Driver/Gunners... NO!

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Littleman

DOOM is fucking awesome!

Grab the ID pack while Steam is having it's summer sale, then get Zdoom to make it work + have modern FPS controls (+ a bunch of other modifiers, like double ammo pick up, respawning enemies, respawning items, plus a crap ton more) and then I really recommend Brutal Doom as it does make the game a bit more difficult. It basically makes the game messier and faster. The minigun will eat through 400 rounds in about 30 seconds >.> But I'll be damned if it doesn't leave a shit eating grin on your face when the blood stops flowing.

Sounds badass. I actually picked up a DOOM collectors set a while back for nostalgia's sake. It had DOOM, DOOM 2 and a bunch of custom maps with it. I should go find that...

[Flaropri]

Originally Posted by Littleman

Stuff

I'm disappointing in the lack of mention for the 1997 Goldeneye for the N64. For me (and many others) it was what really started the FPS console craze. Also Quake was one of the first games that was very mod-able, with the ability to put in entirely different weapons like grappling hooks and stuff, though modding FPS has died down a lot since Half-Life 2.


Otherwise fun post.

[Littleman]

Originally Posted by Flaropri

I'm disappointing in the lack of mention for the 1997 Goldeneye for the N64. For me (and many others) it was what really started the FPS console craze.


Otherwise fun post.

I considered it. I really did. It introduced something of a mission system, I'll give it that, but I wasn't too sure it applied to PS2's mission system, and referencing what was relevant to PS2 (debated topics anyway) was my intent for the most part. It was a pretty revolutionary FPS on the consoles though, very well done. Preferred Turok, even if level progression was needlessly turned into a treasure hunt.

[RodenyC]

I don't see how having the driver as the main gunner is good change.It worked pretty well in PS1 don't see why it needed to be changed for the BF kiddies,but whatever.Sticking to PS1 since they aren't shutting it down.

[Zedek]

Originally Posted by RodenyC

I don't see how having the driver as the main gunner is good change.It worked pretty well in PS1 don't see why it needed to be changed for the BF kiddies,but whatever.Sticking to PS1 since they aren't shutting it down.

Yeah, what a deal breaker...

[LtHolmes]

I definitely know how you feel about having a true gunner position. It felt good to work as a team and it was effective when the communication was there. But that is not always the story. There are just as many times when was not effective. Especially for the people that are part of less organized outifts or just casual players.

To think that you spend a couple levels in certs specifically for tanking and you can never enjoy the true power of heavy tanks by yourself. Not only that but you were limited in other roles for making that choice. Now, it is a choice and I can always choose to do something different or get some friends. But I think there is something to be said about spending certs/resources and to not be able to be remotely effective by yourself. I do think there should be some sort of option or a separate vehicle that does allow for the specific driver and gunner spot. They are valid no doubt. But that does not make it the only way or hell even the better way.

I love PS1 and I love BF3. The idea that one or the other is gospel is getting old. I understand that this is PS2 and has its roots in PS1, but that does not mean we have to broad stroke a whole genre as idiots that have no valid input.

[Marinealver]

V-N-G

I can see the reasoning, I had to hit thise keys too many times.

[Jerry Husky]

I can understand the rage about the MBT changes. (I don't care for them myself.) But perhaps if the devs aren't doing this already they'll make main gun control for a second person optional. Then everyone wins. And if I might go a bit off topic, it seems having the MBTs easily controlled by one person would make the Lightning useless. But then again without a gunner for the small AA gun on top of the turret (Which I assume will be available.) any MBT driver will be a sitting duck when encountering a Mossy, Reaver or Skythe. Of course MBTs can't hunt down Air Craft simply because their too slow. So a Lightning with an AA attachment could make a good mobile AA platform. (But still vulnerable to larger vehicles and infantry with AV weapons.) So tanks will still at least be balanced regardless of which road the devs take. This is all my theory anyway, just wanted to put it out there.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by ruskyandrei

I think you should also consider resource cost here. Everything we've seen so far is in no way indicative of what effect resource cost (and cooldown) will have on vehicle use.

Your main point against the driver/gunner, soloable vehicles, seems to be that they would be too powerfull for a single person and everybody would get one.

Yet you never once considered the fact that these vehicles cost resources and have cooldowns (therefore cannot be spammed as you describe).

Both the resource cost, and cooldown will mean using 2 or more people in a single vehicle will almost always be beneficial in the long term (sure you could have everyone in your team pick up an MBT and not have any gunners but apart from the fact that they will get destroyed by AV infantry and air vehicles since they have no second gunner, this style of play will also leave your entire side resourceless in a very short timespan).

Because you are going to start as BR40 in this game: can't get a tank? Get something else till you can get a tank again. There's never a reason NOT to be in your own vehicle and in between you're going to have to grunt anyway as well, so it's pretty irrelevant from my point of view.

The possibility of having a cert that allows for 3 people to man an MBT has been suggested and it makes no sense that people still argue against that as well.

Plenty of reason, because you're going to fight solo versions of your own tank if that's the option PLUS you're going to waste certs on a vehicle that's supposed to be promoting teamwork. Now it's promoting solo play.

If you don't have any reason to complain fine, but if you don't get why we complain, don't complain about us complaining, you have no reason to.

On the one hand you have people opposing the driver/gunner system because it's "too easy", and on the other you have people saying it's "not as efficient as separating the driver and the gunner". Would you please make up your minds ? Which is it ? OP or not good enough ?

Because it's BOTH worse and better at the same time. FFS, it's not a paradox!

We want high standard tank combat and guaranteed team work vehicles provide a better performing opponent as an individual unit (with more crew). But with this system the worse performing individual solo tanks have significantly better performance in groups despite being crappier and less enjoyable as solo units, because they'll be using the leverage of numbers to their advantage!

What is so hard to get about that?


Seriously, if you read the full arguments, try to at least comprehend them.




From the most recent beta info obtained at SOE Live:

Normal timer on tank 15 minutes (900 seconds). With implant: 5 minutes (300 seconds).

Purchase cost MBT: 120 resources of A
Purchase cost Lightning: 80 resources of B (not resource A!)

Normal timer on Lightning 11 minutes, 20 seconds (700 seconds). With implant booster: 5 minutes (300 seconds).

TTK on a tank for infantry: around 4-6 shots with AV.

TTK MBT on infantry with main gun: single shot.

Keeping a tank alive for 3-8 minutes shouldn't be too hard if you're decent and working in a group. For the record, we have kept a group of 3 Deliverers/Thunderers (not the heaviest of vehicles) running for around 50 minutes at a time simply because the enemy had to spread their firepower over the three of us and with solo vehicles we'd have triple the group size, so it'd be even harder to kill us all. A timer of 3 minutes in PlanetSide never posed a problem, in fact if you did die, this usualy meant you had at most 10 seconds on the clock, since most of that timer is about getting to the battle.

And tank resources clearly don't matter in restricting your use of OTHER solo tanks, so there's no reason not to solo. TTK by infantry is low enough to not warrant a gunner either (IMO), because there's a big difference in the time you get to kill infantry if it needs 4-6 shots to kill both of you or 8-12 if you both get a one shot kill main gun. It certainly DOES NOT warrant a third crewmember though. The difference between 4-6 shots and 12-18 is waaay too big to let slip.

Note that the hit ratio on infantry dropped from a ratio of 1:4 to 1:6, to 1:12 to 1:18 shots. And with three firing, chances are someone hits sooner if you got an accuracy of 1 out of x shots hitting.


Very simple: driver=gunner >>> driver+gunner >>> driver+gunners, because you make maneuvrability irrelevant compared to endurance and firepower. But maneuvring and outmaneuvring (especially a good, unpredictable enemy) is where the fun in vehicle combat driving lays.

So yeah, I have everyone reason to disagree with the current setup.

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

A moving tank wont be firing behind them anyway. A good tank driver will be firing in the direction he is moving. Let the secondary gunner handle the other directions.

LOL. Yeah, no wonder your arguments are horrible in this debate.

"GUYZ, WE HAZ A 360 Deg GUNzor! Let's ONLY FIRE FACING FORWARD! SCREW PARTHIAN SHOT TACTICS!"

Noob.

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

Only time a main gun should be pointed away form the nose of the tank is when he's stopped somewhere to shell enemy fortifications or other target, away from the enemy line.

NOOoooOOOooOOoooob.


Ratstomper, how can you claim I don't want to learn to drive and gun, if I got 10.720 matches in SINGLE MAN TANKS in World of Tanks alone (and lordy knows how many Bassilisk/Fury/Lightning/Switchblade kills) and have excellent stats on all of them.

My accuracy is around 70% while firing solo tanks. My winrate is well above average. I kill more players than players kill me while driving and gunning.


BUT IT'S NOT MORE FUN THAN DRIVING A THUNDERER WITH TWO GUNNERS BECAUSE THE QUALITY OF COMBAT IS FAR HIGHER, MORE SOCIAL, BETTER BALANCED AND SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED. You can't tell me what's more fun, because you don't have any idea what fun is for someone else and all you want is YOUR OWN TYPE OF FUN, which you already have in PS2 in the form of the Lightning and other solo units!

For the record Ratstomper, what's your stance on BFRs? Pre-nerf and nerfed?

[Azren]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

The same could be said of you buddy. Seems like the majority of the playerbase realizes it's a good idea and wants to keep MBTs the way they are. You people are the odd men out, yet haven't stopped to ask yourselves if you're maybe missing something.

You into politics? No? Well, you should be. You do exactly what politicians do; you try to make the opposition to your idea seam a minority, so the members of that group feel discouraged to speak up out of fear of being excoriated.

There are no previous polls that support your claim. In every single poll we had on this topic, around 50% voted to keep PS1 style MBTs, 30% wanted to make it optional and only around 20% wanted it to be PS2 style.

The majority of the PS2 setup supporters never played PS1 (see what I did there?). They came from Bf or CoD where they were only able to use drivergunner setup. For them, making it PS1 style would be a change to the unknown, when they would rather stick with what they know. Pretty much the same as what PS1 players feel, only diffrence is that more PS1 players have experience in drivergunner setup games than CoD players have with PS1 style tanks.

I have played games that use PS2's setup, for example warrock where I did enjoy being the driver and the gunner, but what worked there would never work in PS. The scale is simply too different.

The problem is that CoD players never experienced a battle where projectiles fly around from every direction, aircav attacks occure every so often, incomming artillery fire and bombers put waste to your front lines, ect. The sheer amount of events to keep track of is what makes a dedicated driver the better option here.

You might argue that there are a lot of solo vehicles already, how do they work based on what I said? Simple: they are fast. All solo vehicles are much faster than MBTs and are not meant to stick around on the battlefield for extended period of time. Their role is closer to hit and run tactics than slowly pushing forward.


I also like how you claim that tons of reasons to support PS2 tank setup were posted here before. They must have slipped my attention then. All I red was how much better it is this way because... oh wait, they hardly ever gave a reason. Well, it just is I guess...

Your side was never able to bring up an argument as why it nessesary to make MBTs this way when we already have a drivergunner tank and a great number of other solo vehicles.

In fact what we lack are group ground vehicles. There isn't a single one in game!

Please don't tell me how MBTs will still be group vehicles. We have brought up several arguments before (all of which your side was not able to negate) why MBTs will be mostly used as solo vehicle.

Resources.
I like how some of you drivergunner supporters bring this up as a last resort to support your case. Let me put down some pointers here that make any arguments that are based on resource cost invalid.
1 - we do not know anything about resource balance
2 - PS2 is a fast paced game with short TTK
3 - PS2 devs want to make spectacular large scale battles, not foot zerging.
4 - Point 2 and 3 result in making vehicles easealy accessable at any time.
5 - A high resource cost would contradict the above points.

If you are not dieing a minute after you pulled the MBT, you can be pretty sure the automated resource gain and the resources you get from your squad and the resources you get for yourself will be more than enough to buy a new one.

[Arkanor]

Originally Posted by Figment

Ratstomper, how can you claim I don't want to learn to drive and gun, if I got 10.720 matches in SINGLE MAN TANKS in World of Tanks alone (and lordy knows how many Bassilisk/Fury/Lightning/Switchblade kills) and have excellent stats on all of them.

My accuracy is around 70% while firing solo tanks. My winrate is well above average. I kill more players than players kill me while driving and gunning.


BUT IT'S NOT MORE FUN THAN DRIVING A THUNDERER WITH TWO GUNNERS BECAUSE THE QUALITY OF COMBAT IS FAR HIGHER, MORE SOCIAL, BETTER BALANCED AND SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED. You can't tell me what's more fun, because you don't have any idea what fun is for someone else and all you want is YOUR OWN TYPE OF FUN, which you already have in PS2 in the form of the Lightning and other solo units!

Disagree, trying to maneuver something like a Chaffee or Patton in a "stuck-in" fight while hitting targets accurately is an exhilarating experience best had with single-crew tanks. Granted, your squadmates are still there, they just have their own vehicles.

That's actually one of the few situations where a 2 man crew might actually be more effective that I didn't think of, trying not to run into something when you're in a paper tank (like a Chaffee or AMX13/90) because you'll be more or less instantly screwed while still trying to hit other targets which are often moving themselves. Granted that's really more the Lightning style, but if we already have that tank (which is going to be HARDER to drive and gun for) then why should the MBT's require 2 people to do less work?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Arkanor

Disagree, trying to maneuver something like a Chaffee or Patton in a "stuck-in" fight while hitting targets accurately is an exhilarating experience best had with single-crew tanks.

Disagree with the "best had". You could drive and dodge rounds even better if just focusing on driving. My accuracy would be significantly higher on these tanks would I not use the horrible auto-aim WoT provides at extremely close range while driving scouts in a very busy area (the system that can't lead targets, nor fires at weakspots on top of an inaccurate CoF system).

Hence I pick my targets more carefully and go after those I don't need to hit weakspots for first. My PzIII is extremely adapt at that sort of combat.

Granted, your squadmates are still there, they just have their own vehicles.

That's the main issue that screws the balance.

That's actually one of the few situations where a 2 man crew might actually be more effective that I didn't think of, trying not to run into something when you're in a paper tank (like a Chaffee or AMX13/90) because you'll be more or less instantly screwed while still trying to hit other targets which are often moving themselves. Granted that's really more the Lightning style, but if we already have that tank (which is going to be HARDER to drive and gun for) then why should the MBT's require 2 people to do less work?

Well yes and no: I wouldn't say one of the few situations since it occurs every single WoT match many times over. At least if you play WoT like I do. Enemy tanks moving in WoT is far less likely than enemy tanks moving in PS1 though! That's why I say solo play provides less encentives for dynamic combat. Only if you have to to survive will you move and even then a lot of people in WoT stop dead in their tracks on their own accord when they shouldn't need to.

This goes for the flanker and flanked tank: both can use two crew to optimise their maneuvres in fighting the other tank and both would heavily improve their combat efficiency as individual tanks. But the only reason to do this would be if you can't get another tank and improve your combined efficiency even further.


The only WoT units who would not benefit from two crewmembers to improve their efficiency are tank destroyers and artillery. The main reason why the lights in WoT wouldn't be worth two crew is the overal last man standing combat and thus the ease of them being destroyed without getting to respawn.

Plus if your primary goal is to scout without firing (which is often the case for a scout in WoT), that second "crewmember" is wasted on a scout and best spend on a tank that can support the scout with firepower. So there is something to say for making a light scout single crew if it's not their main job to be competitive with heavier units in killing. Like the ATVs.

A MBT's job is killing though and doesn't have a fixed gun. So the argument doesn't apply to PS2 MBTs. The Lightning maybe, even though from what I've seen it's far more competitive than the PS1 Lightning wrt to the MBTs. Which is why a lot of people dub the PS2 MBTs heavy Lightings.

[PredatorFour]

I didnt realise there was timers for the tanks, oh god no. Not that it matters to me but your going to get people not wanting to waste their vehicle and not go for the objective, kinda like a bfr in PS

As for this ongoing debate people that agree with drivers gunning are probably bf/cod fans who have played them styles in small matches - 6 v 6 , 12 v 12 ... If they played PS they would realise with so many targets around they need to be situationally aware at all times in busy fight (as someone said earlier) So a dedicated driver/gunner is a MUST, not only for staying alive but for having fun.

[KaB]

Originally Posted by PredatorFour

As for this ongoing debate people that agree with drivers gunning are probably bf/cod fans who have played them styles in small matches - 6 v 6 , 12 v 12 ...

Apparently that's the kind of people SOE wanna hit with their upcoming opus. They're pretty sure that this tactical will bring them a lot of money. But imo, it will bring them less than what they could have got making it more coherent (that's to mean with everything which worked in PS1).

[fod]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

I, for one, don't care what's more fun FOR YOU. As someone who is older, I'd expect you to act more mature. It's not all about YOU. It's not all about ME. It's about giving the best gameplay experience to the most people possible. By your reasoning, why should the majority give up what they want just so you and a handful of others can get what you want (you may also want to ask yourself why so many people prefer it when it's such a bad design)? That's not working for the greater good of the game or the community.

You can say dedicated drivers are more fun for you, and they probably are for now. How about you do the sensible thing and wait to give it a shot before screaming that it is going to cause the next holocaust. You may find it's not so bad.

since when does giving us the OPTION to have a gunner for the main cannon stop others who are driver/gunners from having fun?

it seems it is you who are not thinking of the majority - if we have it BOTH WAYS then everyone is happy

all we are fighting for is the OPTION for us to play how we find fun - what you are trying to say is that people must have fun ONLY the way YOU like to have fun

again i dont need to give it a shot as i have played LOADS of games with driver/gunner tanks and i find it a lot more fun having a dedicated driver and a dedicated gunner