harrasser proves dedicated driver is great

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by moosepoop

so thats why they introduced the sunderer and the lattice system.

aso, you on other thread

LOL

If you could spare a little effort with my post history and go back slightly more than a year ago, you will realize I've never hidden my opinion on this topic. And also that I have a little penchant for trolling.


And since your post complements mine so lovingly, let me just add a word of warning:
Watch out -- After the S-AMS, the lattice and dedicated drivers, BFRs and caves are next !

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Figment

That's why seat switching has actually been under attack in this thread (and actually since pre-alpha, by me and a few others anyway). Duh.

ESPECIALLY in relation to a unit that doesn't immediately go into a free fall that might end as an explosion.

Well didn't they play with seat swapping delays in Beta?
I don't want it removed entirely because then the Do-everything-on-their-lonesome crowd will cause a shit storm over not being able to operate every vehicle by themselves, which the game might not be able to weather...


...Letting them have seat switching but putting switch delays on it give them their Solo-MBT, but makes it far less viable then a Crew or a Lightning.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

Well didn't they play with seat swapping delays in Beta?

No. :/

I don't want it removed entirely because then the Do-everything-on-their-lonesome crowd will cause a shit storm over not being able to operate every vehicle by themselves, which the game might not be able to weather...

There's not be that many complaining and they would adjust with ease to other solo units. I rather get the people back that left because of tank spam.

...Letting them have seat switching but putting switch delays on it give them their Solo-MBT, but makes it far less viable then a Crew or a Lightning.

Yes, but even that has never been done.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Figment

No. :/
...
Yes, but even that has never been done.

You sure?
I could have sworn I saw a Seat Switching Cert tree in Beta...

[TheSaltySeagull]

Originally Posted by Figment

Your logic is flawed here. Both are the same thing implemented differently and you yourself neglect that increasing MBT armour changes the TTK of other units (including infantry) on MBT, so that rebalancing would have to happen anyway, just with a different category of (AV) weapons, in this case, vehicle mounted weapons, if they were to remain the same with respect to MBTs.

What we object to however, is that all that endurance AND firepower is given to a single player when it is relative to multiple other players and as such to be shared by more than one player to make having that power available to you fair.

The recent armor buff does not effect vehicle vs vehicle TTK because specific weapons such as certain lib guns and tank ap rounds have resistances built in that bypass this increase making their TTK unchanged. Tank endurance was only increased vs Infantry and ESF rocketpods which is what was needed and in turn infantry TTK against none MBT targets is unchaged. So no TTK is not thrown off. And also one solution is far easier to implement than the other. Its easier to change attributes in a spreadsheet than it is to go back and execute a redesign of tanks to facilitate a crewed model.

Also the force multiplier effect of tanks is not currently sufficient enough to mandate crewed vehicles. The increase in individual firepower and survivability is insignificant when compared to the scaling effect of infantry based AV weaponry in numbers. The larger the engagement size the more diminished the force multiplier effect of tanks until they begin to become a hindrance more than an asset. Mandating crewed tanks further diminishes their force multiplier effect even further as more manpower must be diverted to each unit.

This goes back to a point that has been made many times over. Making crewed tanks viable requires tremendous amounts of tweaking. They must be reworked from the ground up to accommodate a crewed model. Its a lot of work for little gain which is why the devs have been hesitant to proceed with it.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

The recent armor buff does not effect vehicle vs vehicle TTK because specific weapons such as certain lib guns and tank ap rounds have resistances built in that bypass this increase making their TTK unchanged. Tank endurance was only increased vs Infantry and ESF rocketpods which is what was needed and in turn infantry TTK against none MBT targets is unchaged. So no TTK is not thrown off. And also one solution is far easier to implement than the other.

"So they did the exact same thing implemented in another way."

Its easier to change attributes in a spreadsheet than it is to go back and execute a redesign of tanks to facilitate a crewed model.

100% wrong.

A redesign primarily requires a change in control input (which is very easy since the control input code already exists) AND a "spreadsheet change" (or whatever other method) to increase endurance. Disabling seat switching is simply removing an input element and implementing a delay into seat switching is simply adding something akin to a reload time to the action of seat switching.

You make it sound terribly complicated while it's pretty basic programming.

Also the force multiplier effect of tanks is not currently sufficient enough to mandate crewed vehicles. The increase in individual firepower and survivability is insignificant when compared to the scaling effect of infantry based AV weaponry in numbers. The larger the engagement size the more diminished the force multiplier effect of tanks until they begin to become a hindrance more than an asset. Mandating crewed tanks further diminishes their force multiplier effect even further as more manpower must be diverted to each unit.

You know why we have this? Tank spam: AV HAS to be incredibly dangerous right now to cope with it and in response to tank spam they added a whole lot of new AV options, the one even more powerful than the next. Your inside a circular reasoning here and we are outside of it and don't bloody care for it.

Instead of simply solving the numerical problem by restricting access, they kept the spam problem, but to combat it they created new spam problems through AV. Now players become afraid to take risks with their tanks and in doing so the tank, which already was a glass cannon before, now becomes even worse at being a tank.

The new amount of lethal AV options make it even less appealing to work together in a single unit.

This goes back to a point that has been made many times over. Making crewed tanks viable requires tremendous amounts of tweaking. They must be reworked from the ground up to accommodate a crewed model. Its a lot of work for little gain which is why the devs have been hesitant to proceed with it.

Not at all. They've taken the wrong path and are just creating worse gameplay by being so stubborn. In the end they'll end up having to fix much more.

But you know what this really goes back to? Unrestricted certification points.

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by Figment

But you know what this really goes back to? Unrestricted certification points.

Figgy, I love it when you tackle core issues. Many problems start from very basic fundamentals. I'd spend more time explaining how/why I agree with you but I do not have the energy anymore... however I'm glad you do !

I'll just say that use of time, cost of time and right time are just as important as damage/armor/health/etc...

Ultra-low TTKs negate a lot of time-value in player actions.

[Tom Peters]

Originally Posted by sylphaen

a 2-man vehicle ? With dedicated driver ?!?

I realize it's only the harasser but... Devs have to be extremely careful. They are getting dangerously close to a PS1 design !

And if population drops, PS1 ideas will be said to make games fail.

Planetside 1 did everything right, short of BFRs. They should be making the game more like Planetside 1...

I don't know what you had against the caves either. I loved them.

[Shogun]

yep.

the main problems with ps2 that are responsible for a lot more problems are those:

too fast TTK across the board
instant seat switching
too limited gameplay options compared to ps1 (real combat engineer, anyone?)

with the low TTK the devs wanted to speed up the game and take advice from successful games like bf3 or cod. but fast ttk isn´t a problem in a "in your face" deathmatch based game with small maps. in an mmo it sucks! and it doesn´t speed up the game at all! now we are always respawning or trying to get to the battlearea just to be killed in the second we arrive.

the instant seat switching is another thing borrowed from casual deathmatch games. it has been discussed enough why this is crappy design.

the gameplay styles are so limited because the devs wanted a class system but every class should be centered around shooting someones face. that´s again a restrictive decision i consider terribly wrong. there is no way to effectively play a funrole as dedicated supporter. as an engineer you are restricted to repairing vehicles and throwing ammo packs (or doing the rambo like all other classes) oh and you could lay one or two mines with disco lights on them, yeah huuray!
in ps1, playing a dedicated engineer could mean loading up your whole backpacks with ACEs and mining all entrances of a base, then load up even more aces and put up 10 autofiring turrets (or even more and different types when fully certed), and put up a network of movement detecting sensors. also you could upgrade wallturrets to anti air or anti vehicle specials. and all of this in addition to the repairing of vehicles and stuff.
oh even more: you could put up a cloaking shield with an ammo dispenser in the field!
you could have loads of fun without even carrying a gun, and you never felt useless or just like a slave that is only good for repairing.

[Sifer2]

I was against the one man tanks though honestly at this point i'm also too used to it to want to give it up. Especially since i'm a Prowler driver. And the way Anchor mode works pretty much ruins any advantage that could be gained by having someone gun for me. If my ass is parked in place I might as well shoot the gun myself.

They could however introduce a new Heavy Tank to the game. Maybe instead of a rotating main gun it just has more than one gun on different sides. Kind of like the Galaxy.

[Figment]

Sideguns don't work on ground vehicles. Nobody manned the ball joint of the Sunderer and even less got kills with it in PS1, even despite of the insane dark light range it provided (80m instead of the common 25).

[Rolfski]

Originally Posted by moosepoop

everyone is loving the harraser. no one is complaining about not being able to solo gun in it. i think based on this feedback, dedicated driver seat for the mbts will be welcomed.

the current armor buff means lightning is a much better solo vehicle now. i think the game is ready for crewed mbts.

It's that old, beaten-to-the-death discussion again and so far the Harasser has proved nothing to provide a new light on it.

People love the Harasser because it's a new toy and incredibly fun to use. The jury is still out on real tactical value of it though.

That doesn't mean crew mbt's aren't welcome. They really are as long as it is entirely optional: Want to upgrade to that monstrous big fat ass gun on your Prowler? Cert into a gunner seat for it.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Rolfski

That doesn't mean crew mbt's aren't welcome. They really are as long as it is entirely optional: Want to upgrade to that monstrous big fat ass gun on your Prowler? Cert into a gunner seat for it.

Uhm... you can't upgrade a Prowler because it ALREADY DISPENSES INSTANT DEATH. YOU CAN NOT DO BETTER THAN THAT.


Why is it so hard to see that? How can you hit harder than instantly killing? What? Increase area of impact or rate of fire and degenerate the gameplay of other players more?


STOP SUGGESTING MORE POWER CREEP. FFS! BOTH THE MBTS AND LIGHTNING AND ESFS ALREADY ARE AT A LEVEL OF FIREPOWER THAT IS ONLY WARRANTED FOR TEAM VEHICLES DUE TO THE EXTREME POWER ITS WEAPONSYSTEMS HAVE. DON'T HAND OUT EVEN MORE FIREPOWER IF THAT IS AT ALL POSSIBLE. EVERYTHING SHOULD BE TONED DOWN, NOT ESCALATED FURTHER TO DEAL WITH THE EXISTING ESCALATED SITUATION AND CREATE A DISASTER ZONE OF UNSEEN SCALE AND DESOLATION.


Gah.

[Qwan]

I guess this long ass thread is about whether the harasser's dedicated driver mode is better than the MBT driver gunner mode. Here is a little somthing I saw happen saturday.
I was in sniper mode, sitting on top of a hill south of still water watch, I saw a vanguard moving along the frozen water bed, went back into cloaker mode, not soft enough I thought. Then I saw two VS harrasers with AT turrets. The Vanguard initially got off two shots, as the Harrasers approached it, but was either to short or over shot. As the Harrasers closed in there AT guns started popping the hell out of it. It was funny because it was like watching vultures circle in for the kill. The Vanguard got off about 4 more shots but the Harrasers kept tearing into it. Even with a direct hit from the tank the smoking harraser was still going around the tank dodging its shots, the tank ran into trouble when it hit some ruff ground, missed its last shot, by this time it was smoking bad, I started laughing my ass off. The harrasers popped off there last volley and the vanguard went up in smoke.

Got another one as well, this place Indar. It was a TR lightning against two of my clan mates in a Harraser, with a AT gun on top. This one harraser practically drove circles around this thing, and the only way for the lightning gunner to even get a shot close to them he had to practically stop. This was bad though because the harraser would just get behind him and pop his G spot, when it was over the Lighting was a gone and the Harraser was still there.

I dont know much guys but dedicated drivers and gunners seems to have the advantage. I mean on open terrain, like esimar and flat surfaces yea its not a bad Idea, but in with maps like amerish and Indar, were staying on the road is crucial, to a steady platform, the advantage goes to the Harrasor with the AT gun.

[Figment]

@Qwan: your example illustrates perfectly what we have always said: more dynamic, efficient driving is more effective and more fun. We have always said the current tank combat is static and boring and a danger to allies and themselves due to not minding the road while gunning. We've also said that having multiple units trumps a single unit, which is shown in your example as well as they circled the target making it incapable of dealing with it.

Solo MBTs are a very sad thing to have and there's really not a single benefit to having them.