Driver/Gunners... NO! - Page 6

Aberdash · 2012-07-10, 04:53 PM

We can go back and forth like this all day. I'll just say there are situations where being in complete control gives you an advantage and there will be situations where 2 people would be advantageous. I'd say making it optional is the best solution however if it was one or the other I'd go with 1 person.

Landtank · 2012-07-10, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

It's not elitist to acknowledge that human society at all levels is screwed up. Turn on the news if you don't believe me.

Hmmmmmmm, I don't believe you. Society seems to be okay considering.

MrKWalmsley · 2012-07-10, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by SgtExo

I don't know with who you play, but i have no problem weaving thru things while shooting ppl at the same time, its true that some ppl wont be able to do both, but i do believe those ppl a just not that good at gaming in general.

I think most of failed weaving would come when you are firing at an enemy who is not directly in front of you. This should be more common with the Lightning since it's not the best idea to take on a MBT head on, and so to circle around it you sort of have to look away from your central axis.

Originally Posted by Aberdash

We can go back and forth like this all day. I'll just say there are situations where being in complete control gives you an advantage and there will be situations where 2 people would be advantageous. I'd say making it optional is the best solution however if it was one or the other I'd go with 1 person.

And my preference is with 2 people. 3 technically. But like I said before I don't think it should be mandatory if the majority dislike it.

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-10, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by SgtExo

I don't know with who you play, but i have no problem weaving thru things while shooting ppl at the same time, its true that some ppl wont be able to do both, but i do believe those ppl a just not that good at gaming in general.

People who can multi-task are the exception :P

Originally Posted by Gandhi

"Then find some good people to play with or pull a Lightning. You can't design the game assuming everyone is going to act like an idiot, else we'll end up with nothing but TDM on a massive scale. The only way to "idiot proof" a game is to remove all reliance on other people, everyone plays for themselves. There's plenty of those games on the market already. "

This.

SixShooter · 2012-07-10, 05:00 PM

As a long time lightning fan I'm not at all concerned with the diver/gunner issue. I will of course make sure that I have a good secondary gunner whenever I'm in a Mag. The top gunner can make all the difference in PS2 it seems.

MrKWalmsley · 2012-07-10, 05:11 PM

Ah! Thanks for reminding me about a pretty big issue which contradicts my own desires for wanting gunning and driving to be separate and also brings up an interesting question about certs.

The magrider has no turret, so I guess it would be totally unbalanced to allow the TR and NC to have be able to separate those two positions, either way you look at it. Which then brings into question, what cert is unique to the mag which will replace or be the equivalent to the NC and TR position separation cert?

I've heard a lot of people (in fact I have seen a sig about it) putting forward the idea that the mag should actually become a turreted tank, which is something I oppose. There is a reason why the gun is axis fixed, and that is that the mag is so uniquely maneuverable, it had to have something to counterbalance that to make it fair on the battlefield. A tank which has moderate damage, and moderate speed and moderate armour, which can strafe, hover, skim across water and have a fully rotating turret would make the mag the most OP tank on the battlefield by a long shot. The only foreseeable fix for me is to remove strafing and other mobile abilities, or just keep the fixed gun.

Sorry for the rant!

KaB · 2012-07-10, 05:15 PM

Having two pairs of eyes will definitely help finding some spots on large maps. Maybe the driver's view could be a sort of camera on the top of the tank which would allow him to zoom in and get a very good view of the field.

Light tanks should have only one seat to easily support infantry on close combat. But Heavy tanks would be used to support infantry from the top of the hill firing some far-distant spots and then should have two seats. Just like in PS1 I'd say...

Traingye · 2012-07-10, 05:43 PM

I think teamwork here is an non-issue. The game is designed to have teamwork within an outfit, platoon, or squad, and not just one battle tank. If you are only working as a team within one tank, well then you are doing it wrong.

Also I don't think we should underestimate the importance of the AA turret manned by a gunner. I think with this position empty the tank is going to be a sitting duck to air vehicles.

**RadarX** · 2012-07-10, 05:47 PM

I believe Matt Higby has addressed this a few times. While the potential for gunners in certain vehicles is a possibility, many vehicles will have the driver as the gunner. This is the design system the dev team has chosen to utilize at this time.

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-10, 05:52 PM

@MrKWalmsey

I don't see why you'd necessarily have to do anything like that. Not everything requires a specific and deliberate "balance" in place. Some things can just be what they are, I would imagine. In the case of the Mag... As you yourself described, the thing that makes the Mag attractive is it's greatly increased maneuverability. It's less affected by rough terrain, it can move side to side with equal ease. It circle strafe, basically.

I don't think the vehicles should all "be the same", necessarily. Differences and variation are just fine. The Mag is good example. Why should it have the same/similar restrictions to it that another tank does? It's very, very different from the others. It is not really a "turreted" tank so much, and there's nothing wrong with that. Hell, there's precedent for it in real life, even. Remember the old WWII turretless tank destroyers? Some of them were even designed for speed and maneuverability over armor.
Different vehicles can have different crew requirements/design philosophies, nothing wrong with that.

I have noticed several people bringing up the point that with the secondary gun being usually a MG, it's highly likely more people will opt to bring a second tank rather than man the gunner position. While being purely a choice on the individuals part, it would imply a tendency toward "tank spam" that gets itself killed by "Reaver spam" (although the Reaver is not the "gunship" anymore)

@RadarX

We know this is the philosophy they've chosen at this time. That's not in dispute. What we're all busily arguing about is whether or not we like the philosophy

fod · 2012-07-10, 05:53 PM

i think this idea of driving and gunning is a stupid idea, i cant see any negatives in having separate driver/gunner at all
all i do in ps1 is drive - its what i find fun and now im starting to rethink if i even want to concentrate on vehicles in ps2 like i did in ps1

imo they should have made MORE people required to drive tanks (3 people to drive a tank would be awesome) not less

Azarga · 2012-07-10, 05:54 PM

I'm all for Driver-gunners.

I drive well. I shoot well. I can efficiently do both at the same time. I buy the tank with my own resources. Why should I allow someone potentially decrease the effectiveness of _my_ tank by manning my tank's main gun and being bad at, well, shooting?

Shooting is basicaly half of the tank's usefulness, amirite? This person have to be very good gunner to rich the driver-gunner efficiency simply because driver-gunner always knows how his tank will move next moment, he doesn't have to react to it, he fully controls it.

Teamwork is great and stuff, but only when it contributes to efficiency, not limits it. Let the secondary gun be powerful enough, that will make a gunner a welcome addition to a unit if he's good, but won't cut unit's effectiveness by half if he's lame.

TheDAWinz · 2012-07-10, 05:57 PM

Dirver/Gunners.... Yes!

This isn't Arma 2. In the Arma series i fully expect this, being a mil sim and all, but this is a fps. A totally different caliber, and mainly i think that devs do this to prevent griefers. Really, who wants a driver in charge of three people to drive off a cliff because he is mad? Now when he was the gun and driver position, he will potentially only waste two lives.

KaB · 2012-07-10, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by RadarX

I believe Matt Higby has addressed this a few times. While the potential for gunners in certain vehicles is a possibility, many vehicles will have the driver as the gunner. This is the design system the dev team has chosen to utilize at this time.

Can we get an idea of what have been the reasons of that decision ? In the case that it doesn't belong to the professional secrecy of SOE of course.

TheDAWinz · 2012-07-10, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by KaB

Can we get an idea of what have been the reasons of that decision ? In the case that it doesn't belong to the professional secrecy of SOE of course.

Because a irresponsible driver in charge of three people would waste more resources then being in charge of two people. Simple as that.