Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2 - Page 39

Mackenz · 2012-03-12, 08:02 PM

I am torn on this as well. As a Vanguard driver I usually had an outfit mate gunning, so it was all about teamwork.

On the other hand, sometimes I would gun on the Vanguard and that was a whole lot of fun.

Why not make the cert to *get* the tank Vs. get and drive it. That way you get to drive or gun (your tank, your choice). I am sure somebody will correct me, but I think with the tech they have now for say the M1A2 Abrams, driving a tank is not like the old days. And if you have that bad a driver then switch places.

Azren · 2012-03-13, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by Mackenz

Why not make the cert to *get* the tank Vs. get and drive it. That way you get to drive or gun (your tank, your choice). I am sure somebody will correct me, but I think with the tech they have now for say the M1A2 Abrams, driving a tank is not like the old days. And if you have that bad a driver then switch places.

The magrider would not fit in the picture.

EVILPIG · 2012-03-13, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by Mackenz

I am torn on this as well. As a Vanguard driver I usually had an outfit mate gunning, so it was all about teamwork.

On the other hand, sometimes I would gun on the Vanguard and that was a whole lot of fun.

Why not make the cert to *get* the tank Vs. get and drive it. That way you get to drive or gun (your tank, your choice). I am sure somebody will correct me, but I think with the tech they have now for say the M1A2 Abrams, driving a tank is not like the old days. And if you have that bad a driver then switch places.

So, you wouldn't want to drive and gun your vanny and have someone manning an AA gun as well?

Mackenz · 2012-03-13, 02:41 AM

Originally Posted by Azren

The magrider would not fit in the picture.

Wait, so you don't need a cert for a Magrider?

I am sure you didn't mean that. Anyway, I guess the unique flavour of the Magrider is lost now in PS2. My comment at end about driver/gunner with independent control of each might be a win for Magriders, or are they unlocking the rail gun on the Vanu MBT?

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

So, you wouldn't want to drive and gun your vanny and have someone manning an AA gun as well?

Which context? That is:

PS1-style, no - my comment stands;
PS2-style, don't know, haven't tried it. What I win on the swings (fun gunning for myself) I lose on the roundabout (teamwork driving and manning the main gun). Also efficient control (see below).

My comment was a half-way between. Until I try it I won't know.

To be honest, until I try aiming the main gun *and* driving in tricky terrain, I suspect that the dual role will not be ideal. Heck I know just driving in the heat of battle in PS1 I wound up a few times with a submarine and not a Vanguard. Or up a cliff. Or a bunch of other stuff.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-13, 02:44 AM

So in PS1 it was common for the classic footzerg to march from one objective to the nearest hostile objective. The zerg always travels the path of least resistance, so you can use that principle to predict how each empire will typically progress across Indar by a close inspection of the terrain, roads, and positions of the outposts/facilities. Alas I digress...

The most significant change with the one-man tanks is that instead of footzerging I think we'll end up seeing a lot more people roll out tanks because they won't need to wait for a gunner. Additionally a lot of people didn't even have tanks certed unless they ran with a set of people they typically had gun, so the fact that you don't need to spend certs on a tank and that the tank is effective with just a single person I predict the amount of armor on the field will increase substantially in PS2 vs what we saw in PS1.

The ability to instantly switch seats also makes me believe that if someone has a tank and has no intention of running a gunner they will always have an AA secondary gun configuration. Why? Because even if they dont' have a gunner they can easily switch into the gunner seat and deal with any air threat that comes their way. If someone does happen to hop in the gunner seat - great, but if not its no big deal.

Now if we see a significant increase in armor and a significant increase in AA where every tank can effectively go into Skyguard-mode ground forces will be rolling no-fly zones. The only conceivable way to prevent this would be to have the AA gun upgrade prohibitively expensive resource-wise - to the point where you wouldn't want to get the upgrade unless you did in fact have a gunner to man it full-time to justify the expense.

The large number of tanks might also make the re-imagined Liberator gunship actually useful. Similar to the tank situation you have the Liberator - why run a liberator when you could have 2 ES Aircraft specialized for air-to-ground? The only solution I could see to that question is that the Liberator is significantly better at destroying ground targets than a Air-to-Ground specialized ES Aircraft.

Its hard to predict the dynamic, but I have a feeling that the AA upgrade for tanks will be expensive, and that the same upgrade for the Lightning will be cheaper, making the Lightning the effective replacement of the Skygaurd.

I also believe the Liberator exists specifically to control the tank population and I predict it will be very good at its role. I'm speculating that the reason they ditched the bombs and went with the Gunship approach is due to the fact that a gunship design is simply better at taking out tanks than trying to make a dive-bomber. The Dive-bomber role is also roughly what a Reaver/Mosq/Scythe would be with air-to-ground rockets. If the Liberator retained its previous role it would be very similar and likely less effective than a pair of ES aircraft, so they switched it to a more effective tank-busting platform with a dedicated gunner + pilot guns, and like the attack helicopters of the modern day, it's probably going to have camera-guided and lock-on missiles to take out tanks significantly more effectively than the ES Aircraft.

The point I'm trying to make in all this is that i believe the 1-man tank is central to the entire balance of PS2. The end result will be a lot more vehicle combat, less footzerging, and the Lightning & Liberator will have important roles that we haven't much talked about. The Liberator being the best tank-buster and the lightning being the effcient vehicle AA platform. Augmenting both of those you have the configurable ES tanks and aircraft. It's well-balanced IMO, and I think we'll all have a lot more vehicle action and fun. Hopefully the vehicle terminals can handle the volume of hardware that hundreds of players will be requesting at any one time.

Bags · 2012-03-13, 02:53 AM

Good thoughts, malorn.

Mechzz · 2012-03-13, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

The point I'm trying to make in all this is that i believe the 1-man tank is central to the entire balance of PS2. The end result will be a lot more vehicle combat, less footzerging, and the Lightning & Liberator will have important roles that we haven't much talked about. The Liberator being the best tank-buster and the lightning being the effcient vehicle AA platform. Augmenting both of those you have the configurable ES tanks and aircraft. It's well-balanced IMO, and I think we'll all have a lot more vehicle action and fun. Hopefully the vehicle terminals can handle the volume of hardware that hundreds of players will be requesting at any one time.

This was a great summary Malorn, well put. You even made me think a bit more about this topic.

I guess we'll see in beta (*sighs* - still no Dev post spotted in the gun/drive threads), but I think the point still stands that those who prefer to only drive because they suck at gunning or like to have their main gunner shouting in their ears are losing out with this change.

Mackenz · 2012-03-13, 08:33 AM

Hmm you some interesting points on the removing the foot zerg Malorn. I was not aware the AA on the MBTs was going to be a replacement for the Skyguard - I was thinking it was just a chaingun/machinegun of some sort, which is not the most effective.

I do shudder to think of stopping a one-man MBT to man the AA when aircraft are around - that seems like 'shoot me now' caption put on my head, but if the AA is actually effective for one-sies attacks by air I can see it working. And if you have a lot of air then you better get an AA gunner.

I am still not convinced that the drive and gun MBTs will be as efficient as old style (when they were fully manned). The Magrider had maneuverability to counter the fixed gun, which won't be the case for the track vehicles. As Mechzz says until the Beta this is all a bit of a mystery, at least to me.

Coreldan · 2012-03-13, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Mackenz

Hmm you some interesting points on the removing the foot zerg Malorn. I was not aware the AA on the MBTs was going to be a replacement for the Skyguard - I was thinking it was just a chaingun/machinegun of some sort, which is not the most effective.

I do shudder to think of stopping a one-man MBT to man the AA when aircraft are around - that seems like 'shoot me now' caption put on my head, but if the AA is actually effective for one-sies attacks by air I can see it working. And if you have a lot of air then you better get an AA gunner.

I am still not convinced that the drive and gun MBTs will be as efficient as old style (when they were fully manned). The Magrider had maneuverability to counter the fixed gun, which won't be the case for the track vehicles. As Mechzz says until the Beta this is all a bit of a mystery, at least to me.

Not just the MBT secondary gun, but also the new Lightning is supposedly a multiplatform thing, that can be customized into AA/AV/AI probably, that should be outdoing the MBT secondary gun.

I just realized... Flash & Lightning, both NS vehicles, that probably explains the random sounding name.

Figment · 2012-03-13, 09:23 AM

So we still get the Bolt and Thunder(er)? ;p

EVILPIG · 2012-03-13, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

So in PS1 it was common for the classic footzerg to march from one objective to the nearest hostile objective. The zerg always travels the path of least resistance, so you can use that principle to predict how each empire will typically progress across Indar by a close inspection of the terrain, roads, and positions of the outposts/facilities. Alas I digress...

The most significant change with the one-man tanks is that instead of footzerging I think we'll end up seeing a lot more people roll out tanks because they won't need to wait for a gunner. Additionally a lot of people didn't even have tanks certed unless they ran with a set of people they typically had gun, so the fact that you don't need to spend certs on a tank and that the tank is effective with just a single person I predict the amount of armor on the field will increase substantially in PS2 vs what we saw in PS1.

The ability to instantly switch seats also makes me believe that if someone has a tank and has no intention of running a gunner they will always have an AA secondary gun configuration. Why? Because even if they dont' have a gunner they can easily switch into the gunner seat and deal with any air threat that comes their way. If someone does happen to hop in the gunner seat - great, but if not its no big deal.

Now if we see a significant increase in armor and a significant increase in AA where every tank can effectively go into Skyguard-mode ground forces will be rolling no-fly zones. The only conceivable way to prevent this would be to have the AA gun upgrade prohibitively expensive resource-wise - to the point where you wouldn't want to get the upgrade unless you did in fact have a gunner to man it full-time to justify the expense.

The large number of tanks might also make the re-imagined Liberator gunship actually useful. Similar to the tank situation you have the Liberator - why run a liberator when you could have 2 ES Aircraft specialized for air-to-ground? The only solution I could see to that question is that the Liberator is significantly better at destroying ground targets than a Air-to-Ground specialized ES Aircraft.

Its hard to predict the dynamic, but I have a feeling that the AA upgrade for tanks will be expensive, and that the same upgrade for the Lightning will be cheaper, making the Lightning the effective replacement of the Skygaurd.

I also believe the Liberator exists specifically to control the tank population and I predict it will be very good at its role. I'm speculating that the reason they ditched the bombs and went with the Gunship approach is due to the fact that a gunship design is simply better at taking out tanks than trying to make a dive-bomber. The Dive-bomber role is also roughly what a Reaver/Mosq/Scythe would be with air-to-ground rockets. If the Liberator retained its previous role it would be very similar and likely less effective than a pair of ES aircraft, so they switched it to a more effective tank-busting platform with a dedicated gunner + pilot guns, and like the attack helicopters of the modern day, it's probably going to have camera-guided and lock-on missiles to take out tanks significantly more effectively than the ES Aircraft.

The point I'm trying to make in all this is that i believe the 1-man tank is central to the entire balance of PS2. The end result will be a lot more vehicle combat, less footzerging, and the Lightning & Liberator will have important roles that we haven't much talked about. The Liberator being the best tank-buster and the lightning being the efficient vehicle AA platform. Augmenting both of those you have the configurable ES tanks and aircraft. It's well-balanced IMO, and I think we'll all have a lot more vehicle action and fun. Hopefully the vehicle terminals can handle the volume of hardware that hundreds of players will be requesting at any one time.

Also, don't forget infantry. Infantry geared for AV will probably be effective in their role and given the terrain, infantry will be be harder to kill.

Speaking of the terrain, it will be much less forgiving given that the physics will allow for roll overs and such.

As for vehicle terminals, I would imagine that infantry will need to capture each capture point and I do not believe that each capture point will have vehicle terminals.

Either way, all so much that Beta will answer for us and adjustments will be made as needed.

EVILPIG · 2012-03-13, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

So we still get the Bolt and Thunder(er)? ;p

Not specifically, but customization of vehicles will probably allow configurations that fill their roles. I would imagine that eventually such options will be added to the game via the shop or simple expansion.

Azren · 2012-03-13, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Mackenz

Wait, so you don't need a cert for a Magrider?

You don't need certs for anything. All you need is to unlock them, which takes time, but you don't have to keep investing your limited amount of points (like in PS1) to use them.

Anyway, what I meant is that the magrider now has a fixed forward main gun, so you can not add on option to unlock it for gunner.

Kipper · 2012-03-13, 11:34 AM

So an empire specific MBT is going to have 2 seats, one for driver/gunner and second for module slot, which can be AA?

Doesn't make sense to me. What I imagined was that the MBT would have a driver and turret seat, and the turret would be interchangeable for AV/AA or other specific role guns. So you could be one or the other, but not all things to all people.

For the driver who wants to gun - I would suggest making the driver the 'commander' and being able to pop out the top (figuratively speaking, i'm sure they've dispensed with that in the future) and utilise a .50 cal or equivalent but NOT the main gun.

Otherwise the 2nd seat is going to be a bit of a spare part / passenger only thing IMO.

Just my thoughts.

EVILPIG · 2012-03-13, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Kipper

So an empire specific MBT is going to have 2 seats, one for driver/gunner and second for module slot, which can be AA?

Doesn't make sense to me. What I imagined was that the MBT would have a driver and turret seat, and the turret would be interchangeable for AV/AA or other specific role guns. So you could be one or the other, but not all things to all people.

For the driver who wants to gun - I would suggest making the driver the 'commander' and being able to pop out the top (figuratively speaking, i'm sure they've dispensed with that in the future) and utilise a .50 cal or equivalent but NOT the main gun.

Otherwise the 2nd seat is going to be a bit of a spare part / passenger only thing IMO.

Just my thoughts.

1. Remember it's a game and it's all in the balance.

2. These are futuristic weapon systems and there is no reason to believe that they could not be built to be operated by one person (just like a video game).

3. The "main" gun won't necessarily be the strongest weapon system.