a game. And thus I support mechanics that promote as many different play styles as possible. So I am all for the proposed changes. Its an attempt by them to make everybody happy and should be given support and consideration.

EDIT FOR YOUR EDIT:
Three tanks worh of firepower and endurance in one tank. Otherwise it will never be an interesting enough choice... See, two lightnings can make up for one mbt that is a bit more powerful and manned by two. But if you can get two MBTs instead of two lightnings... Balance? So now you get one tank for three people... So that'd be equal to three lightnings, okay? Now... Those three lightnings are actually three MBTs driven solo. 3x endurance VS one time endurance since you said yourself: more powerful guns. Nothing about armour, so armour stays the same. The two gunners, even with the firepower of those three tanks combines into two guns won't be able to make up for the endurance difference.

I'm sorry to hear your maths are awful in grammar school and you thought fractions were hard and for nerds, fact is, endurance / firepower difference is simply too great to make it fair.

You have three times 1 / 1 (= 3 / 3) VS 1 / 3. HUGE difference. Try to make up for that gap and call it fair and balanced, please. Oh and remind me how this works out for other units.

Your math fails because its vacum math. You argument is based on both sides having the exact name number of people and they all using nothing but tanks. Its an unrealistic situation that never happens. Its a silly argument that shows nothing. Its an MMOFPS with uneven teams and combined arms play.

As long as its significantly better than an MBT with one person in it thats all that matters. It does not have to be equal to 3 one man MBTS Because you will never have a situation where you have exactly 40 guys vs another 40 guys and everybody goes and pulls an MBT and nothing else. No you will uneven numbers. You will have infantry and aircraft and lightnings etc in the mix. You will be fighting against mutlple targets and different types of targets.


I wont lower myself to petty attacks like you have but it should be fairly obvious as to why your "math" would never play out in game.

BTW I never made one "character attack" sir. Troll more plz?

[Figment]

Had just edited the above to include basic maths. You sir, don't have any even vaguely reasonable line of argumentation or backing of your solutions, everything indicates you are wrong. You bring in no actual arguments, you just try character attacks. I don't give a rats arse about the desire of people to have both ways if that disagrees with all balance in game. They are selfish, wilfully ignorant and biased.

Smedley says "it is simply more fun", for who? The user? Is that universaly true? No, most of us who want two or three crew are drivers. What about the fun of the victim of tankspam then? Is it more enjoyable to tackle one tank at a time or twowhen each can instantly kill you? This is a MMO, not a single player campaign where each tool is designed for one user. Do you expect solo lib certs too? It could be a playstyle!

I don't care one bit for their wishes when they already have the type of tank you can use solo: the Lightning. They don't need a mbt, it isn't an alternative to a Lightning, because then it would be solo, have strong armour and a weaker gun and slower. Not slower, more armour and more firepower! That cannot be justified by a minimal speed differene alone. Seems to me you don't know anything about balance. Or as you said, you are just too inexperienced to judge.

As long as you try to only use character attacks, you'll never be able to convince anyone.

[Crator]

I suppose they would have to restrict quick seat switching on the MBT as well right? For the idea of making it so the passenger is the main gunner work the way you guys are proposing. Would the driver never be able to jump in the passenger seat? Or perhaps switching seats would just take longer? If the quick seat switching still works the same as is does currently (instantly) wouldn't it be sort of a non-issue whether or not the gun was in the hands of the driver or the passenger.

[Dagron]

I still agree with you Figment, but i don't see this happening anytime soon (they have a lot of more pressing matters to worry about right now). They don't seem to want to do it, no matter how much we argue, but they did offer a middle ground that although doesn't solve everything it might at least open the door for change in the future, when they see the results. Hopefully.

[Figment]

Yes. A delay would definitely be good and fair. 1,5 seconds should suffice to make it less desirable for camping and make them more vulnerable to C4 and getting outmaneuvred by all kinds of other units, thus increasing damage taken.

I would also be in favour of clear, localised gunner and driver entrances and exits, rather than the "tag, you're it" type of entry we have now, think Higby said once they were considering that. But havn't heard about it since... On a related note, it's also really weird that aircraft don't have to be landed in order to get inside.

[maradine]

Brother, I really admired the comprehensive approach you took to PS2 feedback.

I don't give a ats arse about the desire of people to have both ways if that disagrees with all balance in game. They are selfish, wilfully ignorant and biased.

Right until about there. As you point out -

As long as you try to only use character attacks, you'll never be able to convince anyone.

So, yeah. That. Generalization is also kinda lame, for the record.

This isn't a 1+1+1=3 argument, and you know it. Each vehicle has a dozen relevant variables, all of which have a big lever on them. Is everything balanced for higher-end crewed tanks right now? No. Would they be at implementation? Probably not. Would the team work to dial that in? Yeah.

I'm emotionally divested from this argument at this point - I no longer care how the mechanic winds up. I am, however, going to point out otherwise reasoned parties losing their cool and spouting filth.

Have a drink.

On second thought, that's not a good solution around here.

[TheSaltySeagull]

I still agree with you Figment, but i don't see this happening anytime soon (they have a lot of more pressing matters to worry about right now). They don't seem to want to do it, no matter how much we argue, but they did offer a middle ground that although doesn't solve everything it might at least open the door for change in the future, when they see the results. Hopefully.

Unlikely. The middle ground is probably as good as you are going to get. If vehicles worked like in ps1 and the only investment was a mere 3 or so cert points to unlock the vehicle then I would agree with you. But in ps2 you have to spend resources on every vehicle you pull not to mention you can dump hundreds of cert points into customizing them. Its to much of an investment on the spawning player for them to only be able to drive and nothing else.

Maybe they could make the gunner operate the main gun and the driver the secondary. But I dont think they will ever go back to the idea of the driver just drives. And honestly I dont think that they should. I wouldn't want to pull a tank with the current resource and cert investment and just be able to drive it. Even the lib has a gun for the pilot to use.

[Figment]

Maradine, look at the crap this guy says about certs. He clearly demands that Sunderers must be operated solo, libs must be operated solo, Galaxies must have all four guns under drive control, because why invest into the certs someone other than you will use? I don't even think he realises the difference between a lib nose gun and a mbt turret main gun in terms of use and viability in racking up kills or even dealing damage at all. Honestly, lib nose guns are in the top five useless vehicle guns.

Selfish, egocentric, biased, uninformed, ignorant argument, right there.

I'm not spouting filth, this is 100% objective fact after reading through all his posts - there is simply no argument made or backed up with a proper example of implementation. The maths is really simple, because most variables are details. Only three specs determine balance: manpower, damage dealt over time and damage absorbed over time. That is all, the details determine how dps is delivered, it doesn't change that you end up with a dps output. Speed, profile etc are just accuracy/efficiency influencing stats and are easily integrated in dps and absorbed damage.

If he thinks air units fall under other Logic, then he is a hypocrite too. I don't hear him about how people invest in different lib guns the pilot will never use though. Imagine that, you investing in your team?

This guy doesn't have any clue and I get really annoyed with arrogant idiots trying to be denegrating and condescending. Now if he had a point somewhere in that dribble, fair enough. Fact is, he doesn't have a clue and is parrotting bad logic without fact checking.

[TheSaltySeagull]

Maradine, look at the crap this guy says about certs. He clearly demands that Sunderers must be operated solo, libsmust be operated solo, Galaxies must have all four guns under drive control, because why invest into the certs someone other than you will use?

Selfish, egocentric, biased, uninformed, ignorant argument, right there.

I'm not splitting filth, this is 100% objective fact. If he thinks air units fall under other Logic, then he is a hypocrite too. I don't hear him about how people invest in different lib guns the pilot will never use though. Imagine that, you investing in your team?

This guy doesn't have any clue and I get really annoyed with arrogant idiots trying to be denegrating and condescending. Now if he had a point somewhere in that dribble, fair enough. Fact is, he doesn't have a clue and is parrotting bad logic without fact checking.

dude stop. I never made any such claims and you damn well know it. I have no idea what your beef is here but you need to chill. I dunno what is wrong with you right now but you need to relax bro.

Like I said the cost investment is to high for an MBT to just be driven and its a turn off to some players. Liberators have guns that can be used by the crew as well as the pilot. The pilot of a lib can engage targets with his own gun as well as the rest of his crew which makes for more engaging gameplay as opposed to just flying. I feel tanks should operate under that same idea.

The sundy and the galaxy are NOT combat vehicles they are transports and support vehicles. Like I said I drive a sundy a lot. I do NOT want a gun for sundy and gal drivers. Like I said they are not combat vehicles that have a different role. I use mine as an AMS so I park it and let it do its thing. I dont drive head first into battle trying to kill stuff like you would a tank.

If my presence here upsets you I will leave because I dont want to see a valid thread get derailed for no reason. But I do resent you attacks against me for apparently no reason. Particularly after your previous post.

EDIT: And I dont see what about my opinions was so ignorant or selfish to begin with? Somebody tell me please.

[Figment]

The problem is you don't know that you made that claim the moment you said the driver does not want to invest in other certs than guns he can use. That is simply utter hypocritical bullshit. Sorry, but it is. If they care so much they are investing in the wrong vehicle and ffs, a mbt is as cheap to invest in as any other unit. Transport or combat alike, doesn't matter: team vehicles are for a team, not for personal use only.

You don't even know what you are argueing, why should anyone listen to you?

Ps: For the record, my driver gunner survey shows that the majority of respondents (>200 respondents) sees cert investment as largely empire/team investment. Unlike you, I fact check.

[TheSaltySeagull]

The problem is you don't know that you made that claim the moment you said the driver does not want to invest in other certs than guns he can use.

You don't even know what you are argueing, why should anyone listen to you?

No my friend you are twisting my arguments and its obvious. But its apparent that I have done something wrong here to I will depart for the sake of the thread. Please excuse my ignorant self then.

[Dagron]

Its to much of an investment on the spawning player for them to only be able to drive and nothing else.

I know what i'll say next is even less likely to happen than what people have been asking for a while now, but i'll just throw some ideas around just for the hell of it.

I'm sure they could think of a way to give you the choice to spawn the tank as the gunner, only applying your offensive tank certs into it, or as the driver, only applying your defensive and mobility tank certs into it.

Alternatively, maybe a weirder but more interesting idea, they could give both gunner and driver the ability to apply their individual certs in their particular role to the tank they're both into, all they needed was to stop at a vehicle pad to re-equip it. I imagine that would make it easier to have highly certed tanks around, but they could increase cert costs to turn being a dedicated driver or gunner into specialization choices that took a lot of effort and dedication to achieve.


Edit: wow, missed a whole page. Well Figment, i agree you are getting a little hot headed here, i've been looking at Salty's posts in this thread for as long as you have and i don't think he's being as aggressive as the guys who were arguing with you before he came along. You've probably just been having this discussion for too long now and it's getting to you, relax.

[Figment]

Some survey results.

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q6_170_zpscfe385c1.jpg

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PS2%20Driver%20Gunner%20Survey%20Results/Q8_170_zps64207f53.jpg

[TheSaltySeagull]

I know what i'll say next is even less likely to happen than what people have been asking for a while now, but i'll just throw some ideas around just for the hell of it.

I'm sure they could think of a way to give you the choice to spawn the tank as the gunner, only applying your offensive tank certs into it, or as the driver, only applying your defensive and mobility tank certs into it.

Alternatively, maybe a weirder but more interesting idea, they could give both gunner and driver the ability to apply their individual certs in their particular role to the tank they're both into, all they needed was to stop at a vehicle pad to re-equip it. I imagine that would make it easier to have highly certed tanks around, but they could increase cert costs to turn being a dedicated driver or gunner into specialization choices that took a lot of effort and dedication to achieve.

It sounds overly complex tho I do personally like the idea of having "gunner" certs. But its probably simpler to just give the driver a gun, just not the main one. So it would function like the ps1 mag.

But apparently I am an ignorant selfish asshole so what do I know.

[Dagron]

I agree it's overly complex, but no harm in a little brainstorming. :p

[Yetiee]

Give the ability for the main gun to be controlled by the gunner with triple ammo capacity when only one gun is mounted. And lets get some cow catchers for the driver to do some damage :)

[TheSaltySeagull]

I agree it's overly complex, but no harm in a little brainstorming. :p

Oh no by all means. Its just that with it being a f2p game(one that currently lacks any clear tutorial) I feel things need to be simple.

Like I said normally I would be in full support of ps1 tank mechanics but to me its just hard to justify somebody committing so much in terms or certs and resources and not being able to do anything but drive. I would prefer the more team play orientated option personally but it is a bit much. As an optional thing I am all for it but not as the default because not everybody will be happy with that. I personally wouldn't.

I just feel that the driver little gun and gunner big gun worked good for the mag in ps1 so it could be carried over. This way getting a gunner is obviously a benefit but the driver can get in on the action as well.

Also the proposed upcoming change could be very cool with how they implement it and everybody could end up happy so I think its worth looking into.

[Figment]

Edit: wow, missed a whole page. Well Figment, i agree you are getting a little hot headed here, i've been looking at Salty's posts in this thread for as long as you have and i don't think he's being as aggressive as the guys who were arguing with you before he came along. You've probably just been having this discussion for too long now and it's getting to you, relax.

Aggression has nothing to do with it. I'm tired of hearing the same ignorant dribble time and again, especially when someone doesn't realise what he is suggesting and claiming.

There is no compromise possible. None. Not a single one. Nada. Zilch. This isn't about catering to play styles as if they are equal by just waving a magic dev wand, it's about basic balance and it cannot be achieved by any suggested setup that uses the same mbt frame as basis.

That people still have blind faith in devs and expect others to simply accept them and keep rambling false assumptions about player base desires and wishes is as ridiculous as it is insulting.

I'm one of the only person who ever took the effort to find out what players want on this matter. There is one more person on the PS2 forum who asked what players want: ps1 MBTs or PS2, the ratio of votes was about 6 ps1 for every PS2 liker, with over 140 votes cast. Now polls can be misleading, but do you honestly think that this sample size, that is consistent with reddit, PSU and every thread and poll conducted on this matter, is so flawed there are in reality more people in favour of solo MBTs?

MBT Tankspam is a HUGE concern on the official forums. You honestly think doing nothing about their numbers and adding a token cert that nobody would use as long as they can afford more tanks would help anything?

Yeah I don't give a rats arse about egocentric wishes and proud of it. I'm sure there are those that want MAX units to hack points and want Mosquitos to have napalm. I'm also aware that some people think PS1 bfrs on introduction were perfectly balanced or that infil one/two shot shotguns are fine. Does that mean you should give it to because they personally think it is fun? If there were valid game play reasons or niches that were best solved with one crew, okay. But MBTs are not that unit.

I've said in the past, I could imagine a light, fixed forward mounted AI machine gun, indeed like the ps1 mag, but it shouldn't be ever considered to give a driver of a tank balanced in endurance for more thayn one guy a heavy main tank gun. That's as stupid as given infils shotguns (and significantly worse than infils with sniper rifles, tbh).

[Dagron]

Its just that with it being a f2p game(one that currently lacks any clear tutorial) I feel things need to be simple.

It'd be pretty hard to implement, i'm sure... at first it would come out buggy as hell. :lol:
But i don't think that'd be so complex for the players, it would just take a little tutorial on how to spawn tanks the way you want (and most things in the game will already need tutorials anyway).


I just feel that the driver little gun and gunner big gun worked good for the mag in ps1 so it could be carried over. This way getting a gunner is obviously a benefit but the driver can get in on the action as well.

I always supported this, i agree that just driving can be a little boring and is definitely not for everyone. By giving some weapon to the driver they'd encourage more people to drive (i'd love to have a flamethrower as the driver), otherwise we'd see a shortage of those, i'm sure.


Also the proposed upcoming change could be very cool with how they implement it and everybody could end up happy so I think its worth looking into.

I think the problem is that overlap in the MBT and the lightning, it makes the lightning underused and the MBT overused without a gunner. I think we'll still see a lot of non certed MBTs running around and people who want to be gunners will have a hard time finding drivers.


Edit: Figment, i'm just saying you should cool down a bit, your posts are getting more and more ranty and people are less likely to take your arguments in consideration when you start down that road. I'm on your side, but i know bashing your fists relentlessly into a 10" steel door that seems firmly shut won't get it open. Been there, done that... a lot.

[maradine]

That is all, the details determine how dps is delivered, it doesn't change that you end up with a dps output. Speed, profile etc are just accuracy/efficiency influencing stats and are easily integrated in dps and absorbed damage.

Do you really believe that? Given an assumed Prowler DPS of 30 units, can you express to me in DPS the additive value of it being able to move 10kph faster than stock? Is it the same if air superiority is in play? If it isn't? If mineguards are equipped? If the opposing force can climb the rise between you but you can't?

Just to be clear here, for that argument to stand, the next characters out of your keyboard need to be a number. I'm glad you assert it's easy.

No. The view that the value of what you consider "details" is easily integrated into two numbers is ludicrous under logical and historical scrutiny. There is more to combat than the delta between input and output. If you disagree with me on that, the best I'm going to be able to do at this point is point you at some reference works, starting with the old chestnut from that Chinese guy.

[Marinealver]

I also disagree with Smed on this one.

And it would be cool if they could add it on the fly but they simply don't have the code support to do so. I've asked Kevm0 about it a couple times.

That is the problem with the game. So many things are hard code right now that there is no way to change them short of rewriting the game.

It is kind of sad that they didn't even do a proper change over with the models and meerly slaped on a "gunners" weapons. See photo for example.
http://s15.postimage.org/mu725afcr/1_Vanguard.jpg

[TheSaltySeagull]

some random stuff .

I would appreciate it if you didnt try and put words in my mouth thank you sir. Also you outright aggression and personal attacks against me over a video game are childish at best.

Like several other people have told you now you need to chill out and relax. The point of this forum and others is to discuss the game. Not have angry fits of rage and denounce anybody who presents an opposing viewpoint.

I do not have blind faith in the devs. But I feel the up coming changes could play out in a positive way and you arguments against it have been lackluster at best using unrealistic vacum themed math and phantom balance concerns. And random surveys from god knows where.

You will forgive me but I find your arbitray posts and logic offensive. Especially given its hypocritical nature considering what you wrote before.

You could very well be right and that the devs up coming changes could just not work. You could also be wrong. You need to stop acting like some sort of plantside god. If you do not want to partake in a discussion and will adopt the logic of "I am figment I am always right" then why are you even here?

I will not be responding back after this post. It is obvious I am sparked some sort of nerd rage from you for whatever reason and that I am apparently a stupid ignorant fool who is not worthy of being in the presence of figment. I apologize because my partaking in this discussion has apparently devalued the discussion. I will now go PM hamma and try and get him to remove my posts because they have apparently been of no value.

Please continue on.

[maradine]

Dude. Hyperbole alert. Come on.

[Gatekeeper]

I've said in the past, I could imagine a light, fixed forward mounted AI machine gun, indeed like the ps1 mag.

I like this idea. An optional fixed-forward driver gun (or maybe with limited arc) for all three tanks sounds like a good compromise to me. Gives drivers something to pew pew with, without making gunners optional - i.e. pretty much the same situation as the Lib.

That said, I do think it should be just one option - personally I think I'd prefer no driver gun, so I can go third-person and just focus on driving. Dropping the gun should give you a minor buff to some other aspect instead IMO - speed, turning, whatever.

[Uhlan]

Apparently, the Dev's want to make the game accessible for any random person who decides to spend the cash to play the game and get a taste for what's available.

How dare they...

That said, I wish they would have gone about the MBT's this way.

1. Make resources count, don't have MBT-Obtainium? can't make ADVANCED tanks. Everyone in your faction is part of the "bloody" infantry (with the exception of point 2).

2. Make a light tank universally available such as the Lightning. This would allow the random player/lone wolf to have access to decent tanking options and might stimulate a taste for specializing a bit.
a. Allow Private JoeRandom to speciallize it any way he/she wants. Some
examples.
1. Light machine gun anti-personnel/Battle-taxi for up to 4 players (1/2 squad). The Sunderer is only available for those who have certs
ground out as a squad leader.
2. Light anti-tank (harasser) fairly useless against personnel.
3. Forward observer options to help out the folks in the heavies who
have put the time and certs into tank specialization or for there
brothers and sisters in the air who have done something similar in
their chosen field.
b. Grinding certs in these vehicles will net you points toward the
the heavies.

I know it adds another layer to a something the dev's wanna make as simple as possible, but it would add some much needed depth.

Just some thoughts. :)

[Uhlan]

wow, my post looks like crap, sorry. Believe me. it looked really snazzy a second ago. Sorry about the readability.

[Figment]

Funny, Seagull, you're done nothing but denounce the position of others and trying to end debate by stating Higby made up his mind, whoever wants driver/gunner changes should shut up and putting your own position on the matter above that of others without actually using examples that mathematically add up. You are even more vague than Mitt Romneys plans for the economy. You say "stronger weaponry" without having any notion of the ratio required.

And Maradine, yes you can make efficiency assumptions about those things depending on how easy it is to lead, angle of attack, type and place of engagement, etc. You can assume high and low end efficiencies based on tank characteristics. It is very straightforward in one on one comparisons, from which you can derive other engagements. On the current tanks you can presume an accuracy of 80%, average of angle engagement and where players will put their increased armour. WoT is far more complex in terms of balance, but you can easily predict how an engagement will end if you get the drop or the other does or if you both engage and expose what side based on stats, type of gun, speed etc: it is how you plan for battle and in ps1 and PS2 that is much simpler, despite of aircav; you always try to up your efficiency and lower theirs. Despite all the variables, you know damn well you can predict outcomes of battles with ease in the field UNLESS you set yourself up for a 50/50 chance. If other units deal damage is of no relevance to balance, as you cannot predict what else will be there, you can only balance individual units or groups of units of the same kind, before looking at combined effects and strategies.

But the problem, Maradine, is that we aren't balancing an unit which variables we can all change. We are balancing "a Prowler with two people and a solo Prowler" VS "a Prowler with three people", while also balancing "a Prowler with three people" against "three Prowlers driven solo". BEFORE we even look into actual inter-empire balance. Unfortunately, that is too advanced for people who think there are compromises possible. And in terms of combinations, what about two Prowlers and an AA Lightning or one Prowler manned by two and an AA Lightning? All of the above require three crew, you honestly think that just by tweaking firepower you can balance them all into a single unit?

We are not talking about the different guns here, which can always be balanced between equal numbers of tanks with the same manpower, by altering all those variables, but to have the SAME UNIT FRAME balanced against itself in terms of manpower by creating new advantages and disadvantages with only firepower to play with is something else entirely! The endurance / firepower ratio would have to be about 1/9 to ttk wise compete with 3/3! With a ttk of three shots, that is pretty much asking for instagib on tanks weapons, because otherwise it is still both tactically and mathematically advantageous to bring three solo tanks instead...

[Figment]

For the record, do you understand the stacking effect of damage if you use multiple units instead of one?

Assuming endurance is equal between three tanks vs 1, the least damage those tanks deal is when the three tanks will die one by one, right? That means the amount of damage they can put out is one life + two lives + three lives = 6 lives worth of damage, assuming they all stand in front of the gun of the solo tank. So you, as a solo tank with three people inside.

Now, that means if one solo driver tank can fire one shot per life before dieing, you already get at least 6 shots against you in this engagement. And that is assuming insta-killing the enemy! In reality, they will get 3-4 shots per life. So the three crew tank faces 18-24 shots to compensate with damage absorption, damage dealing and dodging.

Let me know how that math works out for you in a compromise vehicle.

[McFeeble]

I prefer they way they do it now, its more fun. I dont see the issue in giving people the option if it is balanced though, but would prefer this is done via a different vehicle, as I can see balance issues if they went down the route of just swopping gunner and driver guns on the mag.

[Figment]

I can tell you now that's not going to work, because you're trying to balance endurance vs firepower ratios for the same vehicle with different manpower involved. :/

People who think it can be balanced clearly havn't actually tried to make it balanced, equal choices...



If you have Endurance [Em (mbt) or El (lightning)], Firepower [Fn], with n=1 for driver gun, n=2 for gunner and F3 for gunner of the three crew tank and F4 for the second gunner of the three crew tank. We really should assume Fn can be altered per unit type and can consist of a variety of weapons as well. I mean, why keep balance simple, right?

E on the other hand, being defined as the time to get killed conists of a formula of hitpoints and damage taken. This value of E remains the same in hitpoints, because we're talking about the same unit frame. In reality, it does vary with the angle at which the unit is approached. One must assume that angles differ more and become more advantageous as there are more vehicles involved for different positioning and encircling strategies. But, for the sake of simplicity, let's assume a set value of E for any particular unit. Keep in mind though that in reality, the less units you have, the lower your practical endurance.

The same goes for speed, acceleration and profile size and armour weaknesses: these WILL be the exact same for the same tank with one, two or three crew members inside because they're not going to make these separate certs. This also means you can NOT, I repeat NOT, use these variables to balance the unit against itself in a different configuration. This leaves only Firepower to work with!

Note also that F1, F2, F3 and F4 can vary in type and strength depending on MBT or Lightning as well as choice of weapons. Hence we will have F1m and F1l. Note that F1m can be AP, HE, HEAT. F2 can be Bassilisk, Kobalt, Fury, Enforcer, Halbert, etc. for a Vanguard. F1l can be AP, HE, HEAT, AA. Now, I'm not going over all those options seperately, but you can imagine you can replace those type of weaponry in any future comparison. These are already non-equal choices between them, but now you're also trying to balance them against a large variety of configuration options.

Then we can start looking at the amount of manpower used, because if you're going to pick a unit and have X crew available, you're going to try and utilise X crew as optimal as possible as a player. X will be the same for each option and we will treat manpower as a constant. The minimal crew size of each option will determine X, X is minimal 3 on the new cert option, so X will be three. As said, X determines the amount of units one can select, in this case, with three it's either:

[1] 3x Solo Tank (1 crew req. per time) - can be Lightnings or MBTs in any configuration that totals 3 tanks.
[2] 1x Solo Tank + 2 crew tank (driver gunning), two crewed tank + solo MBT or Lightning.
[3] 1x three crew tank.

Now, for [1], we have 3Em + 3F1m OR 3F2 tops (can switch guns), 3El least +3F1l. Combinations are possible in order to get the best mix, regardless, Etotal is always more than Em, firepower is at least 3F1l to 3F1m and may also be any combination that results in more firepower.
For [2], we have Em + Em or El, with F1m + F2 + F1m or F2 or F1l. It could also be a three crew tank manned by two, by which we have Em + F3 OR F4, + F1m or F2 or F1l.
For [3], we have Em + F3 + F4.

That's the obvious part: what could you bring? So far you can still follow right? Sounds like really simple choice balance already, doesn't it? And that's not even looking at different types of guns... ANYWAY.


Now let's start balancing this so they're equal alternatives.

To be a balanced choice of equal alternatives, the following has to be true:

1=2, 2=3, 1=3

Now to simplify this, the easiest way for a quick comparison is to look at the various ratios of damage taken vs damage dealt and also considering the alternative options you can use to create flexibility in the field.


OPTIONS [1]
3 MBTs (include all the following options):
3Em * 3F1m
3Em * 3F2
3Em * (2F1m + F2)
3Em * (F1m + 2F2)

2 MBTs 1 Lightning:
(2Em + El) * (2F1m + F1l)
(2Em + El) * (F1m + F2 + F1l)
(2Em + El) * (2F2 + F1l)

MBT + 2 Lightnings:
(Em + 2El) * (F1m + 2F1l)
(Em + 2El) * (F2 + 2F1l)

3 Lightnings:
3El * 3F1l

OPTIONS [2]
MBT (driver=gunner + gunner) + solo MBT:
2Em * (2F1m + F2)
2Em * (F1m + 2F2)

MBT (driver=gunner + gunner) + Lightning:
(Em + El) * (F1m + F2 + F1l)

MBT (driver=/=gunner + gunner) + solo MBT:
2Em * (F1m + F3)
2Em * (F1m + F4)

MBT (driver=/=gunner + gunner) + Lightning:
(Em + El) * (F3 + F1l)
(Em + El) * (F4 + F1l)

OPTIONS [3]
MBT (driver=/=gunner + 2 gunners):
Em * (F3 + F4)


As you can see, the endurance disadvantage of [3] is that you have a third to a half of the enemy endurance. This has to be completely compensated for by firepower! Is that really feasible?


What does that mean? Well, let's just start by equalising the obvious, three crew MBT vs three solo MBTs shall we?

Em * (F3 + F4) = 3Em * 3F1m
F3 + F4 = 3Em * 3F1m / Em
F3 + F4 = 9F1m

So, the simplified maths assuming ideal, fair conditions, suggests the combined firepower of F3 and F4 would have to be 9 times as strong as a main gun on a solo MBT to make up for its disadvantage in endurance. Okay, let's assume for simplicity that F3 = F4. That means that F3 would have to be 4,5 times stronger than the solo MBT main gun to make up for the endurance difference. Considering 4-5 is about the amount of shots it takes to kill a MBT, these would instantly kill any tank they see, especially Lightnings, to make it "balanced". That's going to upset other unit balance, how? I don't think I even need to go any further, do I?



Alternative evaluation: Stacking lives effect

And that's when we're NOT including the stacking effect of having multiple tanks and being able to use encircling tactics to increase lifespan and tanks only being able to tackle one enemy tank at a time. See, the effect of stacking can easily be demonstrated in a theoretical fight between two alternatives. Let's take the above situation of one tank fighting three tanks. Forget the above calculations for a second and start from scratch and just assume a total of three manpower for each situation. Any combination of three manpower must be equal in order to see them as equal choices.

If you focus fire to kill one tank, while there are three, as long as you haven't killed the first tank, the other two solo tanks take no damage, but can fire. Then, after you kill the first tank, you will concentrate fire on the second tank. As long as you concentrate fire on the second tank, the third tank takes no damage, but can fire. Finally, you can concentrate fire on the third tank. That's three "rounds" of fighting, in which the damage dealt by the solo tanks is 3 + 2 + 1 = 6 lives worth of damage, whereas the single tank in one life must try to triple that damage output, because their combined hitpoints is triple that of the damage the opponents have to deal. (3TTK vs TTK) vs 6DoT vs 1DoT => 6*3 =18.

The conclusion is that the TTK of one solo tank on another solo tank, must be 1/18th of that of a three crew tank on a solo tank, in order to be equal choices. So... F3 and F4 combined would have to actually be 18x stronger? Ouch.

The same can be done for a two crew tank vs two solo tanks as an alternative: 2+1 lives worth of damage vs the single two-crew tank who must equal that in one live. Again though, the multi-crew tank must deal double the damage to the two solo tanks, their damage output must therefore be double that of the two solo tanks. Here, balance suggests solo tanks must do a 1/2*1/3 = 1/6 of the damage a two crew tank deals to make them equal choices. In other words, a two-crew tank must deal 6 times the damage a normal tank deals.

However, the two conclusions above conflict with one another. At this point, both the 2 and 3 crew units would be able to instakill one another with a lot of potential extra damage on top of that. For one, that's not "fun". Two, it's not balanced and three it's extremely unlikely that this would be implemented.

In reality, any compromise vehicle would be significantly less powerful than the choice for multiple solo MBTs.


Ergo, they're not balanced. Ergo, they're not equal choices. Ergo, there's no such thing as "equal play styles" in this compromise.


I'm sure since you said that there'll be a cert and we can all stop worrying, you've done this mind excercise yourself and obtained good results out of it instead? Please, let's hear the maths under which stacking is cancelled out by stronger weapons and 1, 2 and 3 crew in the exact same frame (speed, profile, hitpoints, etc, aside from firepower) are equal choices for the same amount of manpower?

If you can't produce those theoretical maths, even under assumed perfect conditions, then why would I accept that there'll be balance in less than ideal conditions?

[maradine]

I don't understand how you can go into such a level of detail and stumble over the primary fallacious assertion here - same-hull-to-same-hull balance is pointless.

Setting aside the minor but entertaining fact that there is no circumstance where an MBT will fight itself, and setting aside that the primary intended PS2 balancing fulcrum might be resources spent per engagement, not manpower*, you're evaluating this in what physicists like to call a frictionless vacuum.

You ball up all the other things happening on the battlefield as "details" to be ignored while you concentrate on trying to derive a model for how 30 people would engage 30 people in prowlers and lightnings over a continuum of vehicle occupancy. If those were the only 60 people on Auraxis at the time, and the fate of the planet depended on the outcome of that single battle, huzzah - you've got a model!

But they're not, and it doesn't. Various points lost in numeric abstraction:


The "1/18th" math is synthetic and will never happen in a real fight, even if everyone could actually get LOS to everyone. This isn't EVE, where FC calls a primary and everyone engages a single target because everyone has a convenient sorted spreadsheet interface of everyone else in the combat. And gods forbid you try to sort it into alpha bundles. That's simply not the reality of how tank combat plays in PS2.
There's always infantry crawling around. Tanks with two guns can cover both their strong and their weak sides at the same time. How does the math change with HAs running around on the field? Is your pair of solo prowlers now the inferior choice to a single prowler with a kobalt?
There's always aircraft flying around. Tanks with two guns can keep them off station. How does the math change when the local skies are hostile? Is your pair of solo prowlers now the inferior choice to a single prowler with a walker?
What about in a facilities fight, where LOS is severely limited, gang-ups are rarer, and first-spot is more important than numbers? Wouldn't you like to have two pairs of eyes?
What about the next fight? Two thirds of what you assert to be the mathematically guaranteed losing force can still pull MBTs on respawn. No casualties from the other force can. What about the fight after that?


Your math is at more home in WoT, where 15v15 players battle in a symmetrically constructed vacuum, with one controllable mobile entity per person, no external stimuli, a time limit, and everyone goes home to the same garage at the end of the match to do it again. This isn't WoT.

A final note:

Every player is not attempting to optimize on damage output or endurance. Some groups of players, mine included, show up at the warp gate and say "well, there's 4 of us. What's the most ridiculously good time we can have with 4?" Math that relies on every model participant to be a rational actor is pointless because not everyone's a rational actor.

Figment, if pulling a solo tank is always the obvious and optimal choice, why do outfits roll fully-gunned? Why would anyone?

BWAAAAAAH.

*I really wish they'd tell us, frankly.

[Valcron]

Smed is very arrogant, he really is. And I wanted to thank you Hamma for finally taking a stance against this bullshit game they're making.

[Figment]

I don't understand how you can go into such a level of detail and stumble over the primary fallacious assertion here - same-hull-to-same-hull balance is pointless.

Setting aside the minor but entertaining fact that there is no circumstance where an MBT will fight itself, and setting aside that the primary intended PS2 balancing fulcrum might be resources spent per engagement, not manpower*, you're evaluating this in what physicists like to call a frictionless vacuum.

It's not about encountering one another, it's about selecting that which deals most damage and survives longest.

You should know damn well what I'm on about: you wage that battle in your head when you approach the vehicle terminal with two outfit mates of yours: "Shall we get a single MBT or a MBT and the Lightning? Shall I get the one for my mate and one extra wingman buddy, or shall we just grab three?".

If it is to fight other tanks, you're currently already never going to select three Lightnings.

But hey. This just shows you're not thinking about this at all NOR listening to NOR understanding the arguments made. You're biased and ignorant.

You ball up all the other things happening on the battlefield as "details" to be ignored while you concentrate on trying to derive a model for how 30 people would engage 30 people in prowlers and lightnings over a continuum of vehicle occupancy. If those were the only 60 people on Auraxis at the time, and the fate of the planet depended on the outcome of that single battle, huzzah - you've got a model!

Not at all. I'm comparing which combination of manpower in units available to my empire will get me the most endurance, AP and AA power per player.

But they're not, and it doesn't. Various points lost in numeric abstraction:


The "1/18th" math is synthetic and will never happen in a real fight, even if everyone could actually get LOS to everyone. This isn't EVE, where FC calls a primary and everyone engages a single target because everyone has a convenient sorted spreadsheet interface of everyone else in the combat. And gods forbid you try to sort it into alpha bundles. That's simply not the reality of how tank combat plays in PS2.
There's always infantry crawling around. Tanks with two guns can cover both their strong and their weak sides at the same time. How does the math change with HAs running around on the field? Is your pair of solo prowlers now the inferior choice to a single prowler with a kobalt?
There's always aircraft flying around. Tanks with two guns can keep them off station. How does the math change when the local skies are hostile? Is your pair of solo prowlers now the inferior choice to a single prowler with a walker?
What about in a facilities fight, where LOS is severely limited, gang-ups are rarer, and first-spot is more important than numbers? Wouldn't you like to have two pairs of eyes?
What about the next fight? Two thirds of what you assert to be the mathematically guaranteed losing force can still pull MBTs on respawn. No casualties from the other force can. What about the fight after that?


Wrong on all counts.


Hahahahaha. Yeah, you never engage two, three, four, five tanks at once and you're definitely not going to concentrate fire on one unit at a time and remove as much firepower from the field as can be done in a short period of time. *Gigglesnort* Who learned you how to tank as a team?
The two tanks will have a much better chance against infantry, because they can tag-team, have better angles and can cover each other's ass, can each instagib any infantry unit they can hit. If you get ambushed and one of you dies, the other is still alive. It is also more likely for the infantry to run out of missiles against two targets than it is to run out of missiles against one target. Didn't think too long about that, did you?
Two pairs of solo-mbts have two pairs of guns on top which they can switch to. A single tank with a single AA gun only has one such gun. This means that 2F2 > F2. And again, the double endurance and the possibility of having a Skyguard Lightning instead of a MBT gunner spot filled is also an incredible advantage to solo users. Next argument please?
Is one of your solo-tankers blindfolded? Three people always have three pairs of eyes. If they're in separate locations, they will also have different vantage points and different angles to look around. Furthermore, they will have overlapping line of sight areas as wingman covering the rear of their buddies even when firing in the same direction, making it harder for C4 carrying players to sneak behind them with ease or get out of a gun angle. Therefore, the situational awareness is greater with three units on separate locations, than three people on the same location watching in potentially different directions.
You forget some things: the single crew MBTs will survive longer as a group and therefore won't be on timers as often. Why? Because if you have one tank with others having the same TTK on you as they do on a solo tank, while they can also focus fire (no other units around) and they can more easily encircle you since you have nobody covering your flanks.


There's quite a few more things you completely ignore, such as the capacity of three tanks to outmaneuvre and flank a single tank and at least two units being able to get to the rear of the other tank as you can't keep your front oriented as easily at three tanks as you can at one.

A very important strategic benefit of choosing the solo-tanks.

Your math is at more home in WoT, where 15v15 players battle in a symmetrically constructed vacuum, with one controllable mobile entity per person, no external stimuli, a time limit, and everyone goes home to the same garage at the end of the match to do it again. This isn't WoT.

Actually, we've been doing this sort of math to select our units since 2003 in PS1... And really, all players did this. Why do you think virtually everyone flew aircraft and next to nobody used Raiders and Raiders would lose every encounter with 5 other people in other units?

A final note:

Every player is not attempting to optimize on damage output or endurance. Some groups of players, mine included, show up at the warp gate and say "well, there's 4 of us. What's the most ridiculously good time we can have with 4?" Math that relies on every model participant to be a rational actor is pointless because not everyone's a rational actor.

You seem to forget that having a good time is tied to not having a bad time. You will give less credit to the options that are going to put you, as a group, at a disadvantages. Whether you realise it or not. Even if you'd wanted to, you honestly think you as a group will go Flash all day if you'd die before you'd get anything done every time?

Figment, if pulling a solo tank is always the obvious and optimal choice, why do outfits roll fully-gunned? Why would anyone?

BWAAAAAAH.

*I really wish they'd tell us, frankly.

Given the choice, the majority does not roll fully-gunned. That's the whole point.

In PS2, they don't unless they run out of resources or pick someone up in the field who is too lazy to go back for a new tank. We don't do multi-crew tanks right now unless we've got no other option and we hardly ever get to that point. Maybe if we'd utterly suck at tanking, yeah. But we don't.

[Graywolves]

Fun for individual driving the tank or not single crewed MBTs harms the metagame and overall gameplay of the battlefield. For starters it overrides the lightning's use as a 1man tank. I only ever pull a lightning if my tank is on cooldown and that's very rare. Sure I can use the lightning to pwn AA but honestly why would I cert into something I never drive anyways let alone bother to look at it?

Their power at the moment is a little much. Might as well just give me an attack and shield boost on my heavy assualt. Yeah most people play heavy and they have a strong presence on the battlefield but I honestly only feel threatened by other tanks. It's easy kills blasting away infantry without the threat of being disabled. Unless a Heavy Assualt is popping from behind a ridge or draw I can usually take him out just by shooting near where he's hiding, or simply get close and shoot him while his rocket is out.

When you couple the MBTs individual effectiveness with how easily it is to spam and put that in massive warfare it gets really rediculousness and imposing on playstyles. Pretty much all infantry have to go heavy and spam rockets and still be at a disadvantage or spam tanks back.

When you have something where the only promising response is to do the same thing you have a problem. That's like playing a rock-paper-scissors where rock beats everything so everyone throws rock and then plays bloody knuckles.

So MBTs either need their effectiveness reduced, more viable counters, to cost way more, or to be crewed. Is it more fun for most people to drive and shoot a tank? Maybe. Is it a good idea to pretty much force everyone to share that playstyle? No.

[maradine]

But hey. This just shows you're not thinking about this at all NOR listening to NOR understanding the arguments made. You're biased and ignorant.

Sorry, mate. We're done here.

[MrBloodworth]

Nothing is more challenging, more rewarding then crewing a tank with three of your friends and refining the threat you create.

Odd thing. If your squad mate turns a sundy to squad only, you can completely drive it as if it was yours. Balanced application of the argument for Driver/gunner tanks, or a showing that its just a rational to continue to take design cues from another title?

Having discreet driver and gunner is simply more fun, more rewarding. Being the driver and gunner is just more "Playing alone, together" design.

Also, Battlefield. Its amazing in the search to make Planetside 2 a "Modern shooter" they have ignored every modern shooter but two.

[Aurmanite]

Setting aside the minor but entertaining fact that there is no circumstance where an MBT will fight itself, and setting aside that the primary intended PS2 balancing fulcrum might be resources spent per engagement, not manpower*, you're evaluating this in what physicists like to call a frictionless vacuum.

You ball up all the other things happening on the battlefield as "details" to be ignored while you concentrate on trying to derive a model for how 30 people would engage 30 people in prowlers and lightnings over a continuum of vehicle occupancy. If those were the only 60 people on Auraxis at the time, and the fate of the planet depended on the outcome of that single battle, huzzah - you've got a model!

But they're not, and it doesn't.

This is something that theorycrafters will never, ever understand. Figment, and people like him, will always cling to the idea that combat works out perfectly the way it does in their head.

2 people will always pull two tanks! They will always run into another 2 people with two tanks! It's mathematical!

[Kail]

F3 + F4 = 9F1m

So, the simplified maths assuming ideal, fair conditions, suggests the combined firepower of F3 and F4 would have to be 9 times as strong as a main gun on a solo MBT to make up for its disadvantage in endurance.

That model is only true on what a WoW player would refer to as a "patchwerk fight".


It does not give any advantage to the single tank for having undivided attention to a given task; the driver drives, the gunner guns, and there is tangible survivability increases due to that
It does not take space or terrain into account. Since two tanks cannot occupy the same space at the same time, every tank at any given instant in time has an attack and defense modifier based purely on it's location - and I would argue that it is rarely equivalent between two tanks, let alone four.
It assumes a cage-match fight; the fight ends when F1m blows up, or three enemy tanks blow up, and during this time every tank contributes at maximum effeciency. Given how often I see tanks get damaged and back off, find some cover quick and repair, or leave the fight for flanking purposes, I believe its safe to say this assumption is usually false


Would the raw firepower of 9 tanks sometimes be required for a solo, 3-man tank to win? Sure. Would it ever be higher? Sure. Would it ever be lower? Definitely. And more importantly that math is incorrect because by that logic a solo 3-man tank would require the firepower of 9 tanks to be "balanced", when it would clearly not be since it would be able to one-shot anything it came across. It's the same reason DPS isn't the only important stat on a weapon (else, why was everyone complaining about the bolt-action rifle vs the semi-auto? They have equivalent DPS!)

[Figment]

You should read the conclusions better: I said it can't be balanced. I also stated the conditions to be perfectly fair. In reality, with three tanks they would tag team circle and beat the crap out of the one tank. I also stated it was impossible to do this without massively upsetting balance, which is why balancing based on firepower alone is simply absurd, another conclusion I drew...

See, if you want to take in terrain, you do is add efficiency modifications. Balance is based not on every single practical situation, but on ideal, controlled situations and then modify from there to make up for specific specifications with little tweaks. You cannot dismiss the maths on that basis though, since any modifier can apply to either side. They cancel each other out on average.

Now, attention and focus does contribute positively, but to argue that it can outmatch such an extreme disadvantage is ridiculous. Besides, would you want to balance based on the most positive situational situation you can theoretically come across?

The maths is an approximation, everyone knows that. I did say simplified for good reason. But consider that most people don't even take the effort to understand this much. Do you honestly think that working with efficiency factors would make it easier for the same of argument?

Then we get for each of the three players:

e1 = elevation difference
e2 = distance to target
e3 = accuracy
e4 = overkill damage
e5 = cover use
e6 = repairs
e7 = approach angle
e8 = armour upgrade mods
e9 = dodging skill
e10 = leading skill
etc. etc. etc.

No that helps in general balance discussions. :/ Details like these are irrelevant in determining the order of magnitude. This isn't finetuning, it is checking the soundness of the basic plan. Since that already isn't feasible, it is a rather waste of time to brainstorm with more arbitrary detail.

[Livefire]

The majority of PS2 players are not going to be joining an outfit and playing as a co-ordinated team. They will be solo, the same way that they play BF3 and CoD and whatever other FPS they play.

I have no problem with the idea of dedicated driver separate from dedicated main gunner, but ONLY if that is an option as opposed to the only way.

Smed has it right on this one.

This is retarded, what is the point of playing PS2 if its just another BF3, COD. This is suppose to be a MMOFPS built around team play. If you don't want to join an outfit and make friends and play with them constantly as a team then you should just play BF3 and COD for it will always be better for that game style. The only reason to play PS is for the team play mechanics and large scale complex battles that come out of it. They will never hold the quick fix solo arcade clone player for any amount of time, there are at least 2 new games that will always be shinier then PS that will come out every year to pull those players away.

[Figment]

Besides, don't you love the stereotyping?

Our outfit already took in 9 BF3 and CoD origin players. And I'm not even trying hard For recruitment at this point. Saying they wouldn't join an outfit is such rubbish. tons of them are already in clans, some want to import their entire clan... If it providers benefits to fps players, they will do it.

Outfits are the ultimate benefit, they just need to see the value of groups.

[Kail]

You should read the conclusions better: I said it can't be balanced. I also stated the conditions to be perfectly fair. In reality, with three tanks they would tag team circle and beat the crap out of the one tank. I also stated it was impossible to do this without massively upsetting balance, which is why balancing based on firepower alone is simply absurd, another conclusion I drew...

See, if you want to take in terrain, you do is add efficiency modifications. Balance is based not on every single practical situation, but on ideal, controlled situations and then modify from there to make up for specific specifications with little tweaks. You cannot dismiss the maths on that basis though, since any modifier can apply to either side. They cancel each other out on average.

Now, attention and focus does contribute positively, but to argue that it can outmatch such an extreme disadvantage is ridiculous. Besides, would you want to balance based on the most positive situational situation you can theoretically come across?

The maths is an approximation, everyone knows that. I did say simplified for good reason. But consider that most people don't even take the effort to understand this much. Do you honestly think that working with efficiency factors would make it easier for the same of argument?

Then we get for each of the three players:

e1 = elevation difference
e2 = distance to target
e3 = accuracy
e4 = overkill damage
e5 = cover use
e6 = repairs
e7 = approach angle
e8 = armour upgrade mods
e9 = dodging skill
e10 = leading skill
etc. etc. etc.

No that helps in general balance discussions. :/ Details like these are irrelevant in determining the order of magnitude. This isn't finetuning, it is checking the soundness of the basic plan. Since that already isn't feasible, it is a rather waste of time to brainstorm with more arbitrary detail.

Ah sorry, I did confuse the issue.

What I was trying to get at was that with too simple of a model the formula achieved leads to an obviously incorrect conclusion (which you agree with) - however, I see this as a problem with the model itself, not that the situation is unsolvable. Mainly in part due to the multipliers left out for the sake of being able to wrap your head around it can severely skew the order of magnitude.

[Figment]

If we wern't talking about the same unit being used in a different unit combination, yes. But since the basic frame is the same and all other stats remain the same, there are very few variables to work with. As a player, you will try to optimisme your choice at the vpad. If quantity works better than quality, you'll go with quantity... This is also true for guns and other choices. For air it is done such that you really base the vehicle of your choice on your manpower and target. For tanks the choice is currently a default for the solo mbt and that will remain so as long as drivers control a very strong gun. I'm also sad that there is yet to be a seat switching penalty. Playing artillery or turret happens too much now at no significant disadvantages. Even if stationary for an ammoclip, if you are threatened to get c4ed, you switch seats asap and drive over them backwards.

Solo tanking in ps1 was possible but at the cost of having to get out to change positions, Thus more exposure time and while doing so seat switching time and the risk of being stranded because infantry waited for you to get out again. That is a lot fairer if you get one shot one kill weapons and a superfast repair while the opposition gets few short range rockets. Solo tankers have far too many advantages right now. It is so convenient it entices people in a MMO to work alone... I don't mind some loning and some capacity to play alone, but then primarily with weak units and without interfering with other balance.

[azoren]

Single-manned MBTs are around because the lightning isn't a viable tank. It might as well be a buggy right now.

There are clear roles for the vehicles:
Transport/support: Sky - Gal, Ground - Sundie
Light Assault: Sky - ESF, Ground - Lightning
Heavy Assault: Sky - Lib, Ground - MBT

Ideally, the lightning should be as useful as the ESF.
Right now it's just a skyguard.

[MrBloodworth]

Single-manned MBTs are around because the lightning isn't a viable tank. It might as well be a buggy right now.

No. Single maned tanks are around because Battlefield. No other reason.

Funny that it will likely take more people to crew a buggy than the main force equipment. They had better make my marauder a 3 man.