Gameplay: Dedicated driver certification for MBT

[Figment]

Ill just put you on ignore Ratstomper, because you are just an insulting troll who refuses to understand the scenario is not just between empires but within empires as well the moment players have a choice what units to grab. Meaning everytime you grab a unit and your two buddies can as well it is relevant. It is a scenario that is not hypothetical, but absolutely critical every time you run with a group. If it's worse than the other ALTERNATIVES (alternatives being the other options in combinations of vehicles for players to pull), it's NOT a valid alternative. And since it's advantage is crap because you get to be outnumbered without endurance advantages in contrast to the other situations, you're not going to pick that alternative. Meaning it directly discourages use of teamwork vehicles by design!


Meanwhile, your scenario of one vs three is rarer in game than 3 vs 3. You are completely inept in analysis and just an insulting troll at this point. Ironic cause you always accuse me of that.

You don't get that. Looks like you never will. Even if it's spelled out for you. You don't realise this was true for every day PlanetSide use and will again be true for PS2 because the only difference in context that's relevant in gameplay is how you CAN use a team vehicle: solo. You are therefore a horrible balancer. And I mean absolutely horrible.

Nobody should ever listen to you Ratstomper. You can't honestly imagine I'm right simply by denouncing anything I say as hypothetical? Evolution is "just a theory" to you as well, right?

[Lumberchuk]

Originally Posted by Figment

Meaning everytime you grab a unit and your two buddies can as well it is relevant. It is a scenario that is not hypothetical, but absolutely critical every time you run with a group. If it's worse than the other ALTERNATIVES (alternatives being the other options in combinations of vehicles for players to pull), it's NOT a valid alternative. And since it's advantage is crap because you get to be outnumbered without endurance advantages in contrast to the other situations, you're not going to pick that alternative. Meaning it directly discourages use of teamwork vehicles by design!

On paper yes it has more damage potential, but in practice it could be completely different. For example coming from battlefield 3 (the tanks seem to be based off this game) to PS1 the first thing I noticed about tank combat was that it was much more mobile and happened at longer ranges. Why? Because of the separate driver gunner combo, if you could solo a tank in battlefield like two people operate a Vanguard in PS1 you would destroy enemy tanks without them getting a shot off on you. Not to mention it will be cheaper on resources (though we don't really know how much that will matter). There are some scenarios (close range could be one) where 2 individual tanks could be more useful, however at longer ranges on more open fields I fully believe that a gunner driver combo could easily take out (or at least keep at bay) 2 enemy tanks.

3 people to operate a MBT seems a little unnecessary (see prowler from PS1) to me but I would love to see the addition of heavy tanks later that require more people to operate with increased fire-power and lower speed maybe.

To be clear I think it would also make complete sense to give the 2 player tanks a stat boost as well, so I do agree with your suggestion, I just think its less likely for that to happen, as more has to be changed. Simply allowing the secondary gunner to control the main gun is an easier fix and IMO is very useful IF you have a gunner you can communicate effectively. Which is why the option should be there. If you think that it is a useless cert, then you don't have to get it. That is the beauty of certs and side-grades, they allow for different play styles.

[Figment]

Well the main point of difference between us is how big the advantage is. I agree the option should be there, but I find it far too easy to say "okay it's there, we don't have to look into its balance further".

Personally I'd think one of the easiest ways to handle it would be to add shields to the vehicle per gunner entering it (shield starting at zero and charging out of combat up to 33-50% of the tank health per gunner, exact balance can be tweaked there).

[Lumberchuk]

Originally Posted by Figment

I find it far too easy to say "okay it's there, we don't have to look into its balance further".

Ya, that's a good point, but if we can get the cert in early, there will be more time to balance it. Right now I don't think the cert exists in game.

Originally Posted by Figment

Personally I'd think one of the easiest ways to handle it would be to add shields to the vehicle per gunner entering it (shield starting at zero and charging out of combat up to 33-50% of the tank health per gunner, exact balance can be tweaked there).

Ya I like that idea, it should also work for if you have driver-gunner a secondary gunner too, since it sounds like that will be under used as well since you can just pull a MBT and a lightning instead.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Azren

Maybe you should not argue about the balance between the two variants. There are too many variables to come to a conclusion on that without actually seeing them in game.
What we should try to achieve is to get this cert in a form how it can be implemented. The balance in power can be addressed later.

I thought we already had an idea to make it work and we were weighing out how it stacked up against the standard variant. Introduce the third guy to act as a second gunner. The issue would be giving the magrider a movable turret without giving the standard magrider one. Again, what good will it do to make the new variant substantially better than the original?

THIS is the perfect time to hammer the idea out, imo. Also, I like the sidegrade idea form the other thread. No need to cert it, just have it a standard option on all MBTs from the get-go.

Originally Posted by Figment

Ill just put you on ignore Ratstomper

Thank god.

Meanwhile, your scenario of one vs three is rarer in game than 3 vs 3. You are completely inept in analysis and just an insulting troll at this point. Ironic cause you always accuse me of that.

Again, missing my point.

You don't get that. Looks like you never will. Even if it's spelled out for you. You don't realise this was true for every day PlanetSide use and will again be true for PS2 because the only difference in context that's relevant in gameplay is how you CAN use a team vehicle: solo. You are therefore a horrible balancer. And I mean absolutely horrible.

Whatever you have to tell yourself.

Nobody should ever listen to you Ratstomper. You can't honestly imagine I'm right simply by denouncing anything I say as hypothetical? Evolution is "just a theory" to you as well, right?

Does this mean we aren't friends anymore?

Originally Posted by Lumberchuk

Ya, that's a good point, but if we can get the cert in early, there will be more time to balance it. Right now I don't think the cert exists in game.

The issue with balance is that we won't be able to do it properly until it's put in game and we see how it stacks up. The best course of action is making sure the implementation is solid, isn't taking away from the current game and isn't adding things that are unnecessary. That's the first step.

Ya I like that idea, it should also work for if you have driver-gunner a secondary gunner too, since it sounds like that will be under used as well since you can just pull a MBT and a lightning instead.

The issue with giving shields is that you're giving bonuses to players not for how they play, but just because they've got a bunch of guys in one vehicle. We don't give shield bonuses for being in a liberator or any other multi-manned vehicle. Why do it with the MBTs if the idea isn't to make the variant better, but simply allow a certain playstyle with it? Vehicle survival isn't about how much health you have, it's largely dependent on how you play. That's how it was in PS1 and I've got a suspicion that's how it'll be in PS2. If someone is being stupid with their tank, they're going to die regardless of how much armor they have.

The issue with the lightning instead of a secondary gunner doesn't hold water. A lightning cannot cover a tank from 360 degrees like a gunner can. There would be TONS of line of sight issues, because a lightning (or ANY separate vehicle) can only cover from one side. This could work in some situations, but certainly not in most.

For all Figment's talk about pulling units from the field, he doesn't seem to realize that a lightning has better things to do than babysit an MBT who didn't want to bother to get a gunner...

[Azren]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

I thought we already had an idea to make it work and we were weighing out how it stacked up against the standard variant. Introduce the third guy to act as a second gunner. The issue would be giving the magrider a movable turret without giving the standard magrider one. Again, what good will it do to make the new variant substantially better than the original?

It seamed to me that you two were wearing off topic in the direction of personal debate. Any constructive remark is welcome of course.

I do not belive we need to make it stronger, people underestimate how important situational awareness will be. Comming from BF where you only have to keep an eye at a maximum of 16 people, this is no surprise, however in PS2 16 people will be what we will find on top of a small hill, not the entire map. Being aware of what is going on can increase the overall efficancy of the vehicle enough to make up for the need of one more gunner (or loss of one turret).

If it turns out that it's still not enough, maybe an enhanced radar could be added to the dedicated driver tanks.

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

THIS is the perfect time to hammer the idea out, imo. Also, I like the sidegrade idea form the other thread. No need to cert it, just have it a standard option on all MBTs from the get-go.

Keep on hammerin'

Sidegrade or a cert that is free, I don't see the diffrence. I went with cert, because those are already implemented in the game system while selectable modifications of a vehicle (not cert based) are not.

A cert you already learn when creating the character should do the job in my opinion.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Azren

It seamed to me that you two were wearing off topic in the direction of personal debate. Any constructive remark is welcome of course.

some of it was irrelevant. I tried saying it wasn't what the thread was for, but some people insist on arguing.

I do not belive we need to make it stronger, people underestimate how important situational awareness will be. Comming from BF where you only have to keep an eye at a maximum of 16 people, this is no surprise, however in PS2 16 people will be what we will find on top of a small hill, not the entire map. Being aware of what is going on can increase the overall efficancy of the vehicle enough to make up for the need of one more gunner (or loss of one turret).

I completely agree.

If it turns out that it's still not enough, maybe an enhanced radar could be added to the dedicated driver tanks.

Yes. I think the idea, as presented, is fairly solid and if it's a big issue when we actually get some beta test data, THEN we can worry about tweaking stats and numbers.

Keep on hammerin'

Sidegrade or a cert that is free, I don't see the diffrence. I went with cert, because those are already implemented in the game system while selectable modifications of a vehicle (not cert based) are not.

A cert you already learn when creating the character should do the job in my opinion.

I'm not sure if there are standard sidegrades you get with vehicles from the beginning or if they all require certs. If there are some variations you can use from the get go, this should just be one of them, imo.

Now all we have to do is solve the magrider thing. We can't give a rotating turret to standard magriders (the controls won't allow it) and we can't give a rotating turret to the 3-man variant magrider (because it doesn't work on the original variant). The question is: Is there a large enough advantage discrepancy there that people will always pick the 3-man variant for the sake of effectiveness instead of what playstyle they think is fun?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Azren

I do not belive we need to make it stronger, people underestimate how important situational awareness will be. Comming from BF where you only have to keep an eye at a maximum of 16 people, this is no surprise, however in PS2 16 people will be what we will find on top of a small hill, not the entire map. Being aware of what is going on can increase the overall efficancy of the vehicle enough to make up for the need of one more gunner (or loss of one turret).

Please, widen the scope of debate, Azren, you too are thinking of one unit with one driver, who's awareness is being enhanced by adding gunners. That's not true however, since you overlook the group awareness of allies is greater than that of the one player in his little tank.

In an existing team of three, enhanced situational awareness of a single unit is not an significant added benefit, because the three will already pretty much have it anyway.

For the single unit yes, but then you're isolating your designing perspective to the one unit again and that's the whole point that is continuously missed: this is a massive multiplayer game, you design unit interaction for players on multiple levels. You can't look at an isolated unit.




Btw, you say there's 16 units on that hill? Those 16 could be firing at THREE tanks or focusing on one. So that cancels out very swiftly because sure, some might miss once or twice more, but instead of 3x 16/3 firing at one tank or having to decide which tank to fire at first, you'll have 16 firing at one tank. So really, numerically the odds and survival time go down, fast, in that scenario.

They need armour buffs. Period.

[Azren]

Figment, the issue of solo MBTs is not related to this topic. If solo MBT is balanced against an MBT with gunner, that balance will remain wether the gun is used by the driver or the gunner.

What I am saying is that this suggested certification does not have to address the issue of solo MBTs, they should be handled separately.

[Figment]

It is completely related, for how can you handle the issue separately if they're in the same game, the same context, the same environment?

If you change something, you affect both balances at the same time. So you can't really handle them separately, but need an integral design vision.


Again, you're looking at the PER UNIT balance and under the consideration that nothing statwise changes between the two situations, you'd be right. Hence why this certification as proposed is sorry to say, ridiculous. It can't be balanced for both situations, your setup can't treat them separately! IF they were different units or IF you could control the statistics of the units under the various manpower circumstances, THEN you can balance for both situations.

Otherwise, you indeed can't. My point is it's not worth discussing or attempting a non-balanceable situation. The suggested certification is therefore worthless as it does not address the solo MBT issue. It doesn't provide a preference playstyle as it just introduces a broken, non-functional, underpowered and therefore non-viable playstyle "choice".


As long as you don't treat manpower seriously or provide serious, significant combat advantages, there's no point in adding it to the game.







To make an analogy, you need a new computer screen. What you need is a larger colour screen because you want to do graphics design.

What you get is a choice between one larger black and white screen or two smaller full colour screens. You want to use the bigger screen, but nobody gives you the option to get one you can actually use, since nobody provides you with a colour screen - even though you know those can exist.

A bigger screen would be excellent for graphic design and would definitely be a prefered size for any graphics artist, but it's absolutely pointless to get a bigger screen without the colour options.

You're giving us the option to get a bigger black and white screen with the "compromise". Your competitor, a guy who works with one smaller colour screen and isn't interested in finding a solution that works for you, then says "fine, just take the bigger, B/W screen, you'll be fine, it's after all bigger, isn't it?" (ie. Ratstomper). We're the ones saying "it's pointless for you to get a larger, B/W screen, because yes it's larger, but you won't be able to compete properly with the other guy until you get one that is both larger and full colour - till then you're better off getting two smaller colour screens, even if it's slightly more costly".

[Figment]

Oh no, I don't underestimate that advantage, but I don't want to blow up that advantage to epic Rambo proportions either.


And leading a target isn't that hard btw. Some players have difficulty in World of Tanks with tanks driving at 67 kph. I've regularly sniped Mosquito's travelling at afterburn speeds with a Fury as they passed by. So I have absolutely no trouble leading such targets. Usualy, in WoT, I hit moving targets on either the first or second shot, my accuracy is around 70% for a normal tank or tank destroyer, because I don't care if I miss a couple shots. Friends of mine have an accuracy up to 80%. Mosts of the misses are down to the cone of fire system (especially while moving yourself), not due to bad leading.

BF3 is porlly compared though because tanks aren't as much throw away vehicles due to not being as massively available or used in numbers in that game. WoT is IMO the better comparison.

[Lumberchuk]

Originally Posted by Figment

And leading a target isn't that hard btw. Some players have difficulty in World of Tanks with tanks driving at 67 kph. Usualy, in WoT, I hit moving targets on either the first or second shot, my accuracy is around 70% for a normal tank or tank destroyer, because I don't care if I miss a couple shots. Friends of mine have an accuracy up to 80%. Mosts of the misses are down to the cone of fire system (especially while moving yourself), not due to bad leading.

BF3 is porlly compared though because tanks aren't as much throw away vehicles due to not being as massively available or used in numbers in that game. WoT is IMO the better comparison.

World of tanks isn't the best comparison either though, situational awareness wise. As soon as a tank is in LOS of any friendly tank you see where he is, this is not the case in PS2, also there is no combined arms to worry about in that game. Not to mention nearly all shots are taken when you yourself are stationary in WoT with the exception of some medium or light tank close range battles.

But I still think we need to test it in game, so if they just put the cert in, it can be balanced in beta. And as for magriders, just switch the guns, make the gun on top the powerful anti tank one and the forward facing one, anti infantry/anti air.

[Azren]

I'm bumping this in hopes for more input.

[Baneblade]

What if it turns out there will be no such certification?

[Gonefshn]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

What if it turns out there will be no such certification?

for sure