Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Dammit Hamma! Put some pants on!
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
2012-07-16, 11:35 AM | [Ignore Me] #692 | ||
It's really that simple. You don't have to like any of those points, but they are all, in fact, true. |
|||
|
2012-07-16, 11:42 AM | [Ignore Me] #694 | |||
Corporal
|
|
|||
|
2012-07-16, 11:45 AM | [Ignore Me] #695 | |||
Major
|
Second point, you're totally correct. The developers are not developing Planetside 2 with 1 man tank game mechanics in mind. In fact, I understand it's being balanced around mounted combat, which is really terrible since there's no horses. Last edited by Sephirex; 2012-07-16 at 11:46 AM. |
|||
|
2012-07-16, 11:50 AM | [Ignore Me] #699 | ||
I beg to differ.
Let's start with 2. The designers, by virtue of designing the game, have designed it around its own feature set. The second bullet is a tautology. If you would like to argue a tautology, I have nothing for you. For your objection to number 1 to be valid, it would have to be false that there are multiple games where unified driver/gunner works well. Would you like me to list some for you? Or would that be a waste of my time and bandwidth? I'm being serious - if I say "Battlefield 3" and you say "Battlefield 3 was crap because the driver and gunner was unified", you've gone circular. If you would like to use circular logic, I have nothing for you. I stand by the three assertions. @Azren - I already agree that this would be a good thing to include. I'd even go so far as to say I don't care which option is the default state and which is the certed addition. My objection is to individuals who feel that it must be their way. I disagree, as does the current state of the game. Last edited by maradine; 2012-07-16 at 11:54 AM. |
|||
|
2012-07-16, 11:56 AM | [Ignore Me] #700 | ||
Corporal
|
I think that the driver should have control of the maneuvering of the tank as well as the control of the main gun.
The gunner should have access to the secondary weapons such as a machine gun that can rotate 360 degrees around the tank to deal with infantry that the driver cannot see. That honestly makes the most sense, as being nothing but a driver would be very boring. |
||
|
2012-07-16, 11:58 AM | [Ignore Me] #701 | ||||
Corporal
|
We can't just say "this game has no teamplay". However We can say this :"this game has more teamplay than this other one". And I just wanna compare Planetside 2 to a 4 hours game into Project Reality (less realistic than ArmA FYI) and you'll discover what IS teamplay. I can guarantee that Battlefield has no more teamplay since BF2.
1 driver/gunner is just such a casual feature in a game which can hardly make it be anything else than a casual one. Which means fast success, and long death. |
||||
|
2012-07-16, 12:06 PM | [Ignore Me] #702 | ||||
Sergeant Major
|
Anywho...
|
||||
|
2012-07-16, 12:12 PM | [Ignore Me] #704 | ||
Major
|
I'm glad a few people caught the joke of the mounted post, but sadly it seems I have to spell it out.
Arguing that a game with single driver/gunner tanks was designed and balanced for seperate driver/gunners is like saying a game without horses was designed for mounted combat. Unfortunately, that's also why we'll probably never see separate driver/gunner's now that the game's so far along. Also, War of the Roses looks awesome. Last edited by Sephirex; 2012-07-16 at 12:25 PM. |
||
|
2012-07-16, 01:58 PM | [Ignore Me] #705 | |||
Sergeant Major
|
Nothing constructive was posted here for the last 20 pages, I think it is time to end the debate and talk of the solution's details. |
|||
|
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|