PlanetSide Universe - View Single Post - Gameplay: Dedicated driver certification for MBT
View Single Post
Old 2012-07-17, 05:23 PM   [Ignore Me] #27
Lieutenant General
Re: Dedicated driver certification for MBT

Originally Posted by Azren View Post
Obviously I can not give you an option, I am not the director of SOE afterall... What I can do though is bring this topic to SOE's attention which can result in it being implemented.
What I meant was if implemented as described, it'd still not be an option, but a token solution.

If you think it is a "downright bad execution" of having dedicated gunner, feel free to share your opinion on how it could be done right.
Simple. Don't compromise. Balance the unit completely on the basis of dedicated driver, dedicated gunner, rather than use the balance of one or two gunners.

More than that, if you consider how much more situational awareness the dedicated driver tank has, it balances out nicely. Yes, it would lose in a head on fight, if it only has one gunner, but it has a greater chance of outmanuvearing it's opponent so it won't get into those situations in the first place. At range and tricky terrain the dedicated driver has the obvious advantage.
The problem is that situational awareness doesn't give you more hitpoints and firepower. You will not be as optimal in use as any other combination of separate units.

Take a PS1 Lightning. Imagine you cut up the controls. You think a single enemy unit has more issues with two Lightnings or one?

It can only engage one at a time. The other doesn't HAVE to move and can fire freely, but if you're both in the same unit with the same hitpoints, he only needs to chase down one and maybe he'll miss 20% of the shots needed, great. If you were with two, he'd still need 80% more shots to kill the second tank...

Now if your tank also had 100% more hitpoints, you'd be getting somewhere in terms of balance and maneuvring advantage.

At any rate, this would be an option you can turn on and off when you spawn the MBT, there is no loss to overal game experience this way.
It sounds like it at first glance, if you look deeper you'll realise it's a non-solution because it's the exact same, unchanged, tank.

Your main advantage would be on range and hard terrain (forests, ect). These situations ensure that you will not be circled in, if you don't let them.

It is bad to come to conclusions based on only one situation.
Which is why I don't base it on one situation... ANY given situation. ANY situation is better with two of the same units if they have equal firepower because their endurance will always trump your endurance.

You don't cut away anything. It is their choice to use that setup. If it would be disadvantageous they wouldn't use it in the first place. So either it works and is overal better than drivergunner setup and many players will use it, or if it does not work good enough, only those who really want that kind of experience would use it.
Exactly. Meaning it's not a good compromise if only the stubborn keep using it because they sentimentally want to pretend it's still better despite the execution proving them wrong. Thanks for clarifying this to yourself.

Now, I WANT separate roles, badly, but I can't accept giving up manpower, firepower nor endurance per player for it.

The only acceptable solutions for a tank with the same role and built are when manpower, endurance/firepower (damage over time) for X* tanks are equal to the unit where X crew is a requirement. Because only THEN is maneuvrability an added advantage for your group of three.

*Note, X should never rise above three, unless the unit design has exploitable, built-in flaws. Otherwise you create units that are played with less than intended players to maximise endurance per player.
Figment is offline