Driver/Gunners... NO! - Page 29

Ratstomper · 2012-07-12, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by SgtExo

I'm saying that they are not trying to compare the Lightning to the MBT but are comparing 1 MBT with both gunner position filled and 2 MBT with only the main gun filled.

Oh, sorry. I'm a moron who should read better. I don't necessarily think one MBT with 2 gunners could take on two MBTs with one gunner, but that 2-manned tank would be able to react much better to a MUCH wider variety of situations than the two single-manned tanks could. Planes and local infantry are threats to tanks as well, not just other tanks.

SgtExo · 2012-07-12, 05:05 PM

Great post Flaropri, I think you go the gist of how things are going to balance out, meaning we cannot account for all the variables right now. And people will always find ways to turn weaknesses into strengths.

DukeTerror · 2012-07-12, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Klockan

No they can't, since the turret is fixed to the chassis in this game trying to aim while the driver drives will be hell, so most likely a single 1 man tank would perform better since he would have an easier time compensating for his own movements. Separating driver and gunner with those mechanics would almost force the driver to stop or at least stop turning every time the gunner wants to fire or the gunner would never hit anything.

Well, I should have been more clear, but the assumption with the 1 Driver/ 1 Gunner combo is that the gunner would have the main cannon on the turret with full 360 view like PS1. True, that made aiming a bitch when your driver was going full throttle crazy, but then again, you got hit less yourself.

maradine · 2012-07-12, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

Yeah, I think tungsten and d.uranium are pretty similar performance wise. I found a field manual/army study thing? Anyway, it says pretty much what I expected : cost. Tungsten is an alloy/material that is more easily obtained. Depleted Uranium, obviously, comes from Uranium, which isn't very common, as we all know. So... Yeah $$$$ <--- this here.

The differences are more than cost and density. DU is pyrophohric on impact and pass-through. You don't fire DU on ground you intend to hold for long.

Flaropri · 2012-07-12, 05:18 PM

Hmm, I just realized there's an easier way to put my point:

As long as resources are meaningful, all else being equal, the side that spends more resources should have the advantage in a given engagement, that's just natural, and it will be balanced in the long run because the game is persistent and not about a specific encounter.

SgtExo · 2012-07-12, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Flaropri

Hmm, I just realized there's an easier way to put my point:

As long as resources are meaningful, all else being equal, the side that spends more resources should have the advantage in a given engagement, that's just natural, and it will be balanced in the long run because the game is persistent and not about a specific encounter.

I should not be about who spends the most resources, but about who does not waste to much of it. Which is what attrition warfare is about. Spending more resources should give you more power, but a clever or well pulled of tactic, or even just good teamwork should count for more then spending power. Otherwise, people spending for resources and xp boosters will always have the advantage of having more resources to spend.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-07-12, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by SgtExo

I should not be about who spends the most resources, but about who does not waste to much of it. Which is what attrition warfare is about. Spending more resources should give you more power, but a clever or well pulled of tactic, or even just good teamwork should count for more then spending power. Otherwise, people spending for resources and xp boosters will always have the advantage of having more resources to spend.

I think we can all agree that three people in a tank really is the most efficient use of that tank. But I think most of us recognise that having three people in a tank isnt the best way to use your available manpower.

TheDAWinz · 2012-07-12, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

Yeah, I think tungsten and d.uranium are pretty similar performance wise. I found a field manual/army study thing? Anyway, it says pretty much what I expected : cost. Tungsten is an alloy/material that is more easily obtained. Depleted Uranium, obviously, comes from Uranium, which isn't very common, as we all know. So... Yeah $$$$ <--- this here.

Phosphorous is also heavily regulated by international law, apparently. They don't mind you killing people... As long as you do it "humanely" note : humane is purely subjective. I think regulating this stuff is idiotic in the first place, but more so when stuff overlaps or is contradictory. Napalm is ok, but the very things that make phosphorous supposedly NOT ok (even though it's utilised despite not being ok, it's only if it's being used for specific applications) even though napalm does the very things that supposedly make phosphorous NOT ok. But then... That's bureaucrats for you.

I don't see how people think you can make killing people humane. I vote for the ones that take more people with them.

Klockan · 2012-07-12, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by DukeTerror

Well, I should have been more clear, but the assumption with the 1 Driver/ 1 Gunner combo is that the gunner would have the main cannon on the turret with full 360 view like PS1. True, that made aiming a bitch when your driver was going full throttle crazy, but then again, you got hit less yourself.

No, you don't understand what I mean, the turret turns when the tank turns. Thus if the driver loops around your turret would as well which makes it all but impossible to hit stuff. Planetside didn't rotate your turret when the tank rotates which makes the whole thing a lot easier and is the main reason tanks are more mobile there, not that the driver and gunner seat are separate.

Flaropri · 2012-07-12, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by SgtExo

I should not be about who spends the most resources, but about who does not waste to much of it. Which is what attrition warfare is about. Spending more resources should give you more power, but a clever or well pulled of tactic, or even just good teamwork should count for more then spending power. Otherwise, people spending for resources and xp boosters will always have the advantage of having more resources to spend.

I said all else being equal, and was referring to an individual fight, rather than the overall battle. In other words, the effectiveness of said resources (per resource) is equal as well. It's a hypothetical.

I have no problem with the side that commits more resources having an advantage (and advantage isn't guarantee of victory) in a given fight. Long term it balances out, and overall skill is still a very significant factor.

SgtExo · 2012-07-12, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Flaropri

I said all else being equal, and was referring to an individual fight, rather than the overall battle. In other words, the effectiveness of said resources (per resource) is equal as well. It's a hypothetical.

I have no problem with the side that commits more resources having an advantage (and advantage isn't guarantee of victory) in a given fight. Long term it balances out, and overall skill is still a very significant factor.

If that is what you meant, you are right then that the side with the most resources should win.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-07-12, 05:45 PM

The side that commits to using three man tanks will be defeated.~Sun Tzu

vasito · 2012-07-12, 06:22 PM

Drivers should be gunners. And there should be a cert that allows drivers to be only drivers.

Figment · 2012-07-12, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

If that was the case, wouldn't you see more people pull 2 deliverers with 1 gunner, since you wuold "double your hitpoints"?

Caught this late, apologies Raymac, overlooked your edit.

If you have four people and there's no better alternative for the fourth person, yes.

Typically, if we're with four people we pull one Deli and the fourth guy uses a Mossie or Reaver for added air support though, because that's even better most the time. But yes, we've done that quite a bit.

Thing is, the Deliverer requires four people to do that. If you look at the unit itself, then with three people, it doesn't help to have one gunner and an extra deli, because nobody would be gunning it (!).

The situation you prescribe is more obvious for the Raider however. With the Raider, you have five people to dispense, so the dual Deliver makes far more sense with three gunners total and double the armour of a Raider. That's why you hardly see TR pull Raiders and people who want to use them can't get gunners, because everyone else knows it's stupid to waste manpower on a single unit when it doesn't create an advantage, but a disadvantage.

When you then make a unit like a MBT "soloable", you basically create the option to pull two MBTs, instead of one and then the decision to use two (if not more) instead of one becomes even easier. Why should that decision be easier? Who does it help but the winning party?

Resources could influence this, yes, but it's highly questionable that's going to be a mitigation issue rather than an escalation issue most the time in a game that looks to be highly stalemate prone (in a stalemate it'd have no effect). However, when you ARE somehow on the defense, you have less resource gain, a higher attrition rate and thus will quickly have less available units. Especially when the enemy then also would outnumber you, this is going to be painful... The larger numbers have no reason to pool resources, the lower numbers do, but the lower numbers would do so and be disadvantaged as per earlier posts.

So to make single players better with multiple units is just asking for escalation of a pre-existing resource problem for any defender. Requiring teamwork makes larger groups in vehicles more manageable by an enemy as it focuses their troops. It also enhances the relative power of the few units you can still pull.

This is something entirely overlooked with regards to resources and again - you don't need to see it to know the maths are sound.

DukeTerror · 2012-07-12, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Klockan

No, you don't understand what I mean, the turret turns when the tank turns. Thus if the driver loops around your turret would as well which makes it all but impossible to hit stuff. Planetside didn't rotate your turret when the tank rotates which makes the whole thing a lot easier and is the main reason tanks are more mobile there, not that the driver and gunner seat are separate.

Ah, I get you now. Yeah that would e a whole new mechanic to debate about. With future technology theme you could allow it it either way and Im sure that's not locked down in development (good code base should allow both options anyway - just a toggle for the designer to choose). I think a counter-turning turret would be the more fun playstyle of course just for the reasons you've said.