Poll on driver gunning

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by dsi

If this is a teamwork oriented game it will have team tanking, if it is a teamwork optional game it won't have team tanking, as simple as that.

I take it you enjoyed forced teamwork to accomplish things? That part of Planetside was unnecessary in my opinion. You can have the fun of driving and the fun of shooting rolled into one with teamwork by allowing extra gunners. From a magrider perspective our tank was used primarily for sniping from a distance like across bridges. It was painfully boring a the driver since you just kind of strafed left and right while your gunner fired. The only time it really mattered to separate the two was when you were fleeing to get a few shots into the enemy that was chasing you which is why I'm so strongly for allowing a driver to release the main cannon to the gunner. This removes anything boring from the tank gameplay and still keeps the people that want to drive happy. (Driver should have AA/AI access since it skews with the main role of the tank).

Originally Posted by Zulthus

Or please list several reasons as to why it has been proven (as a fact) to be inferior. It's getting way too old hearing that argument without having reasons as to why you think that way.

Objectively? That's not possible. Subjectively I can say driving is boring and if a system can be created where both the driver and gunner have weapons then it's a far superior system and will be more enjoyable. When I play an FPS I don't want to be just driving around. I want to be shooting also. That's a huge difference between my viewpoint and others who want a driving game with forced teamwork to have a vehicle do damage.

Originally Posted by NewSith

IMHO that only works if you only play PlanetSide and no other games. But BF, (old) CoD, Crysis and a variety of some not-so-famous titles had shown me that this "change" is no good.

Interesting. I don't actually own BF2/3 but from what I could tell driving the tank was very enjoyable when you had the main cannon. It was also enjoyable to jump into the top machine gun and fire. It felt like everyone in the vehicle had firepower.

I personally like the idea of a more rounded vehicle with 2 players. The idea that a vehicle can be customized with a ton of AV or some AI/AA defense gives players a lot of options. Pulling two tanks would only give you 2 AV with twice the armor. I think that extra armor concept has been brought up a few times, but it seems like a valid strategy. I like the idea of huge armies of tanks rolling around or huge amounts of air. In the PS1 system 30 people only looked like 15 tanks. With the new system we'll be seeing a lot more stuff on the battlefield which I'm for.

Also just like with infantry you have teamwork in numbers. That is you're working with those around you. The same concept applies to vehicles.

[QuantumMechanic]

For current PS2 style, if the secondary gunner's weapon is roughly equivalent in damage to the driver's weapon (first time I've heard this explicitly. I assumed the 2nd weapon would be weaker ala Battlefield series), then I'm all for the PS2 style.

This would allow for better flexibility. You need more tanks on the battlefield? Everybody pull one. You need more concentrated powerful firepower? Everybody buddy up.

I would like too see the proof that this second weapon is going to be as powerful as the driver's weapon. If this is not the case, I prefer good ol PS1 style.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by QuantumMechanic

For current PS2 style, if the secondary gunner's weapon is roughly equivalent in damage to the driver's weapon (first time I've heard this explicitly. I assumed the 2nd weapon would be weaker ala Battlefield series), then I'm all for the PS2 style.

This would allow for better flexibility. You need more tanks on the battlefield? Everybody pull one. You need more concentrated powerful firepower? Everybody buddy up.

I would like too see the proof that this second weapon is going to be as powerful as the driver's weapon. If this is not the case, I prefer good ol PS1 style.

secondary gun in BF3 isniot really weaker than the primary, secondary is AI, primary is AV, sure its got splash so derps can kill shit, but the secondary is an effective and lethal killing machine. its like the skeeter vs reaver for AI...sure reaver can kill them, but the skeeter is a beast in the hands of a proper operator and can kill lots more per than a reaver ever can.

[Bojaxs]

Originally Posted by QuantumMechanic

For current PS2 style, if the secondary gunner's weapon is roughly equivalent in damage to the driver's weapon (first time I've heard this explicitly. I assumed the 2nd weapon would be weaker ala Battlefield series), then I'm all for the PS2 style.

This would allow for better flexibility. You need more tanks on the battlefield? Everybody pull one. You need more concentrated powerful firepower? Everybody buddy up.

I would like too see the proof that this second weapon is going to be as powerful as the driver's weapon. If this is not the case, I prefer good ol PS1 style.

Why should the secondary gunner be just as powerful as the main gunner? Tanks will be massively OP if they do that.

I'm indifferent towards either the original PS style or the current Battlefield style. I just hope they make it if the secondary gunner makes a kill the main gunner gets some kill assist points and vice versa if the main gunner gets a kill.

[Blackwolf]

"BFRish."

I like the idea of gunnerless tanks not being totally defenseless, and think the gunner should have access to a forward facing 180 degree arc weapon. However I think the primary weapon should be manned by the gunner. This is the weapon that will do 90% of the damage to targets regardless of the direction the tank is moving. It's just a better choice for both Driver and Gunner, why anyone would even consider another option is nuts.

Originally Posted by QuantumMechanic

For current PS2 style, if the secondary gunner's weapon is roughly equivalent in damage to the driver's weapon (first time I've heard this explicitly. I assumed the 2nd weapon would be weaker ala Battlefield series), then I'm all for the PS2 style.

This would allow for better flexibility. You need more tanks on the battlefield? Everybody pull one. You need more concentrated powerful firepower? Everybody buddy up.

I would like too see the proof that this second weapon is going to be as powerful as the driver's weapon. If this is not the case, I prefer good ol PS1 style.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is mathematically impossible for 1 tank with 2 crewmembers (with 2 guns that are of equal power) to be better then 2 tanks. Any situation in which that 1 tank with 2 crewmembers can do, the 2 tanks can do better. Because you have 2 effing tanks for the enemy to chew through for victory, as opposed to 1. Still think there is "flexibility" there? The only way to resolve that mathematical issue, is to make the secondary gun more powerful then the primary, thus the gunner has the bigger gun and the driver the smaller one. Wow you just reverted it right back to PS1 Magriders.

I'll also point out that, unless the Magrider's strafe and reverse speed is as fast as it's forward speed. The Magrider will have a serious disadvantage in tank vs tank combat with this feature.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

A lot of stuff, mostly self centered

Sirisian. I drove every tank in PS1 willingly. Any Mag driver who stayed back and let his gunner snipe was a coward in my opinion. If you utilized that gun you could take on Vannies head on, out maneuver them and force them into a retreat and you've got them dead to rights. Frankly it sounds like you sucked as a driver. Good drivers were never bored because they ALWAYS had to maneuver for better positioning and better advantage for the gunner.

I'm not as interested in making it require teamwork, if you don't want to drive the damn tank then don't drive the damn tank. I care more about the tactical issues, the balance of the battlefield, and how this set up will impact both those aspects. I don't think about personal enjoyment because frankly, if I'm out doors I plan on either being in a Scythe or on foot sniping. In short I'm more interested in this game keeping it's player base and not turning into tankside. You might like huge numbers of one thing, I'd rather see a more diverse battlefield.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

"BFRish."



I'll also point out that, unless the Magrider's strafe and reverse speed is as fast as it's forward speed. The Magrider will have a serious disadvantage in tank vs tank combat with this feature.

yea, been saying that for awhile.

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

yea, been saying that for awhile.

I know. The more people that say it though, the better it sinks in.

[Rivenshield]

I'd like to make two points that I don't think have been properly discussed yet:

1) Two tanks have twice the hit points, can deliver fire from their main guns twice as fast, and -- most importantly -- each offer HALF THE XP of a fully crewed tank. Whenever you incentivize something in a game by offering more XP for it, gamers will flow towards it like iron filings to a magnet. The reverse is likewise true. Dis-incentivizing teamwork by taking away the phat XP lollipop is not what we want to do here.

2) Other first person shooters offer one-man tanks because ramming around and screeching *WE NEED A GUNNER* is an exercise in futility when there's 24 or 32 people on your side, tops; and they're all spread over the map. In a game with the economy of scale of even old PS1, that's no longer a problem. Teamspeak was a rarity in the old days. So were outfits that stayed together for longer than a month. It should be way, way easier to find a friend to gun for you now, even if it's just for the duration of a free ride to another hot spot.

One man tanks are nothing more than tracked BFR's. They are an artifact of low-population-density conventional wargames. Introducing them to PS2 is a structural defect that takes the 'multiple' out of MMO and the 'person' out of FPS.

[dsi]

Originally Posted by Rivenshield

I'd like to make two points that I don't think have been properly discussed yet:

1) Two tanks have twice the hit points, can deliver fire from their main guns twice as fast, and -- most importantly -- each offer HALF THE XP of a fully crewed tank. Whenever you incentivize something in a game by offering more XP for it, gamers will flow towards it like iron filings to a magnet. The reverse is likewise true. Dis-incentivizing teamwork by taking away the phat XP lollipop is not what we want to do here.

2) Other first person shooters offer one-man tanks because ramming around and screeching *WE NEED A GUNNER* is an exercise in futility when there's 24 or 32 people on your side, tops; and they're all spread over the map. In a game with the economy of scale of even old PS1, that's no longer a problem. Teamspeak was a rarity in the old days. So were outfits that stayed together for longer than a month. It should be way, way easier to find a friend to gun for you now, even if it's just for the duration of a free ride to another hot spot.

One man tanks are nothing more than tracked BFR's. They are an artifact of low-population-density conventional wargames. Introducing them to PS2 is a structural defect that takes the 'multiple' out of MMO and the 'person' out of FPS.

I like this post.

Planetside 2 needs to stick to driver and gunner MBTs, and bring in weaker pilot (and armed passenger) tanks for those who miss BFRs.

People who can't work with other people can just take the proto-BFR.

[Zulthus]

Exactly what he said... driver AND gunner both having guns IS JUST LIKE A BFR, what you have all been SO AGAINST. It's just in a smaller vehicle. The BFR driver got their driver AV/AI/AA guns, and the gunner got their AV/AI guns.

[Traak]

Heck, if the driver controlled the AA weapon, that would rule. No, wait, then planes might be inclined to going back to raping cloakers and AMS/Galaxies.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

Sirisian. I drove every tank in PS1 willingly. Any Mag driver who stayed back and let his gunner snipe was a coward in my opinion. If you utilized that gun you could take on Vannies head on, out maneuver them and force them into a retreat and you've got them dead to rights. Frankly it sounds like you sucked as a driver. Good drivers were never bored because they ALWAYS had to maneuver for better positioning and better advantage for the gunner.

I'm not going bash you for not knowing the Magrider's weaknesses, but driving into a Vanguard will get you killed. It only takes 8 shots according to the Syndicate wiki for a vanguard to kill a Magrider. Making sure you were outside of the range of the vanguard/prowler and just put your shots into the tank from afar was the best strategy. You have a sniper cannon on top. Why would you ever need to get close.

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

I don't think about personal enjoyment because frankly, if I'm out doors I plan on either being in a Scythe or on foot sniping. In short I'm more interested in this game keeping it's player base and not turning into tankside. You might like huge numbers of one thing, I'd rather see a more diverse battlefield.

You don't think about personal enjoyment and yet you want to keep player counts high? Your whole argument doesn't make any sense and is a rambling. You'll get a diverse battlefield by giving players choices. No one suggested making the tank better than a plane which apparently you're imagining. Unless the AV on the magrider is still the same power then I will be shooting planes out of the air.

Originally Posted by Zulthus

Exactly what he said... driver AND gunner both having guns IS JUST LIKE A BFR, what you have all been SO AGAINST. It's just in a smaller vehicle. The BFR driver got their driver AV/AI/AA guns, and the gunner got their AV/AI guns.

This might be why I liked this even more. The BFR's design was my favorite. It's pretty much all I used when it came out because it offered the most fun rolled into a vehicle without the downtime of the Magrider. That's actually one reason I used the Magrider since I had the certification when I waited for the cooldown to use the more enjoyable vehicle.

Originally Posted by Traak

Heck, if the driver controlled the AA weapon, that would rule. No, wait, then planes might be inclined to going back to raping cloakers and AMS/Galaxies.

Wouldn't work. Giving the driver anything other than the main AV re-purposes the vehicle for roles outside of being a tank.

[Coreldan]

I don't think BFRs and MBTs can be compared even with this change. Tanks wont just suddenly fly into the air and to the nearest mountain when things get hairy. Also, I can't recall any MBT being even as close as durable as the BFRs were.

When things get hairy with an MBT, you can try driving away, but most likely that's the end of that story.

The mobility wasnt just about getting away either, when we see MBTs jumping over to the base walls raping people, then I'll truely be concerned

[Graywolves]

My concern is efficiency.

I'd expect better results from a tank with a dedicated gunner and a dedicated driver than an individual multi-tasking.


To make a one man tank effective you need to make it slower, have more armor, and take a heavy pounding to be effective. Otherwise you have a massive skill curve between people who can drive without looking ahead of their tank and shoot, and people who can't.


Or the battlefield will just be dominated by Magriders which 1man would easily outmeneuver and outgun a 1man tank of any other empire.

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I'm not going bash you for not knowing the Magrider's weaknesses, but driving into a Vanguard will get you killed. It only takes 8 shots according to the Syndicate wiki for a vanguard to kill a Magrider. Making sure you were outside of the range of the vanguard/prowler and just put your shots into the tank from afar was the best strategy. You have a sniper cannon on top. Why would you ever need to get close.

Again, it sounds to me like you were just a bad driver. I've never had issues with enemy tanks so long as there wasn't any outside interference (mines). It's not "the best strategy", it's a strategy. A slow and, as you said, boring strategy.

You don't think about personal enjoyment and yet you want to keep player counts high? Your whole argument doesn't make any sense and is a rambling. You'll get a diverse battlefield by giving players choices. No one suggested making the tank better than a plane which apparently you're imagining. Unless the AV on the magrider is still the same power then I will be shooting planes out of the air.

I don't consider personal enjoyment no. This is because what I enjoy is different from what others enjoy. This is the point you constantly fail to grasp. I think about the battlefield and how it will look and feel because I think we can all agree that we want to feel like we are in an actual battle rather then a tank game.

If you can't see the obvious, then I'm done arguing with you. You have been proven wrong reasonably and mathematically. The only reason you continue to post now is to win.

This might be why I liked this even more. The BFR's design was my favorite. It's pretty much all I used when it came out because it offered the most fun rolled into a vehicle without the downtime of the Magrider. That's actually one reason I used the Magrider since I had the certification when I waited for the cooldown to use the more enjoyable vehicle.

This explains a lot about you. BFRs ruined the game because it packed too much firepower and versatility into one vehicle (often with just a pilot), and you enjoyed it..

Originally Posted by Coreldan

I don't think BFRs and MBTs can be compared even with this change. Tanks wont just suddenly fly into the air and to the nearest mountain when things get hairy. Also, I can't recall any MBT being even as close as durable as the BFRs were.

When things get hairy with an MBT, you can try driving away, but most likely that's the end of that story.

The mobility wasnt just about getting away either, when we see MBTs jumping over to the base walls raping people, then I'll truely be concerned

I've mentioned the flight variant once. Otherwise any mention of the BFRs has been directed more at the single pilot versions and the gunner versions. All things considered, you are using the BFR system, the exact thing that made the BFRs horrible additions to the game, and applying it to MBTs. Something that won't require 75 unique kills in a cave + time spent floating in a giant laser beam to be able to pilot.

What balanced MBTs? The fact that they weren't suitable for every situation, and that their firepower required a platoon of 30 to be cut down to 15 in order to field a convoy of tanks. 15 was enough to run over any opposition, 15 tanks with an organized group managing them was enough to take down 15+ enemy tanks. It took a lot of players, a lot of coordination, and a lot of time to field those tanks. It was worth it.

This new system means you can field a full platoon of 30 tanks. They might be half as efficient at their jobs, but who's going to argue with 30 tanks? Hell this system means seeing armor columns of 80 tanks will be common. Can't challenge it with aircraft, vehicles, or infantry so why bother going against it?

People aren't going to follow their own paths and make choices in order to have fun if one play style over rules all others hands down. They will instead play the FoTM in order to try and have fun. SWG showed us this exact thing. FoTMs ran rampant and the DEVs were constantly trying to "fix" things to bring them in line with each other. BFRs were the exact same way, the DEVs spent over a year trying to tweak the things in order to bring them in line with the rest of the game, and never fully succeeded.