Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2

[Coreldan]

Originally Posted by Maarvy

This , a strong tank will still need a team . 1 driver/engineer/main gunner , 1 machine gunner and at/aa speced heavy assault .

Solo tanks will be free kills for any air in most cases .

Yeah, Higlo made pretty short work of the Magriders when there was no AA on those magriders to fend him off in most cases.

And the infantry splash damage was indeed low enough for even a few anti tank guys to probably take down a Vanguard with no secondary gunner fairly easy.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Coreldan

Yeah, Higlo made pretty short work of the Magriders when there was no AA on those magriders to fend him off in most cases.

And the infantry splash damage was indeed low enough for even a few anti tank guys to probably take down a Vanguard with no secondary gunner fairly easy.

Consider that next to none of those tanks seemed to even HAVE a secondary gun (neither Vannies nor Magriders), but still fastly outnumbered the local infantry. And strangely, there were no Lightnings around with AA as far as I could tell (have we seen one at all yet?), nor any aircav intercepting Higby. (Well... apart from that friendly Reaver that rammed him mid-air ).

Plus I suppose Higby being the demonstrator was not meant to be shot as often since he had to demo the game to the press.

Which means it's not entirely representative for actual in-game situations.

[Coreldan]

Originally Posted by Figment

Consider that next to none of those tanks seemed to even HAVE a secondary gun (neither Vannies nor Magriders), but still fastly outnumbered the local infantry. And strangely, there were no Lightnings around with AA as far as I could tell (have we seen one at all yet?), nor any aircav intercepting Higby. (Well... apart from that friendly Reaver that rammed him mid-air ).

Plus I suppose Higby being the demonstrator was not meant to be shot as often since he had to demo the game to the press.

Which means it's not entirely representative for actual in-game situations.

True, I did think about it many time whether Higlo managed to stay alive so long on the Reaver cos they didnt shoot him down on purpose

That said, the Vanguards we saw had top mounted machine guns of some kind, it's the first time we see it in the non-PS1 config.

And no, the story of Lightning was that it went back to the drawing board when T-Ray didnt feel the original design was good enough, thus we've yet to see one.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Maarvy

This , a strong tank will still need a team . 1 driver/engineer/main gunner , 1 machine gunner and at/aa speced heavy assault .

Solo tanks will be free kills for any air in most cases .

Why does this shortsighted argument keep returning even if dismissed every other page?

Solo tanks will have a buddy specced with appropriate gun on appropriate unit for every gunner of own tank.

Stop pretending they are alone because that's the sole situation in which it is a worse scenario. But if they are alone, they couldn't have a gunner either even if they wanted to. Which means it's a completely moot point in this debate.

[Maarvy]

Originally Posted by Figment

Why does this shortsighted argument keep returning even if dismissed every other page?

Solo tanks will have a buddy specced with appropriate gun on appropriate unit for every gunner of own tank.

Stop pretending they are alone because that's the sole situation in which it is a worse scenario. But if they are alone, they couldn't have a gunner either even if they wanted to. Which means it's a completely moot point in this debate.

Im not saying solo tank like 1 tank alone in the wilderness , I mean a tank with 1 (solo) driver vs a tank with driver and 2nd gunner .

In almost every situation the one with the 2nd gunner is more powerfull and has a lot more options to call on that the tank with just 1 ( solo ) occupant .
From repairs to a added at rocket or aa missile right when u need it most .
I know you can kinda pick up all these things as a single crewed tank but when your relying on a 100 hp meat bag to deliver the goods its not the same .

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by Maarvy

This , a strong tank will still need a team . 1 driver/engineer/main gunner , 1 machine gunner and at/aa speced heavy assault .

Solo tanks will be free kills for any air in most cases .

That's assuming there's nobody around with AA, which is a huge assumption. More likely there'll be guys in AA Lightnings, AA MAXs, AA infantry, other AA fitted tanks and so on.

There's already a solo tank called the Lightning, why do we need a second one?

[Baron]

If you've ever been a secondary gunner for a Battlefield game:

1) It's pretty much a joke
2) Certain death

I hope PS2 gunners do not fall into the above categories. As the PS team has stated before, there is a large amount of customization so I still have faith that the secondary gunner can have some cool things to play with.

[Ragotag]

Originally Posted by Baron

If you've ever been a secondary gunner for a Battlefield game:

1) It's pretty much a joke
2) Certain death

That's a pretty sweeping, an IMO, misrepresented statement. Gunning for a vehicle in BF3 places the gunner at no more risk than it does the driver (except for the helicopters).

Originally Posted by ikon

id imagine even if they are zerging without gunners aircraft and anti armor weapons will pick them apart like nothing without secondary gunners.

Using BF3 in comparison, yep -- exactly what happens. An MBT in BF3 without a gunner is highly susceptible to AT and C4 toting Infantry, which equates to a shortened life span especially in urban environments.

Originally Posted by kaffis

The logic does make sense, though. I cert the vehicle, I spend training time and resources on pimping it out, why should a random teammate get the gun? I'd rather see the gun and wheel separated, but have neither require the cert so long as one person in the vehicle is certed for it. That way, if you want to gun, you can pull your tank and climb in the gunner's seat and find a driver.

In the end, however, I actually prefer the idea of better armored tanks requiring more team-based coordination by having separate gunner/driver seats. I think kaffis is right on target here, allow the player with the certs to field (spawn) the tank, but then give him/her the choice of which seat they want to ride in.

[NewSith]

TTK for a tank steps in here. I wouldn't jump to assumptions just yet - a BF tank gets raped by just 2 AV shots. I think we should all wait for beta with this question. Even if the system they offer will be flawed (which I am, honestly, most sure of), deleting the skill from the tree is not very much of a drag.

[Arius]

Surely someone said it before already, why not let the driver decide who controls the gun? Have the driver control the gun, if he wants to control the gun and drive, the second person in the car operates the secondary gun, and if not, the second person gets the option between the secondary gun and the primary gun.

[Vanir]

Originally Posted by Arius

Surely someone said it before already, why not let the driver decide who controls the gun? Have the driver control the gun, if he wants to control the gun and drive, the second person in the car operates the secondary gun, and if not, the second person gets the option between the secondary gun and the primary gun.

Yes, this.
Why not make it optional for the driver to choose to whether to control one or none of the guns on the tank? Put it on the skill tree upgrade or something. For example when I'm deciding my load out for my tank, on the load out screen why not have tags to check off on whether I want to control the main gun or have a seperate gunner control the main gun (which would then open up a gunner spot on the tank for the main gun) and another check box for the secondary gun. For a maximum of a 3 man tank.

[ItsTheSheppy]

I am very much against tank drivers being able to fire the primary gun.

[CollinBRTD]

Again and again

If a tank needs to have 2 or 3 persons to operate it needs to be VERY powerfull. This concept was already broken in PS1. (Raider). If you want to balance this vehicle against the reaver/mossi and the vanu crap which is NOBODY saying it should have a driver and a gunner. Tanks need to be way more powerfull.

I see this in PS1 when Reavers take down Prowlers even with this crappy third gun (which nobody wants to gun) you always feel robbed.

Now people say the reaver is a totaly different vehicle in game and it can be taken down by AA. But the three man tank has to fear even more. Mines/AV Max/AV inf aso.

Even worse when i see the alpha videos atm the Reaver seems to have very powerfull first strike weapons and even with aa on your tank i guess you will take more damage then the reaver. The Reaver can fly back reapair and rearm in no time while the tank is sitting duck.

So why do people argue that tanks need to have 2-3 gunners? First i say one or two have valid arguments that it fits the theme of Planetside but most of people fear the loss of the exclusivity of the soloaircav and its powers in the field.

I say IF a driver/gunner tank rolls in PS2 this tank NEEDS to be really strong and a single seater vehicle should not even have the slightest chance taking it down. I see here the lightning and MBT in PS1 were nicely balanced, but the Reaver/Raider/Skyguard/Buggies were very broken. While the reaver was WAY to strong especially the Raider and skyguard were way to weak for its manpower and amour. It was bad before the stealth reaverbuff but became totally silly afterwards.

[CutterJohn]

If they do stick with the concept of the driver being the primary gunner and the gunner controlling the secondary turret, I for one hope they allow an option to swap control of the turrets, so you can give control of the primary turret to the gunner, and the driver takes control of the secondary.

[Higby]

Secondary weapons on tanks are no joke.