Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2 - Page 45

Figment · 2012-04-02, 04:01 AM

To be fair, there's predominantly a large group against and only a small group in favour, it's around 8 people that continuously argue. If you go chalk up the opinions, the majority is against. There's also a middle group that just wants to be able to reassign weapons to whoever or be able to change seats internally (I'm having severe gameplay exploit reasons against that myself though), as they would like to at least be able to recreate the old situation.

Tamas · 2012-04-02, 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

To be fair, there's predominantly a large group against and only a small group in favour, it's around 8 people that continuously argue. If you go chalk up the opinions, the majority is against. There's also a middle group that just wants to be able to reassign weapons to whoever or be able to change seats internally (I'm having severe gameplay exploit reasons against that myself though), as they would like to at least be able to recreate the old situation.

Until we get actual statistical sample numbers, your argument is not valid. I can say majority is indifferent thus proving you argument invalid, but without any statistical proof, it's pointless.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-04-02, 08:14 AM

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

CollinBRTD · 2012-04-02, 08:50 AM

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.

Tamas · 2012-04-02, 10:32 AM

Let me compare something: BF series and Red Orchestra.

I've played BF since it's first game. It had "normal" driver also shoots and it had driver+gunner(arty). The latter one was always frustrating to play because either the driver was an idiot or the gunner was. Same with Red Orchestra - the tanks had several people spots and it was so annoying when the driver moved just when you shot or the gunner didn't face the direction the driver wanted him to.

It comes down to communication. Unless you are in an outfit, it won't happen. Face the reality - when random people play, teamwork is not a priority for them, unless some miracle happens and like minded people randomly play together. In an outfit it makes sense - communication is much easier and you perform better. I doubt PS2 random fights will be exceptionally more geared towards teamwork than other FPS with larger player numbers. Making it driver and gunner mandatory you deprive a lot of from a potential user-base- yes, there will be non PS1 vets playing it, unless of course you want less new people (thus introducing out of date mechanics, that few people are used to).

I personally like the optional approach. You can do it yourself or you can have a dedicated driver and gunner. No need for a significant bonus, as the tank should be balanced as a normal 1 version tank. You get the benefit of situation awareness and focusing - you can drive normally and fire at an enemy somewhere else while trying to do that solo would mean you either run off a cliff/hit rock (overall less efficient) or you can't aim so good.

I'm always baffled by people who go "my way is the correct way and everyone else is wrong". Why can't we get a compromise for that and not go A or B.

Also note that these forums do not accurately represent the future player base. Might be that most people will be fine (or not) or people will be indifferent. As these forums are for people who are willing to follow the game and discuss it, one can assume that this is the more active community, but in most cases it's only a fraction of the whole player base.

headcrab13 · 2012-04-02, 10:33 AM

I like the arguments here about multi-seated tanks requiring teamwork, but I don't think we need to take away a tank driver's ability to fire.

Just give roughly equivalent firepower to each member of the tank crew, so a solo tanker can still be formidable, but rounding up a crew lets you really devastate your surroundings. Teamwork should cause more damage than solo play, after all.

Figment · 2012-04-02, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Tamas

Until we get actual statistical sample numbers, your argument is not valid. I can say majority is indifferent thus proving you argument invalid, but without any statistical proof, it's pointless.

Polls were conducted on this.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ghlight=driver

There you go. Of course this is just a small poll and only goes for those who voted. Those that like the idea of how PS2 currently is done are HALF of those that prefer a split off controls.

The compromise crowd also contains some people that want to see that over PS2's driver/gunner. I've even seen some would even just want to see this compromise in beta to indicate its failure with respect to the PS1 system.

I will say though that from my perspective, there is a lot of ignorance involved with people who think that because something is done in another game, it can automatically work in any game. Quite typically they forget context and numerical limitations and other restrictions and power balances imposed in those other games.

Tamas · 2012-04-02, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Polls were conducted on this.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ghlight=driver

There you go. Of course this is just a small poll and only goes for those who voted. Those that like the idea of how PS2 currently is done are HALF of those that prefer a split off controls.

The compromise crowd also contains some people that want to see that over PS2's driver/gunner. I've even seen some would even just want to see this compromise in beta to indicate its failure with respect to the PS1 system.

I will say though that from my perspective, there is a lot of ignorance involved with people who think that because something is done in another game, it can automatically work in any game. Quite typically they forget context and numerical limitations and other restrictions and power balances imposed in those other games.

To have valid statistics you'd need a random sample size of 1000 people to get even close to plausible results (I didn't make up these rules, this is standard).

You have to agree that this place is more for PS1 vets, who will mostly vote PS1 way. It does not represent what the whole community might want, only that 62 PS1 vets want it.

Hmr85 · 2012-04-02, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Tamas

To have valid statistics you'd need a random sample size of 1000 people to get even close to plausible results (I didn't make up these rules, this is standard).

You have to agree that this place is more for PS1 vets, who will mostly vote PS1 way. It does not represent what the whole community might want, only that 62 PS1 vets want it.

63 PS1 Vets want it... I added myself in there.

I want a game focused primarily around Team work not wannabe Rambo's who where pissed off that they couldn't drive a MBT by themselves because it involved somebody else getting their kills. Having multiple seats in MBT's forced teamwork in PS1 regardless of what the bulk majority of the anti - multiple seat MBT crowd has to say. There was a vehicle for ppl who wanted a 1 seat tank. It was called the lightning.

But ppl where not happy with the lightning because it died to easy. They couldn't sit in front of a tower or a door and absorb more than 2 to 3 rockets to the face before it blew it up. Thus it was interfering with their K/D ratio. So thus, here we are with this asinine 1 seater tank that we have today.

For the record, I was hoping that the Reaver was going to be a 2 seater when we first started getting word about PS2 way back when to help cut down on the Reaver spam this time around. With a dedicated driver in control of the cannon and a gunner for missiles. Why you ask, It promotes team work and is more aligned in what you would see today. Same goes for the MBT.

./flame on

CutterJohn · 2012-04-02, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Erendil

I like the shield suggestion for when a secondary gunner hops in. I'm a little leery about its ability to recharge though, if only because o the risk/reward factor of getting what amounts to free repairs without any effort or risk. Plus it was one of the bigest things that were broken about the BFR's in PS1. I'd suggest only allowing it to recharge if the vehicle isn't moving or if it hasn't taken damage in the last 5-10 seconds, so keeping the pressure on a MBT would prevent it from recharging.

Adding in secondary abilities for the gunner like spotlights, EMP etc would be interesting too since it makes the gunner spot more attractive without directly affecting its firepower.

Yeah, recharge should not be so great that you could sit there and soak damage with it, but Amp station charging was only 5hp/s, so that really shouldn't be an issue. It might let you soak a beamer from max range..

atomos · 2012-04-02, 12:52 PM

I hope they do allow the driver to act as gunner because otherwise we will see alot less tanks and I think it really helps players who want to play tank and don't have time to find a gunner. They just need to make the tank more powerful the more players that are seated to encourage team play, for example whatever gun the gunner is controlling there is a reduction in the reload time by half.

Tamas · 2012-04-02, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Hmr85

63 PS1 Vets want it... I added myself in there.

I want a game focused primarily around Team work not wannabe Rambo's who where pissed off that they couldn't drive a MBT by themselves because it involved somebody else getting their kills. Having multiple seats in MBT's forced teamwork in PS1 regardless of what the bulk majority of the anti - multiple seat MBT crowd has to say. There was a vehicle for ppl who wanted a 1 seat tank. It was called the lightning.

But ppl where not happy with the lightning because it died to easy. They couldn't sit in front of a tower or a door and absorb more than 2 to 3 rockets to the face before it blew it up. Thus it was interfering with their K/D ratio. So thus, here we are with this asinine 1 seater tank that we have today.

For the record, I was hoping that the Reaver was going to be a 2 seater when we first started getting word about PS2 way back when to help cut down on the Reaver spam this time around. With a dedicated driver in control of the cannon and a gunner for missiles. Why you ask, It promotes team work and is more aligned in what you would see today. Same goes for the MBT.

./flame on

Well I don't want to flame, just wanted to point the statistical thing. I mean if you got Coca-Cola forums (if there is one, don't know....) and ask people if they liked coke, 99% would say yes, but you can't say that 99% of the world loves coke based on that.

The way forums work, is that more dedicated people post, a bit more only read and most don't read them - this is common for most games.

As per driver and gunner - I'd like that to be a "specialization". Take Reaver - one man normal as seen in footage, however if it turns into 2 man, than it acts as Helis in BF - 1 pilot with the rockets and the gunner with now rotating gun/cannon (whatever you put there). Now the gun would rotate, zoom in, infrared vision - all that, making it far more deadly and powerful than the static gun we saw in the GDC video ( fixed aim, no zoom etc). Just by making it 2 man it becomes far more deadly without even "buffing" the damage, speed etc.

I would like to see the option to choose - you can go solo, or you can go as a small team, making the single vehicle more deadly (by allowing it do something you could not do alone).

In a tank - the gunner would have his hands full with just the machine gun - taking care of infantry/Air while the driver would take care of other armored vehicles (whatever the spec, the two can fill different roles). As a single person you'd have to switch from machine gun to cannon so you couldn't do both. Heck, you can have 3 people in tank (as in BF3), where the 3rd person laser designates targets/marks them for guided rockets (coordinating with infantry or the gunner who switched from machine gun to rocket launcher for more AT power).

I don't want to see "only one man vehicles" nor "only several people may operate it so it can fight". I'd prefer it optional, making it simply more efficient (if players are good of course).

Sirisian · 2012-04-02, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Hmr85

I want a game focused primarily around Team work not wannabe Rambo's who where pissed off that they couldn't drive a MBT by themselves because it involved somebody else getting their kills. Having multiple seats in MBT's forced teamwork in PS1 regardless of what the bulk majority of the anti - multiple seat MBT crowd has to say. There was a vehicle for ppl who wanted a 1 seat tank. It was called the lightning.

I think a lot of people want the game to be team focused. Forcing people into vehicle just to make them do their primary role just isn't a good way to do it. You can have team work that isn't as forced by doing exactly what the devs have designed. The people driving a vehicle don't necessarily want to solo-killwhore. They just don't want to do nothing and to me driving is the equivalent to doing nothing in an FPS. If you want to drive a vehicle without a weapon you can use a quad or wait until the buggies are released, just don't mess with the tanks.

Lord Cosine · 2012-04-02, 01:23 PM

If the MBT and Lightning are both driver as gunner I see a role conflict. Why would anyone choose an AV lightning over an AV solo Vanguard?

In ps1 it was clear cut, if you have 2 dudes roll a mbt, if you have 1 roll a lightning. Furthermore since it has been stated that these vehicles can be customized to fill an AV, AI, or AA role, it makes the distinction between the vehicles even more vague.

Finally with integrated vivox and auto-generated chat channels between driver and gunner it will be easier then ever to coordinate with new players.

As long as the lightning is a competitive solo vehicle I really don't see why the mbts need to be as well.

Rivenshield · 2012-04-02, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Lord Cosine

As long as the lightning is a competitive solo vehicle I really don't see why the mbts need to be as well.

Because the Lightning will prolly just have the same gun as a Sundy turret. There'll *be* no mission-configurable Lightning. Which makes the MBT potentially more powerful, which stimulates teamwork, etc.

That's the argument so far, and I don't buy it. Anything that promotes teamwork is good. Anything that doesn't is ghey. It should be easier, not harder, to find gunners in a game with multiple-hundreds of your own people in the area.

This is a mistake.