harrasser proves dedicated driver is great

[moosepoop]

Originally Posted by Deadeye

the problem isn't simply Less tanks = better game.

less tanks = PLAYABLE game

the situation now is on full pop locked continents. we cant have proper fights because people insist on spamming vehicles, and the other half insist on avoiding them and ghost capping. the alerts on prime time make it even worse.


when lattice comes and players are forced to finally confront each other in major battles we will see the full power of tank spam.

introducing dedicated driver can decrease tank population by 50%.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Figment

There is no reason to cater to solo players in a MBT. The game as a whole caters to different playstyles by providing other units like the Lightning. This isn't an argument.

There is no reason to have the Galaxy cater to solo players, so why should there be a reason to have the MBT cater to solo players?

Indeed, I ask you in the Solo-MBT camp once again, WHAT IS THE LIGHTNING FOR?!?!

Originally Posted by Figment

Your solution doesn't fix:

- HE spam (numerical reduction of tanks needed)
- Tank endurance spam (numerical reduction of tanks needed to reduce overall endurance, especially if stronger tanks are added)
- Leverage for small groups (numerical reduction of tanks needed)
- Increased viability of Lightning (no other tanks as or more viable solo)
- Incentizing teamplay and socialising (your crewed solution is a worse option than splitting up)
- Improving tank gameplay elements (better driving in terms of maneuvring, better use of the main gunner position, for instance by making broadsiding a viable option again and therefore making combat more dynamic)
- Increased situational awareness of tanks (stop driving over friendlies due to being preoccupied with gunning, more aware of environment and threats because there is at least someone who isn't preoccupied with gunning)
- Increased longevity of tanks (soloable tanks can't have more endurance than they have now really)
- Multi-crew balanced units not being abusable solo and/or extra vulnerable when used solo (no instant seat switching possible)
- Fair firepower per player, fair endurance per player (compared to other units, including infantry)

The underlined is the only issue I contest, if only to appease those selfish brats that whine, "BUT I WANNA DO IT!"
I'm perfectly fine with letting you Drive with control of a Secondary, then switch seats to fire the Main Cannon because doing so is going to leave you a sitting duck.
Yeah they'll have heavier armor, but my AP Lightning running circles around a still target will level that quickly enough.

If you ARE skilled enough to keep your MBT alive while doing the work of two people, more props to you, but I'd hate to see how effective such a person would be in a craft designed for single operator...

Originally Posted by Deadeye

What is sounds like to me is that Figment and others want some sort of "Land Liberator", the mechanics of which would require a complete overhaul of the entire land battlefield.

Well YES, but it wouldn't require a complete overhaul because the MBTs were designed as the ground equivalent of Liberators IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

Hell, probably the only reason Smed let Liberators go in the way they are is because he himself wasn't able to pull off flying and gunning one at the same time!

Originally Posted by Deadeye

BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT! The thing has to be better than if everyone pulled a lightning which means the main gun has to blow lightnings to bits and the secondary gun has be decent at providing either AA, extra AV or great AI in order to justify not needing a lightning escort.

No, it just has to be ON PAR with two Lightnings, where PLAYER SKILL determines whether the Lightning Team or the Tank Crew wins the encounter.
Thus one Good Lightning could take down one Average MBT, and one God-like Lightning could solo a Poor MBT.

Originally Posted by moosepoop

most detractors sound like they dont really care, while supporters for dedicated drivers are immensely passionate.

the detractors are arguing because of selfish desires for op solo vehicle, the supporters argue out of genuine love for the game and desire to improve the game.


endless action leads to boredom. in any MMO, its the teamwork and comradery and friendship that keeps players staying for a long time. more team work is better.

Yeah, and you wonder why people like Figment and I sound so irritable about this...

[TheSaltySeagull]

As I said in a previous post (which went ignored) I see no reason why it is even necessary to try and reduce tank numbers at this point. Tanks are weak as hell now and easy prey for virtually any other type of unit. Any mass of infantry will shit on tanks right now due to the massive amount of AV they have. And this will get worse when lattice comes around and infantry zergs are more common.

The argument of advocating crewed tanks as a means of reducing tank spam was a relevant argument back when the game first launched and armor columns dominated game play. But that is not the case anymore. As somebody who plays mostly infantry I don't see how my game play is improved by less tanks on the field. If anything I would be sad because there will be less EXP balloons for me to pop with my striker. Currently tanks are only useful in smaller engagements. In larger fights they simply do not have the endurance to be effective vs the massive amount of AV that is currently on the field. And with the nerf of HE and rise of flak armor usage their firepower is not as scary as it was before.

I mean I am seriously dumbfounded when I read some of the comments people make about current tank spam. Its like I feel I am playing a different game because I have not been afraid of tanks in this game for some time now.

[moosepoop]

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

I mean I am seriously dumbfounded when I read some of the comments people make about current tank spam. Its like I feel I am playing a different game because I have not been afraid of tanks in this game for some time now.

currently a mbt is a disposable powerup i get every 5 min that will give me guarenteed kills.

[TheSaltySeagull]

Originally Posted by moosepoop

currently a mbt is a disposable powerup i get every 5 min that will give me guarenteed kills.

So is an ESF, lightning, MAX, etc so what is your point? Fact is tank spam is not the problem it was before and thus arguing we need crew tanks to reduce tank numbers is not that relevant anymore. If anything tanks are still a bit on the underpowered side even with the recent armor buff. If you are going to make them crewed then you have to buff them as well.

[moosepoop]

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

So is an ESF, lightning, MAX, etc so what is your point?

esf and libs were spammed and got nerfed to hell.

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

Fact is tank spam is not the problem it was before and thus arguing we need crew tanks to reduce tank numbers is not that relevant anymore.

you think tanks are weak, but dont see spam as a problem.

NEWSFLASH: as long as you can mass spam tanks, they will stay weak. paper tanks only fun for a short while.

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

If you are going to make them crewed then you have to buff them as well.

crewed tanks decrease number of tanks by half. that means crewed mbts can be twice as powerful. yes, you will give up the cock of duty kiddie killstreak experience, but you wont be scared of being instakilled out of nowhere.

[TheSaltySeagull]

Originally Posted by moosepoop

esf and libs were spammed and got nerfed to hell.



you think tanks are weak, but dont see spam as a problem.

NEWSFLASH: as long as you can mass spam tanks, they will stay weak. paper tanks only fun for a short while.




crewed tanks decrease number of tanks by half. that means crewed mbts can be twice as powerful. yes, you will give up the cock of duty kiddie killstreak experience, but you wont be scared of being instakilled out of nowhere.

10 tanks vs 5 tanks that are twice as strong have approx the same tactical effectiveness so tanks would still be relatively weak as a whole. Plus spam is not reduced that much since driver and gunner can rotate upon death to keep a steady stream of tanks coming at you. You have changed very little of how tanks work.

Simply doubling the tanks power and separating driver and gunner would not be enough to make a crewed tank viable. They must be totally overhauled and reworked. The prowlers special must be redone, the mags hull must be redone, and stats and resource cost must be rebalanced across the board to keep the tanks balanced not only vs infantry and air but vs other vehicles. The reason the harasser works is because it was designed from the ground up to be a crewed vehicle. The current MBTs are not. This means it would take a lot of reworking of how they function to make this viable.

As I said I am not against crewed tanks. Its not my cup of tea but I mostly play infantry so if tanks become crewed its not a major hindrance to me(tho I think the driver having the secondary gun and the gunner the main one is the most ideal set up). I just disagree with some of the arguments the pro crewed crowd uses. Arguments like "reducing spam" or "promote teamwork" are false arguments to me. Tank spam is no longer an issue at current. I dont care if they have 20 tanks or 10 tanks with 2 men in them that are twice as strong. In the end its the same and they will be dead shortly once the AV comes out just like they are now. And the teamwork argument is false because if I have 5 guys working together it does not matter if they are in one vehicle or 5 vehicles they are still working together and coordinating. These are simply fabricated arguments meant to further one side.

You should focus on real arguments in favor of crewed tanks like increased situational awareness increasing effectiveness of each unit or how about because some people fine crewed tanks just plain fun? The harasser is not the most effective combat vehicle nor the most efficient use of manpower. But people still pull them because they are fun as hell and that is enough incentive for many.

[moosepoop]

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

You should focus on real arguments in favor of crewed tanks like increased situational awareness increasing effectiveness of each unit or how about because some people fine crewed tanks just plain fun? The harasser is not the most effective combat vehicle nor the most efficient use of manpower. But people still pull them because they are fun as hell and that is enough incentive for many.

thats what i said on page 1.

im trying to give reasons that shows dedicated driver tanks are better not only for me, but for the game and everybody in general.

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

Simply doubling the tanks power and separating driver and gunner would not be enough to make a crewed tank viable. They must be totally overhauled and reworked.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

As I said I am not against crewed tanks. Its not my cup of tea but I mostly play infantry so if tanks become crewed its not a major hindrance to me(tho I think the driver having the secondary gun and the gunner the main one is the most ideal set up). I just disagree with some of the arguments the pro crewed crowd uses. Arguments like "reducing spam" or "promote teamwork" are false arguments to me.

...

You should focus on real arguments in favor of crewed tanks like increased situational awareness increasing effectiveness of each unit or how about because some people fine crewed tanks just plain fun? The harasser is not the most effective combat vehicle nor the most efficient use of manpower. But people still pull them because they are fun as hell and that is enough incentive for many.

Personally I argue on behalf the Lightning, because there isn't much you can do in a Lightning that you can't do with an MBT...

This makes both the Lightning redundent and forces the MBT to be balanced as a One-person vehicle, mostly through their armor and hit points.

[Emperor Newt]

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

10 tanks vs 5 tanks that are twice as strong have approx the same tactical effectiveness

Less tanks on the field means that enemy infantry and vehicles have more room to operate. Room as in: "room which is not shelled from afar with HEAT rounds".

[TheSaltySeagull]

Originally Posted by Emperor Newt

Less tanks on the field means that enemy infantry and vehicles have more room to operate. Room as in: "room which is not shelled from afar with HEAT rounds".

I dont think infantry really need any more wiggle room vs tanks considering just how many ways there are for infantry to engage tanks. The current tank vs infantry balance already favors infantry.

Besides crewed tanks will not really dissuade people from shelling targets from range. PS1 had crewed tanks and they found it easy enough to still spam a considerable amount. It would be reduced by crewed tanks but it would still occur enough to be an annoyance just like it was in PS1.

[Figment]

You don't quite get that this actually is meant to favour both small groups and tanks at the same time, do you? :/

[moosepoop]

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

It would be reduced by crewed tanks

yes. spam can never be eliminated, but it can be reduced if you increase man power per vehicle.

[dsi]

MBTs need to make a comeback so badly, multi-man Harasser is fantastic, MBTs are as lifeless and boring as Lightnings without working with someone to achieve things.

[TheSaltySeagull]

Originally Posted by moosepoop

yes. spam can never be eliminated, but it can be reduced if you increase man power per vehicle.

I was speaking of "spam" as in volume of fire on a given point not the volume or frequency of tanks on the field. Which as I said is something I do not think really needs to be decreased to begin with.

The vehicle and air vs infantry balance usually plays out in one of two ways in this game. The infantry either have sufficient numbers that they can field enough AV and AA to completely zone out vehicles and make them a non-factor on the fight which is what happens in larger engagements. Or they do not in which case then get overpowered by vehicles which is what normally happens in smaller engagements. There is no intermediate in which vehicles and air are a threat to infantry but not overpowering.

Mandating crewed tanks in order to reduce their numbers by half will not create this intermediate. You will be able to field less tanks in larger engagements making them easier to zone out because AV can focus fire more easily. Even if you double their endurance they will still be zoned because they will attract more fire as there are fewer targets. And they will become more effective in smaller engagements due to increased efficiency and power of each individual unit. This is the exact opposite of what needs to be done.

Keep in mind this is not a reason to NOT have crewed vehicles either. Whether tanks are crewed or not will not address the scaling issues of infantry based AV and AA vs vehicles and air. I am not saying this as an argument against having crewed vehicles I am just saying reducing tank numbers by making them crewed will not impact current infantry vs vehicles balance. What will is more changes like the recent armor buff to increase tank endurance vs infantry based AV weaponry while leaving vehicle based AV the same. And these are attribute changes that are separate from crew mechanics.