[Figment]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

I never said that manpower doesn't matter. I said there's already enough advantage for 3 guys to use a massive gun platform.

But one guy in a massive gun platform with the hitpoints of 3 guys in a massive gun platform has no advantage at all. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Certainly not if they can bring three.

Oh man, you're funny.

You don't balance individual units against each other in a game like this, you balance team structure against other team structures because the game is designed around large battles with multiple people.

Then why are you so adamant on balancing ONE unit against ONE other unit based on the power of ONE man? Because that is what you are doing.

Now, splitting up all the positions over a gunner=driver system is, in my opinion, giving an advantage to the 3-manned tank.

No, it's giving the advantage to the lone gunner.

I'm ok with that because 1) I'm not a nitpicky asshole 2) there's a slight tradeoff for the small fact you might get three kills instead of two if you kill it.

1. Indeed, you're an ignorant asshole and a hypocrite.
2. A slight trade-off

Your crappy driver and gunner setup isn't even viable in PS2 and would only screw MBTs over.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You support a weak "team"-solo unit, where you put a theoretical option for three crew in, make it viable for ONE crewmember and also give him access to changing position inside the tank. Then you pretend someone would actually fill it up with three (where two is already unlikely), continue to call it better than a single other unit without having any evidence, nor maths to suggest that it COULD even theoretically tackle multiple enemies (and just presume from the fact there's more guns that this is magically enough to make them useful, which is an utterly retarded assumption if you look at the maths even if you assume horrible efficiency of other tanks).


You do realise that in a perfect TTK, two single crew tanks fighting one tank with two gunners have the equivalent firing live of three tanks due to numerical leverage, right? Meaning that in a perfect two crew TTK on the other units, the other two would already have to perform at 66% efficiency each AND NOT MAKE USE OF ANY POSITIONING AND FLANKING advantages that multiple crews have? Meaning that if the two crew misses some shots or the gunner of the two crew loses tracks, the other two tanks would have to have a an efficiency each of below 40% in order to lose?

Oh wait, you don't have any argumentation to support your stance, you just have "wet finger in the air to see where wind is blowing" first impression opinions.


RIIIGHT. You're just interested in solo power so you can personally abuse it and kill two or three at once. Admit it. Stop being selfish. And if you're not, then you're just acting a hypocrite, possibly on purpose. And if not that, you're just being stubborn because you hate me enough to not let me "win" a debate from you. One thing is for sure, you don't have an educated opinion.

Pick one. Come on.


But you were saying that my design philosophy screws over team-vehicle players? Let me get back to laughing.

You do realise you are saying that EVERY PS1 unit that requires more gunners is SCREWED OVER as like in MY version of driver + gunner they equal the power of the equal amount of solist users and then have a slight teamwork advantage in maneuvring over said units.

Instead, you have the "compromise version" YOU MIGHT SUPPORT, where they are LESS than the equal of the equal amount of solist users and are thus substantially WEAKER than in my variant.

And then you have YOUR version, where they don't really need to exist at all!

RIIIIIIGHT. I am the one screwing teamwork over! Clearly! Stop making up stupid arguments, it makes you look utterly stupid. And this isn't an insult, it's fact.




For the record, the design philosophy I propose was applied extremely succesfully on balancing the fast majority of PS1 multi-crew combat units.

Even if it took some buffs and nerfs (particularly to buggies, which had to be made substantially more powerful to compete with multiple solo air units in particular).


Plus, it's funny in light of PS1 balance between units:

Examples of vehicles in PS1 that are balanced in the way the compromise here suggests: Prowler (token second gunner), Harasser (way too weak), Raider (outperformed by Deliverer, Aurora and Thunderer as they require less crew for virtually same power), Marauder (only Mortar interesting, 12 mm is rather worthless most the time), but also: Bassilisk (too weak compared to infantry (!) to be attractive).

Examples of vehicles in PS1 that are balanced in the way you suggest: Mosquito, Reaver. There'd be no balanced team vehicles as everyhing would be a solo vehicle first by far. At most there'd be a few with unrecommended, optional crew second. If there were, they'd be akin to the above units. All PS2 vehicles aside from the Sunderer, Liberator and Galaxy fall under this, only the Liberator could be seen as a combat unit at this point, while the others are discardable units.

Examples of vehicles in PS1 that are balanced like I suggest: Skyguard, Enforcer, Tresher, Vanguard, Thunderer, Deliverer, Lightning (post-buff since it was far too weak compared to team-vehicles to be near competitive, but two still can't take on a single MBT without working together really, really hard for it), Magrider (because the driver has a much weaker gun than the gunner and a second Magrider-driver can't out-"damage-over-time" a Magrider gunner even with the added endurance - which is not true for PS2 solo MBTs because they got equal capacity guns!), Liberator. Note also that, if you couldn't switch seats, the PS2 Liberator falls under this.


So.... I'm screwing over multi-crews? Riiiight. I doubt you will comprehend what I'm saying though and even if you would, you'd never admit it.

Not necessarily. Figment is usually incoherent and likes to talk out both sides of his face. It makes it difficult to understand what he's saying

What makes it difficult for you is your incapacity to keep track of what scenario I'm talking about, because there are so many I run. Including the scenarios of the "opposition" and the "compromise" group. I'm NOT incoherent, each and every argument I've made are in the context of the discussion of that moment and all relate to why there's IMO only one option out of the four possible implementation scenarios (note, these are not the hundreds of combat scenarios I've gone through - which your side keep reducing to one scenario because it's too complex for them).

That's the irony because it means they're just incapable of understanding the argument made. They can't even see which context or argument is being made.

You saying I'm incoherent is just typical of your side. You're either not capable or willing to think complex enough to have a thought-out argument. You're uncapable of placing yourself in the position of other players that are unlike yourself, are uncapable of admitting your solo-prefered side has been catered wealthily too and want a 100% solo-side game with some token team units that you can just ignore unless you find yourself alone against them.

Which shouldn't happen much unless you're a dumb, anti-social player that's incapable and unwilling to work with other players. Hmm... Incapable of finding gunners and wanting each unit to be usable on your own...

Not insinuating anything, but...

when he isn't blatantly insulting you for having a different veiwpoint.

Not at all. I'm coherent, you just see paradoxes that aren't there because you don't understand the design philosophy and are apparently uncapable of following the discussion in the context of each argument.

You know how often I've had to re-explain something to you by showing the consequences to YOUR side of the argument, then going back to how I'd do it.

So yes you're ignorant. That's not an insult, that's a fact. A frustrating one. So yes, I'll ridicule your ignorance till you do better. You're worse though, you're just dismissive of things you don't comprehend because you can't admit you might not be smart enough to follow it, OR simply ask for clarification: you just assume I must be wrong without understanding why, or even what I'm saying.

For you still don't, even if you pretend you do.


I'd even say you're probably unwilling to understand it because you don't like me personally. I take the time to carefully layout what's what. That's all the courtesy you will get from me when you act dumb and tbh, it's more than you deserve most the time.