harrasser proves dedicated driver is great

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Deadeye

People tend to take the path of least resistance and hate to be forced to rely on others for their points. In PS1, I never touched Vanguards beyond one or two times when I gunned for them and even on TS, it never worked out.

Without meaning disrespect, that just means you stink at it. And I mean, are absolutely rotten at teamwork. Which means you have nothing to add to the conversation regarding the design of teamwork units, because they're not designed FOR YOU. And they never should be. Which means, you should focus on having units that are designed for players like you (the Lightning) and having them balanced fairly (as in weaker, but competitive in groups).

We had two gunners on TS for a single vehicle with less firepower (Thundere and Deliverer) and we rampaged with a FAR LESSER ENDURANCE UNIT THAN A PS1 TANK. Which means you're just a biased liar, because you pretend to speak for everyone else while you're only speaking for an absolute minority of players that suck at teamwork.


I'm really sorry, but bad players shouldn't get to design the game by ruining the game for good team players. And you really, utterly stink. I mean really, you sucked at Vanguards so you didn't use them and used other equipment you could use instead. So where's the problem? If something isn't for you, you shouldn't use it! That's how life works!


Every person that brings up they couldn't work together with another person, is an utterly lousy teamplayer. Which means they should avoid using teamplayer units NOT @$(^@($*&@*$&@# DEMAND TO REMOVE ANY AND ALL TEAMWORK UNITS BECAUSE THEY SUCK AT USING THEM THEMSELVES.


Hell, if there's a new heavy tank unit that would be stronger, they'd go and demand them to be used by themselves, just because they absolutely stink at playing the game in relation to other players.

Honestly, what the hell are you doing in a teamwork oriented game?




PS: As for why people used reavers: next to no field AA, heaviest armoured air vehicle, solo usage, highest firepower of any unit in game, second to highest speed of any vehicle in game, could get repairs at any air tower or repair crystal which usualy were within a few hundred meters flying, could bail out from it for a second life at a moment's notice, ignored terrain impediments and CE and could be used against any type of unit with at the least 50-50 odds. They were pretty OP really, especially after the unnecessary armour buff Brewko gave them.

They should have been two crew units.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Figment

Without meaning disrespect, that just means you stink at it. And I mean, are absolutely rotten at teamwork. Which means you have nothing to add to the conversation regarding the design of teamwork units, because they're not designed FOR YOU. And they never should be. Which means, you should focus on having units that are designed for players like you (the Lightning) and having them balanced fairly (as in weaker, but competitive in groups).

We had two gunners on TS for a single vehicle with less firepower (Thundere and Deliverer) and we rampaged with a FAR LESSER ENDURANCE UNIT THAN A PS1 TANK. Which means you're just a biased liar, because you pretend to speak for everyone else while you're only speaking for an absolute minority of players that suck at teamwork.


I'm really sorry, but bad players shouldn't get to design the game by ruining the game for good team players. And you really, utterly stink. I mean really, you sucked at Vanguards so you didn't use them and used other equipment you could use instead. So where's the problem? If something isn't for you, you shouldn't use it! That's how life works!


Every person that brings up they couldn't work together with another person, is an utterly lousy teamplayer. Which means they should avoid using teamplayer units NOT @$(^@($*&@*$&@# DEMAND TO REMOVE ANY AND ALL TEAMWORK UNITS BECAUSE THEY SUCK AT USING THEM THEMSELVES.


Hell, if there's a new heavy tank unit that would be stronger, they'd go and demand them to be used by themselves, just because they absolutely stink at playing the game in relation to other players.

Honestly, what the hell are you doing in a teamwork oriented game?




PS: As for why people used reavers: next to no field AA, heaviest armoured air vehicle, solo usage, highest firepower of any unit in game, second to highest speed of any vehicle in game, could get repairs at any air tower or repair crystal which usualy were within a few hundred meters flying, could bail out from it for a second life at a moment's notice, ignored terrain impediments and CE and could be used against any type of unit with at the least 50-50 odds. They were pretty OP really, especially after the unnecessary armour buff Brewko gave them.

They should have been two crew units.

This.

[ThatGoatGuy]

I absolutely adore the harasser. The problem I'm seeing with a dedicated MBT driver verses the Harasser is that it simply is not fun. Not only that, but imagine the comparison between something that goes around 100 kph compared to something that goes what? 20 kph? (I'm not in a tank much because I just find them too slow. Harasser shall forevermore be mah jam)

[Gatekeeper]

Originally Posted by ThatGoatGuy

I absolutely adore the harasser. The problem I'm seeing with a dedicated MBT driver verses the Harasser is that it simply is not fun. Not only that, but imagine the comparison between something that goes around 100 kph compared to something that goes what? 20 kph? (I'm not in a tank much because I just find them too slow. Harasser shall forevermore be mah jam)

After racking my brain for what possible solution there could be for this problem, I've finally come up with this: how about making the MBTs a bit faster and more fun to drive?

As a trade-off for now requiring a crew of two, I think it's pretty doable.

Also one advantage the MBTs would have over the Harasser in terms of fun is that the driver would (presumably) still have a gun - it'd just be the secondary now, instead of the primary.

Unless we're making them 3-man tanks, in which case buffing their speed and armour even more is probably fine, in terms of overall balance.

[ThatGoatGuy]

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper

After racking my brain for what possible solution there could be for this problem, I've finally come up with this: how about making the MBTs a bit faster and more fun to drive?

As a trade-off for now requiring a crew of two, I think it's pretty doable.

Also one advantage the MBTs would have over the Harasser in terms of fun is that the driver would (presumably) still have a gun - it'd just be the secondary now, instead of the primary.

Unless we're making them 3-man tanks, in which case buffing their speed and armour even more is probably fine, in terms of overall balance.

I'm totally up for it if you're suggesting that we just throw a prowler barrel on the Harasser. I don't think, even with a massive speed/handling buff that the tank, with its treads and all, could no be nearly as fun as anything else when it comes to those two things. Also, tanks don't have turbo!

[Gatekeeper]

Originally Posted by ThatGoatGuy

I'm totally up for it if you're suggesting that we just throw a prowler barrel on the Harasser. I don't think, even with a massive speed/handling buff that the tank, with its treads and all, could no be nearly as fun as anything else when it comes to those two things. Also, tanks don't have turbo!

Sounds good to me

Seriously though, the Mag is pretty fun to drive - except for its slow speed. And it does have a turbo

Can't speak for how the other tanks handle, and I doubt any of the tanks will ever be as fun to drive as the Harasser - but a lot of the fun of being a dedicated driver comes from the teamwork, which is universal. MBT's don't need to be super-fun to drive for dedicated drivers to be viable, just not *too* boring.

[Sledgecrushr]

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper

Sounds good to me

Seriously though, the Mag is pretty fun to drive - except for its slow speed. And it does have a turbo

Can't speak for how the other tanks handle, and I doubt any of the tanks will ever be as fun to drive as the Harasser - but a lot of the fun of being a dedicated driver comes from the teamwork, which is universal. MBT's don't need to be super-fun to drive for dedicated drivers to be viable, just not *too* boring.

A lot of stuff would have to change with a driver/gunner setup. Fir instance i the third person view remains the same you would be very susceptible to air attacks. Because I wouldnt be a good driver if my view was always trained to the rear and up. So the third person view for the driver/secondary gunner would have to change to a higher and more expanded command view. They should introduce certble barrel stabilisation for dedicated driver/gunner tanks to tak advantage of the new better mobility of this mbt variant.

I really think that three man tanks would be more effective than driver/gunner 2 man tanks in the field.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Shogun

you say only driving a tank would be boring? i always liked it, and i say just gunning with a secondary gun is boring because the driver mostly drives oly to bring his maincannon to a good position. the secondary gunner is ignored and just kind of a bonus.
with a dedicated driver fun is guaranteed for both, because the drivers job is to bring the tank to a good position for the gunner.

Indeed, right now that Secondary feels about as useful as a Liberator's Tailgun, which I'd honestly want to see at least a turret traverse buff on so it could actually help with Ground Attacks and Point Defense!
It's a superfluous extra that doesn't see a lot of use because if the situation calls for it, someone ELSE can just switch seats into it!!!

Originally Posted by Canaris

I say forget about asking for the current MBT's to be made into dedicated drivers and instead maybe ask for a new tank to be designed, something like a NS common pool one that is a two or three man tank with a dedicated driver, similar in strength to the current ones. Best of both worlds?

No it's not...
It still makes the Lightning redundant because MBTs are currently LightningPLUS anyways...
Almost everything the Lightning can do, an MBT can do better!
More armor, more main firepower, extra secondary firepower, all the same special abilities PLUS Factional Special Abilities and for what, a bit of MAXIMUM DRIVING SPEED?

Originally Posted by Figment

Without meaning disrespect, that just means you stink at it. And I mean, are absolutely rotten at teamwork. Which means you have nothing to add to the conversation regarding the design of teamwork units, because they're not designed FOR YOU. And they never should be. Which means, you should focus on having units that are designed for players like you (the Lightning) and having them balanced fairly (as in weaker, but competitive in groups).

Hell, I'm more of a Lightning Driver and I agree with this!

While I'm not actually bad when it comes to crew operation, my poor social skills leave me unable to form a team more often then not, so because I knew this would happen I equipped up my Lightning...

...But Lightnings are forced out of their natural battlefield niche as a Light Tank because EVERYONE can just Solo Operate their Main Battle Tank JUST as effectively!

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper

After racking my brain for what possible solution there could be for this problem, I've finally come up with this: how about making the MBTs a bit faster and more fun to drive?

As a trade-off for now requiring a crew of two, I think it's pretty doable.

Also one advantage the MBTs would have over the Harasser in terms of fun is that the driver would (presumably) still have a gun - it'd just be the secondary now, instead of the primary.

Yeah, and the Secondary would give you the same situational awareness you have now with the Main Cannon, because it's still a turret on the Prowler and Vanguard while the Magrider switches mounts for its Guns!

This allows the MBTs to be buffed into something TRULY fearsome, because a solo operator will have to choose between Mobility OR Firepower instead of having BOTH at the same time.

And since it would be in a lower fire position, the Vanu could then argue trading their PPA for a Faction Specific Secondary they'd actually want to use!

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper

Unless we're making them 3-man tanks, in which case buffing their speed and armour even more is probably fine, in terms of overall balance.

But we've already got Battle Sunderers for that!
Seriously though, anything heavier then an MBT should be the Ground Equivalent to an Air Carrier, a damn-near Base on Treads that's the centerpiece of an Armor Column just because other vehicles can use its massive bulk as COVER.
Can't you just imagine the fun you would have coming up on an Armor Formation with a Halo Mammoth in the middle?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by ThatGoatGuy

I absolutely adore the harasser. The problem I'm seeing with a dedicated MBT driver verses the Harasser is that it simply is not fun. Not only that, but imagine the comparison between something that goes around 100 kph compared to something that goes what? 20 kph? (I'm not in a tank much because I just find them too slow. Harasser shall forevermore be mah jam)

Bullox. First off, you have no idea what the actual speed is. It's closer to triple that (55 kph).


Note how the driver has absolutely zero situational awareness regarding enemies, because he's facing forward with his gun the entire time... because otherwise he'd bump into objects. Meaning... HE CAN'T GUN AND FIRE ON THE MOVE AND USE HIS SPEED TO FLANK OTHER UNITS. Much like most WoT players, btw.



But how would you know? Solo MBT users don't ACTUALLY TRY TO USE THEIR MOBILITY BECAUSE THEY STINK AT GUNNING AND DRIVING AT THE SAME TIME.

Sorry, but it really pisses me off that people that have no idea what they're talking about have a really retarded opinion which they try to pass off as a majority opinion when it's clearly not. Let alone not having any understanding of the factual relevance of having a dedicated gunner to increase a unit's efficiency.


What we want from MBTs:

- high unit efficiency
- mobility being used
- higher endurance
- no gun switching
- significantly less total units (half to a third)
more maneuvrable high efficiency tanks == much better, competitive, adrenaline pumping, dynamic tank combat and dogfights where all skills are important factors (maneuvring, dodging, evading, situational awareness, aiming, using hills and cover, etc).
less heavily armoured units == fairer infantry gameplay


I find it utterly insane that people are argueing from a stationary turret point of view and then complain that drivers have nothing to do while they're a stationary turret like the Prowler lock down mode. HELLO!? They are MBTs! They shouldn't have lockdown, because that's an artillery thing!

[EVILPIG]

moosepoop, you need to take your blame and look in a mirror. You come off as "everyone else is wrong, I am right" with no regard for others' opinions. I disagree with you completely. The Harasser is fun to drive. That doesn't mean tanks need to have dedicated drivers. It only proves that the Harasser is fun to drive.

[Figment]

@Evilpig: that's not true. Frequently the argument was made that "it simply isn't fun to just drive", which isn't related to any sort of unit frame, but is a general remark.

@Whiteagle: I'd even say more effectively since you can have two different weapons on your MBT on top of the increased endurance and all that at the cost of a tiny little bit of speed. In fact, if you're VS, you even gained strafing.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Figment

@Evilpig: that's not true. Frequently the argument was made that "it simply isn't fun to just drive", which isn't related to any sort of unit frame, but is a general remark.

Indeed, which really doesn't sit well with me because I LIKE Transport Driving!
If I had regular gunners on my Sunderer, we'd be the Deadliest Battle Bus on Waterson!

Originally Posted by Figment

@Whiteagle: I'd even say more effectively since you can have two different weapons on your MBT on top of the increased endurance and all that at the cost of a tiny little bit of speed. In fact, if you're VS, you even gained strafing.

Hell the Vanu would probably get the most out of Crewed Tanks...
Not only would they gain the coveted top Turreted Main Cannon they are always bugging the other two factions about, but their Nose Mounted Saron Equivalent would probably just be the same Supernova FPC they have now...

...In fact, they could probably just tweak the Supernova FPC and VPC a little bit and, VIOLA, a One-man Mag now pulls double duty as a Hover version of the Anti Armor or Anti Infantry Python Lightning!
No Python HEAT equivalent though, you either Specialize, use the Default Basilisk, or have something like the current Proton II PPA which can damage both.

Originally Posted by Figment

Shogun, how can you make a two shotting main gun and ohk on infantry gun more powerful? :/

Instakill? 80% instead of 60%? not going to be felt much. Larger splash? We finally got less splash...

Yeah, this is why I see any Super Heavy having Multiple Main Cannons; more consolidated firepower without making each gun even more powerful.

Originally Posted by Figment

It needs a shitload more endurance, but then you're basically asking for people to use hot swapping between driver and gunner and solo it anyway... So that isn't an option as long as seat switching exists!

Well that's the genius part of Multiple Main Cannons on a Land Battleship, they won't be doing much better then going solo in an MBT, but will be a MUCH larger and slower moving target to hit!

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

Well that's the genius part of Multiple Main Cannons on a Land Battleship, they won't be doing much better then going solo in an MBT, but will be a MUCH larger and slower moving target to hit!

Perhaps, but they will not replace the requested crewed MBTs and will not solve the problem we're dealing with right now.

@Rbstr: good to hear VS waste crew on gunner slots when they could be making double the strafing targets with double the endurance and double the variety in firepower.

[Canaris]

Originally Posted by Figment

Perhaps, but they will not replace the requested crewed MBTs and will not solve the problem we're dealing with right now.

which is why I suggested a new tank to fill the roll, I don't see them changing the current MBT setup and I think you knocking your heads against a wall asking for it, there's just to many people who like it as is. Me being one of them but instead of just saying NO, I tried to come up with an alternative that could work.

I know some people aren't happy with the current MBT vs Lightnings but I do see loads of people playing with the Light and enjoying it as it though maybe it could also use some new gear to make it more appealing to soloists also?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Canaris

which is why I suggested a new tank to fill the roll,

It's pointless. The current MBT has too much firepower to make a new tank more powerful. It would require almost triple the endurance to be fairly balanced to the other MBTs and that would greatly upset the balance with other units. These sort of solutions only create new balancing problems and should therefore not be looked at, certainly not before the MBT is balanced properly (and I do hold the position that the only way that can be done fairly is my way).

People should stop trying to use firepower as balance, unless they nerf the hell out of the current MBTs weaponry, which isn't likely. The current MBT (and I'd add, the Lightning's) firepower is balanced for a multicrew unit. Yes, the Lightning is OP right now in terms of firepower. At least, in the hands of someone who knows what a reticule does.

I don't see them changing the current MBT setup and I think you knocking your heads against a wall asking for it, there's just to many people who like it as is. Me being one of them but instead of just saying NO, I tried to come up with an alternative that could work.

I'll keep saying NO because there aren't any alternatives. There simply aren't any. What you are suggesting is a placebo bandaid. Not an actual alternative. It sounds like it solves it, but in fact it doesn't address any of the balancing reasons for crewed MBTs and is therefore a moot suggestion.

I know some people aren't happy with the current MBT vs Lightnings but I do see loads of people playing with the Light and enjoying it as it though maybe it could also use some new gear to make it more appealing to soloists also?

Of course people play Lightnings whenever they're on a timer or MBTs aren't available due to not having a Tech Plant. But that doesn't mean they pick it OVER the MBT, just because they CANNOT pick the solo-MBT at that point.


Observing Lightnings being used is therefore also completely uninteresting, because it has NOTHING to do with the arguments and reasonings mentioned here!




I don't care for anyone who says they like the current situation. Liking something you use yourself is never an indication of it being appropriately balanced, so it's a worthless argument to stop it from getting rebalanced.