harrasser proves dedicated driver is great - Page 9

Shogun · 2013-05-03, 07:26 PM

the sad thing is, that ps1 had this and it worked.
the seat selection method was pure genius!
and the balance of lightning and crewed mbt was working as well.
the ps2 systems are a very big step backwards

Figment · 2013-05-03, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Wow Figment I agreed with you and still caught hell over it. Imho the creation of a new super tank to satisfy your three man fantasy is a no go in my book. Totally scrapping the current mbt setup is a non starter either. The furthest I will go is forcing a solo player to get out of the mbt to switch to a secondary gun. But thats it. Drivers in ps2 should still have the option to remain there own main gunner.

Personally I always look for a secondary gunner to cover my ass in a mbt. Without a second gunner generally you are esf bait.

To summarize;
Same armor for a three man variant (= 1/3 armour in comparison to three people in their own tank: WAY too low)
Same guns for a three man variant (= 2/3s the firepower of three people in their own tank: 1/3 the firepower of the driver and 1/3 the firepower of the secondaries in their own tank!)
I would include no more seat swapping without first exiting the vehicle

Sledge, you didn't agree with me. You agreed with Canaris and Rbtr. I don't want what you describe. Look above at the maths I quoted. What you suggest is entirely unfair and I had already dismissed that solution three, four times already with a lot of arguments as being a completely crap bandaid.

What you suggest is unacceptable if the solo option remains, it's a huge nerfed crewed vehicle in comparison to the solo option.

There's no such thing as a three crew super tank in my vision. What I have in mind is more like a Vanguard/Prowler from PS1. What they have in mind is a sort of Mammoth tank from C&C. But to have that PS1 tank, you can't have a soloable MBT of the same frame with the same hitpoints, that being the current PS2 MBT. The current design solution HAS TO GO COMPLETELY. It's the only way to move forward.

Sledgecrushr · 2013-05-03, 07:38 PM

I would like to see a restriction on seat swapping in MBTs.

Sledgecrushr · 2013-05-03, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Sledge, you didn't agree with me, at all. You agreed with Canaris and Rbtr. I don't want what you describe. Look above at the maths I quoted. What you suggest is entirely unfair and I had already dismissed that solution three, four times already with a lot of arguments as being a completely crap bandaid.

I know what you want figment. Ive come half way, will you step over and compromise?

Figment · 2013-05-03, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I know what you want figment. Ive come half way, will you step over and compromise?

There is no compromise possible, otherwise I'd proposed it already.

Soloable MBTs cannot exist next to the same frame for a crewed vehicle and the current MBT is far too powerful to have a more powerful tank next to it as an option.

The current MBT has to go 100% crewed, there is no alternative. Soloable options cannot and should never exist for the a unit supposedly balanced for three people.

EDIT: At the same time, you can't really nerf the current soloable MBT either, without having to heavily nerf the Lightning as well. Believe me when I say I've considered all options. :/

TheSaltySeagull · 2013-05-03, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

There is no compromise possible, otherwise I'd proposed it already.

Soloable MBTs cannot exist next to the same frame for a crewed vehicle and the current MBT is far too powerful to have a more powerful tank next to it as an option.

The current MBT has to go 100% crewed, there is no alternative. Soloable options cannot and should never exist for the a unit supposedly balanced for three people.

EDIT: At the same time, you can't really nerf the current soloable MBT either, without having to heavily nerf the Lightning as well. Believe me when I say I've considered all options. :/

I don't really agree with MBTs being too powerful to have another more powerful counterpart. If anything the current MBTs are a joke and moving EXP balloons. We are not talking about the old tank zergs from when the game first launched that had the pre-nerf HE rounds and could steamroll across a cont. The current tanks have to turn tail and run from any mass of infantry due to the abundance of lock-on launchers and the new ESAV. They are still vulnerable to airstrikes from ESF and libs. And now MAX units have viable AV weapons(well at least the NC and TR do). Even with the armor buff they are still rather weak in general in my opinion.

I am not saying adding a new "heavy tank" is the correct option to take but it IS an option worth considering in more depth. A new tank would not have to be exactly twice as strong as the current tanks and even if it was that might be doable given how shitty the current tanks are.

Shogun · 2013-05-03, 08:22 PM

but figments only solution is also the most simple one. introducing another even bigger tank and balancing it is a much bigger task then keeping the current vehicles and rebalance them for a forced dedicated mbt setup.

TheSaltySeagull · 2013-05-03, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by Shogun

but figments only solution is also the most simple one. introducing another even bigger tank and balancing it is a much bigger task then keeping the current vehicles and rebalance them for a forced dedicated mbt setup.

Actually the most simple "solution" is to do exactly what the devs have done...nothing. Just leave the tanks as is and introduce new crewed vehicles like the buggies etc that they already had lined up and be like "these are the crewed vehicles for people who want them and the tanks are solo vehicles" and just leave it at that. I am not saying its the best option but it is the easiest option for the devs and the one they appear to be taking.

leifnielsen · 2013-05-03, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Yup, it's math and totally not personal preference.

Your subjective math supports your subjective possition that two-man tanks are better.

One man tanks = more tanks = more fun. Did the math, my side came out on top. Sorry to be arrogant.

One man tanks = more tanks = more money.

Your equation was wrong. I fixed it for you.

The people that want one man tanks CAN have one man tanks. They will just be less powerful. (Lightning)

MBT's will be EVEN MORE powerful with dedicated drivers/gunners due to increased situational awareness.

"More fun" is relative. So give both sides what they want and have one tank that is solo and one tank that requires 2 people.

Whiteagle · 2013-05-03, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by moosepoop

im for both crewed mbts and crewed heavy tanks. im presenting two options instead of saying "this is the only way and it must be done like this". when you give a number of ideas you have higher chance of one of them implemented.

Except allowing Driver to control the Main Cannon on MBTs IS the problem!
You can't just band-aid AROUND that problem, you have to address it directly.

Originally Posted by Figment

As for "why not make all vehicles bigger than an ATV crew manned?", you may not have noticed... But all other units except the Lightning and ESF DO require more than one player where the driver cannot drive and gun at the same time:

Galaxy
Harasser
Liberator
Sunderer

The ATV however, has a completely different role, while the Lightning and the MBT have the exact same basic role.

You're not seriously saying you're incapable of seeing this difference? :/ Please tell me you do actually know this?

Originally Posted by Figment

What people have said is that if you give a single unit more power than other units, that this should be trade-off somehow. Since we man these units with players, players are a form of resource. Units are therefore represented by X amount of players. We call this the manpower that an unit represents. Hence it is imperative that you balance more powerful units in terms of manpower requirements, so that other units with other manpower requirements remain competitive.

The goal after all, is that players are competitive. Thus units should be competitive.

Originally Posted by Figment

With a crewed MBT (AND WITHOUT THE SOLO MBT, BUT THE LIGHTNING INSTEAD) the game provides the option for people to play as a team using a teamwork vehicle in order to gain access to more firepower and/or endurance, or to use the Lightning or other solo units instead. Nobody is stripping you from the option to play the game solo, you just should never be allowed to play with the heaviest of vehicles in game solo because that's not balanced in relation to that other unit peforming the same role. They should never have allowed solo-mbts for this reason alone or they should never have made the weapons on it this deadly, as it leaves no room for teamwork units that get a bonus as trade-off for using less units.

Indeed, this wouldn't be so bad if a Solo MBT had to sacrifice either Firepower or Mobility so that its at best as good as a Lightning, but a Driver controlled Main Cannon makes the MBT a straight upgrade.

This is also where me and Figment differ on our opinions; he outright doesn't want seat switching where as I would rather re-balance power amongst a Vehicles Operating Seats to make them ALL equally important.

That's actually where I'm compromising with you guys, you could still solo with Main Gunner Seat and Driver Seat with Secondary Weapon Split, but at best you're going to be as effective as a Lightning and just as inferior to fully manned MBT because you can't do BOTH at once.

Originally Posted by Figment

You say you're not against an option for players to work together, but you really are because you want to have the same power as they do. As long as you want that, you're being nothing more than an immature child who doesn't want to share. Why the hell are you playing a MMO if you can't accept the idea of having to work together to use everything at your disposal?

Exactly, that's why these other options DO NOT WORK!
They do not address the imbalance created by the current Solo-MBTs.
Having an OPTION for a crew just increase the Manpower requirements for no real benefits, while a new Crew-necessary Tank is just going to make the Lightning THAT much more redundant.

Originally Posted by Figment

Why are you being such a hypocrite that you aren't whining that you can't use the Galaxy's alternate guns as driver? Why aren't you whining that the Sunderer doesn't have a cannon on top for the driver? Why are you being such a damn hypocrite?

Yeah, what makes MBTs so damn Special?
I'll drive a Sunderer or fly a Liberator and Galaxy, but that doesn't entitle me to a powerful Main Gun!
Those need GUNNERS to be effective combat vehicles, not as an optional supplements to reinforce their one-man army.

Originally Posted by Baneblade

I would rather MBTs were removed entirely from the game than to remain as they are.

We don't need two Lightnings nor do we need more tanks.

Indeed...

Originally Posted by RykerStruvian

Actually, it is. We've been complaining about this since the beta (sound familiar?) and Smed has been pretty much against any form of dedicated gunners. They won't allow it to be certable, they won't allow it to be part of the game options, nothing. They opted out of a dedicated gunner for the 'more fun' BF style tanks, which is totally just...BAD.

Clearly there is but one true option...
MALORN, DELIVER US THE HEAD OF SMED!!!

Originally Posted by Shogun

exactly. but since this is an mmo and developement will not stop, i still have the hopes that even the overlord realises how bad we want this feature!
we know it is fun because we played it in ps1.
i would like to see it as a certable option or even as a radical mbt overhaul to balance to the lightning. but i have only hope to get at least the option to play this way. forcing the tankbattle lovers to play the casual way was the plain wrong decision. this large group of players deserves some love as well.
if the game only caters to casual players, it will eventually fail, because the game needs dedicated longterm players to unfold to its full potential, and those are scared away with all this downdumping.
the casual players stll have their lightnings to do the lonewulf fight.
the devs need to start catering to more different playergroups quickly.
especially to the ps1 veterans. this may not be the biggest group, but they will have positive impact on gameplay for everybody when they start having as much fun as they had with ps1.

Well that the thing, the MBTs NEED a Complete Overhaul, simply giving us an option for crews isn't going to cut it because the Solo-Drivergunner MBTs will still have the advantage!

As Figment has pointed out time and time again:

Originally Posted by Figment

Yeah Sledge! Kill three as easily as one guy, with 2/3s the firepower and 1/3 the endurance of three people in their own tanks and get way more exp for it! Woo!

If you think that's going to satisfy people, think again. It's just going to show how stupidly OP solo-mbts are. Will you lot stop proposing ideas that have been shown twenty times over to NOT FUNCTION!? For crying out loud, see what I mean by ignoring other people? Sledge has been in these discussions for an eon and still doesn't understand what he proposes only buffs solo-MBTs by having less opponents without making any trade-off, while the crewed vehicle BOTH makes a trade-off AND faces more opponents comparitively.

...That just does not work...

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Totally scrapping the current mbt setup is a non starter either. The furthest I will go is forcing a solo player to get out of the mbt to switch to a secondary gun. But thats it. Drivers in ps2 should still have the option to remain there own main gunner.

...Why?

Why is radically altering the game NOW, less then six months after launch, so unreasonable?
They are already doing this with the Map, Resources... Hell almost all the issues we pointed out in Beta are now being addressed!

Why should the MBTs driver be the Main Gunner when there are now a handful of Vehicles where this isn't the case?
There are only TWO Vehicles in the game that are Single Seaters, the only ones that have an excuse for all their firepower to be linked to one person because they are BALANCED around this fact.

Originally Posted by Figment

There's no such thing as a three crew super tank in my vision. What I have in mind is more like a Vanguard/Prowler from PS1. What they have in mind is a sort of Mammoth tank from C&C. But to have that PS1 tank, you can't have a soloable MBT of the same frame with the same hitpoints, that being the current PS2 MBT. The current design solution HAS TO GO COMPLETELY. It's the only way to move forward.

Agreed...

...Though my on thoughts on the matter of larger Ground Combat Vehicles are that they aren't suppose to serve as Tank as much as Mobile Fire Bases, hopefully as a prelude to what we will see with Air Carriers and Naval Vessels.

Originally Posted by Shogun

but figments only solution is also the most simple one. introducing another even bigger tank and balancing it is a much bigger task then keeping the current vehicles and rebalance them for a forced dedicated mbt setup.

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

Actually the most simple "solution" is to do exactly what the devs have done...nothing. Just leave the tanks as is and introduce new crewed vehicles like the buggies etc that they already had lined up and be like "these are the crewed vehicles for people who want them and the tanks are solo vehicles" and just leave it at that. I am not saying its the best option but it is the easiest option for the devs and the one they appear to be taking.

...Yeah, and Suicide is Painless...

moosepoop · 2013-05-03, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

Except allowing Driver to control the Main Cannon on MBTs IS the problem!
You can't just band-aid AROUND that problem, you have to address it directly.

of course you can. just nerf it.

Canaris · 2013-05-04, 03:20 AM

Fig buddy I'm really trying hard to understand this and not to be facetious but I just keep seeing the flaws and holes. This isn't just a sum. An MMOFPS is a far bigger beast than just it's maths but I'll try my best to work with that frame (ain't my strong suit)

(Dis)advantages of ONE unit with TWO gunners and dedicated driver over the same, ONE unit with ONE gunner

PER UNIT (dedicated driver, two gunners vs driver=gunner, one unit
Situational awareness per unit: Tripled and a little (gunner not needing to watch road, three sets of eyes)
Variety of potential perspectives per unit: Equal
Number of potential units: Equal
Enemy firepower dispersion: Equal
Hitpoints per unit: Equal
Firepower per unit: Doubled
AA options available: Equal (no need to switch)
Resource cost per unit: Equal
Maneuvrability per unit: Increase in efficiency
Tactical options per unit: Equal
Expected lifespan per unit: Slight increase
Execution of available tactical options: Slight increase in efficiency

This right here is why I call your maths into questions.

3 man MBT vs current 2 man

You say this (and maybe I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here so forgive if I do)

Note that compared to two players, for three players only maneuvring and situational awareness increase. Firepower does not. If it was a dedicated driver with just one gunner, firepower would equal per unit, but HALF per player.

Firepower does not increase, yet then you write

Firepower per unit: Doubled

which is it doubled or not and just by knowing how it worked in PS1 I know for a fact that the three man is better 1vs1 only when all three members of the crew are working harmony, which most of the time they DON'T I played TR in PS1, we had to put up with it every darned day.

Tactical options per unit: Equal

< This is just straight up incorrect in my eyes. How can you equate tactical options into a maths sum. That's not what tactics is, off the bat I can see plenty of better tactical advantages of the three man vs two man.

BUT and it's a big but hehe

Only again when that three man crew work together in harmony. They can be better than the 2 man crewed tank in all ways. So you say it's not balanced well that's true. if the crew is humming they have the advantage.

I belive your maths is flawed, as you don't take into account wht WHOLE picture.

You claim it's your way or the highway, well if that's the case I'll take the highway.

Figment · 2013-05-04, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by Canaris

Fig buddy I'm really trying hard to understand this and not to be facetious but I just keep seeing the flaws and holes. This isn't just a sum. An MMOFPS is a far bigger beast than just it's maths but I'll try my best to work with that frame (ain't my strong suit)

This right here is why I call your maths into questions.

3 man MBT vs current 2 man

You say this (and maybe I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here so forgive if I do)

Firepower does not increase, yet then you write

which is it doubled or not and just by knowing how it worked in PS1 I know for a fact that the three man is better 1vs1 only when all three members of the crew are working harmony, which most of the time they DON'T I played TR in PS1, we had to put up with it every darned day.

< This is just straight up incorrect in my eyes. How can you equate tactical options into a maths sum. That's not what tactics is, off the bat I can see plenty of better tactical advantages of the three man vs two man.

BUT and it's a big but hehe

Only again when that three man crew work together in harmony. They can be better than the 2 man crewed tank in all ways. So you say it's not balanced well that's true. if the crew is humming they have the advantage.

I belive your maths is flawed, as you don't take into account wht WHOLE picture.

You claim it's your way or the highway, well if that's the case I'll take the highway.

It is doubled compared to a solo mbt manned by a single player. It is a unit vs unit comparison.

The problem lies in the comparison with the alternative when equal manpower is considered. In which case the solo tank has a gun per player (so three for three players, plus three secondaries as option). The single three crew unit only has two guns for three players. So then it is 1/1 vs 2/3 (doubled on an unit basis) and 3/3 vs 2/3 (reduced on a per player basis).

The problem is most pro-solo mbt players never understand manpower requirements.

Tactics between a solo-mbt and a single unit do not differ. Tactics between a single unit compared to multiple units with same manpower (so two or three) allows for more tactical choices for the multiple units (tag team, pincer, etc).

Canaris · 2013-05-04, 04:36 AM

a unit vs unit comparison is fine when your trying to balance types of a similar nature in for want of a better word a duel but then don't you have to take a look at the bigger picture and include/consider other types of battlefield units.

This isn't just a tank game like WoT, it's a combined arms game that also includes infantry, air and support vehicles.

while also trying to cater for people of various playstyles within that.

A perfect example is me & you, I like the current style while clearly you prefer the classic style of PS1, it really is a balancing act of pretty big proportions and serious consquences.

Take for example Star Wars Galaxies, the CU & NGE. Look at what a major overhaul of the combat systems did to that game, it alienated those people who prefered the game as was to try and cater for a differnt play style and the game population went down faster than cheap hooker, this is a smaller version of the same problem. How do you avoid alienating and frankly pissing off those who play one way.

Remember this is a buisness for SOE and a passion for us.
That's why I want to see the dual system implented so as not to favour one side over the other. As in the end of the day it would hurt SOE and PS2. I felt and saw that happening in SWG and I can see it here again.

Figment · 2013-05-04, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by Canaris

a unit vs unit comparison is fine when your trying to balance types of a similar nature in for want of a better word a duel but then don't you have to take a look at the bigger picture and include/consider other types of battlefield units.

This isn't just a tank game like WoT, it's a combined arms game that also includes infantry, air and support vehicles.

Of course it does mean that! But the use of three players should be pretty even alternatives among themselves. See, most this comparison is about how effective the three players are. Teamwork is not incentized when the soloable option results in a higher efficiency. On an unit per unit basis, the three crew is pretty much the best option, BUT, and this is the kicker, when the players instead split up, they get 6 guns (of which they can use three) for the price of equal manpower and on top of that they get more tactical options and three times the endurance and enemy fire is dispersed over three targets instead of concentrated on one (!!!).

So if you start looking at the other things in the context of the game, it just gets worse. A single unit in the plans of most of the silly people in this thread that want to retain solo players, would die equally fast as a solo tank to other threats. That means you get to remove three players OR one at the same TTK and ammo cost as an AV player. That's ridiculous.

You can't just say "you have to look at the other context" as if that is a solution, no, you have to show how the context interacts with it. And what disturbs me with you lot you always use it to wave away any qualms, BUT THEN DON'T EXPLAIN HOW THOSE OTHER UNITS AND SITUATIONS SOLVE THESE UNFAIRNESS ISSUES.

If you look at the impact of air for instance: a single crew tank has the potential of one AA gun which it can switch to in defense. A three crew tank also has the potential of one AA gun which it can use in defense. Three solo tanks have the potential of THREE AA guns which it can switch to in defense!

If you consider infantry, then the three crew unit has only two guns in defense, while three units - also three crew - have six guns in defense of which it uses three at a time. Situational awareness increases with three separate units as well compared to the single unit and it even means they can equip themselves differently: one can have scout radar, another can have smoke screen, etc.

It's very nice that you say "this isn't WoT", but you can't leave it there. That alone isn't an argument. In fact, it makes everything worse for the crewed tank without any compensation! So please, realise that I'm actually the only person making that context comparison! You can say all you want about "this is a combined arms game", but when this context is shown to make it worse (which I have many times over...), you can't just repeat that and once more say "but this is a combined arms game"! That's not an argument if you don't show what effects it would have!

The reason you seem to say it is because you don't really want to think about the consequences, you just hope that somehow this dismisses any argument. Look Canaris, my argumentation is far more complete and far broader than what you or anyone else has ever presented. You're not going to convince me by simply waving away any issues without actually saying why you could do that. Your argument is completely empty right now. :/ It's not that I don't want to listen to you, but when you say nothing, there's nothing to listen to!

while also trying to cater for people of various playstyles within that.

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?

A perfect example is me & you, I like the current style while clearly you prefer the classic style of PS1, it really is a balancing act of pretty big proportions and serious consquences.

This isn't about style, this is about gameplay impact. Too much of something can be very bad for the game. It's like having unlimited super-units in Command & Conquer, it would be disastrous for the game! That's why they limit it to ONE per side per map. The MBT is too powerful to be used in huge numbers for the context of PlanetSide 2, where player group differ in size a lot.

You keep speaking of context, but then you NEVER refer to context and you even keep ignoring the context!

Take for example Star Wars Galaxies, the CU & NGE. Look at what a major overhaul of the combat systems did to that game, it alienated those people who prefered the game as was to try and cater for a differnt play style and the game population went down faster than cheap hooker, this is a smaller version of the same problem. How do you avoid alienating and frankly pissing off those who play one way.

I asked in my survey. 95% of the player said they'd continue playing if this change was made. Over 67% even prefered it. And again, that includes the CoD and BF3 players.

The same thing was said regarding the Galaxy AMS vs ground AMS. When players realise it's a good thing for gameplay, they'll keep going.

In this case, it's likely (in fact it is fact) that the current tank balance situation chases off a lot of infantry oriented players due to the sheer amount of spammed HE. Why don't you think of that?

Your argument is akin to having BFRs removed from PS1 and then argueing this MIGHT have decreased the population. Yet we can be pretty sure that people would continue to use the most powerful tank in game, especially if it comes with a little endurance buff, especially if it means infantry face less one hit kill threats.

This is not comparable to the NGE and is a relatively minor change that doesn't affect most players in their core gameplay, especially considering the alternative with the same playstyle (Lightning) remains in game. Very weak argument to be honest.

Remember this is a buisness for SOE and a passion for us.
That's why I want to see the dual system implented so as not to favour one side over. As in the end of the day it would hurt SOE and PS2. I felt and saw that happening in SWG and I can see it here again.

You are favouring one side over the other. You would provide TWO solo tanks and one crewed tank that is significantly weaker than both solo tanks on a per player basis. You would not provide anything of value and you would continue chasing off infantry players en mass by doing nothing to adress heavy vehicle spam.

Sorry Canaris, but your argumentation is exceptionally weak and primarily aimed at catering to solo players that want to abuse heavy equipment. Those are the least interesting demographic of any FPS game and should be the first to ignore.

This has nothing to do with making sure both sides have their playstyle. It's about you preserving the status quo problems on purpose because some whiny children would run to their mommy screaming and stamping the ground throwing a tantrum if their OP toy was still given to them, but with the added condition they share it with friends.

Sorry, those whiny spoiled brats should be spanked, not rewarded.