Gameplay: Dedicated driver certification for MBT

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Accuser

So you're saying the OP is giving people the option of an underpowered setup, and even though many people like it, that's a problem? That's kind of silly.

The OP is not giving an option, he's giving the idea of an option that people who want something that is similar to it cling to in the hopes of at least having it.

But considering it's a downright bad execution of what people actually want but don't expect out of SOE anymore because SOE's design philosophy pretty much precluded it, it's not worth it no.

Like saying that a great sniper who's a bad pilot should never fly because he's depriving the team of a talented sniper. That Infil may still want to fly sometimes, even if his team would be better served by his rifle.

Way to miss the mark, marksman. It's more like saying a sniper should be satisfied with a range extender of 10% on a regular rifle and then half the firepower and then saying "See! We got you a sniper rifle!".

Oh and please don't call infils snipers. It pains me enough that these two completely opposite roles (melee distance and long distance) have been put in the same suit.

And I really don't think this would give the Magrider any advantage. The Magrider can already maneuver and fire at a target while keeping it's strongest armor pointed at the enemy.

As long as it isn't flanked.

If you give the gunner a 360° turret for the main gun, it's still better for the Magrider to face in the direction of the enemy anyway.

Sure. Keep that enemy in front of you. Shame they outnumber you so you can't face all tanks at once and you can't make use of your speed if you're being circled and have to keep your front oriented at the enemy that's circling you (while eventually exposing side and rear to your other opponent that's still "in front").

Hooray for two one man tanks completely outmaneuvring a teamvehicle with fixed forward gun.

If anything, this would give the Prowler and Vanguard an advantage, since it will allow the driver to maneuver effectively while the gunner fires, instead of being forced to aim the main gun while trying to maneuver around terrain.

If you think of one on one situations, yes. In the bigger picture, you cut away a quarter to a third of the enemy units by combining them into one with the same hitpoints as one standard unit.

So that advantage isn't really a big advantage and pretty moot as long as the whole vehicle isn't balanced for three crew members instead of one or two.

Hell, the VS in me almost wants to be against this awesome change just because it will level the playing field so much where the Magrider had a mobility advantage.

Magrider has a mobility disadvantage due to having a fixed gun and a mobility advantage due to being able to strafe (and if we ever get water again, float over water). On the whole, they're weaker in mobility than the Prowler as it makes them more rail-turreting, semi stationary platforms than fast moving tanks that require tanks to stay far ahead of them so they can snipe them without them getting to their side or rear (at which point they're at the mercy of other tanks).

[Azren]

Originally Posted by Figment

The OP is not giving an option, he's giving the idea of an option that people who want something that is similar to it cling to in the hopes of at least having it.

Obviously I can not give you an option, I am not the director of SOE afterall... What I can do though is bring this topic to SOE's attention which can result in it being implemented.

Originally Posted by Figment

But considering it's a downright bad execution of what people actually want but don't expect out of SOE anymore because SOE's design philosophy pretty much precluded it, it's not worth it no.

If you think it is a "downright bad execution" of having dedicated gunner, feel free to share your opinion on how it could be done right.

If you think it should be more powerful or that you lose half your firepower, you are half right. The two guns on MBTs are situational, for example if you don't have to fight an aircav and tank at the same time, you don't gain much by being able to use both turrets. More than that, if you consider how much more situational awareness the dedicated driver tank has, it balances out nicely. Yes, it would lose in a head on fight, if it only has one gunner, but it has a greater chance of outmanuvearing it's opponent so it won't get into those situations in the first place. At range and tricky terrain the dedicated driver has the obvious advantage.

At any rate, this would be an option you can turn on and off when you spawn the MBT, there is no loss to overal game experience this way.

Originally Posted by Figment

Sure. Keep that enemy in front of you. Shame they outnumber you so you can't face all tanks at once and you can't make use of your speed if you're being circled and have to keep your front oriented at the enemy that's circling you (while eventually exposing side and rear to your other opponent that's still "in front").

Your main advantage would be on range and hard terrain (forests, ect). These situations ensure that you will not be circled in, if you don't let them.

It is bad to come to conclusions based on only one situation.

Originally Posted by Figment

If you think of one on one situations, yes. In the bigger picture, you cut away a quarter to a third of the enemy units by combining them into one with the same hitpoints as one standard unit.

You don't cut away anything. It is their choice to use that setup. If it would be disadvantageous they wouldn't use it in the first place. So either it works and is overal better than drivergunner setup and many players will use it, or if it does not work good enough, only those who really want that kind of experience would use it.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Azren

Obviously I can not give you an option, I am not the director of SOE afterall... What I can do though is bring this topic to SOE's attention which can result in it being implemented.

What I meant was if implemented as described, it'd still not be an option, but a token solution.

If you think it is a "downright bad execution" of having dedicated gunner, feel free to share your opinion on how it could be done right.

Simple. Don't compromise. Balance the unit completely on the basis of dedicated driver, dedicated gunner, rather than use the balance of one or two gunners.

More than that, if you consider how much more situational awareness the dedicated driver tank has, it balances out nicely. Yes, it would lose in a head on fight, if it only has one gunner, but it has a greater chance of outmanuvearing it's opponent so it won't get into those situations in the first place. At range and tricky terrain the dedicated driver has the obvious advantage.

The problem is that situational awareness doesn't give you more hitpoints and firepower. You will not be as optimal in use as any other combination of separate units.

Take a PS1 Lightning. Imagine you cut up the controls. You think a single enemy unit has more issues with two Lightnings or one?

It can only engage one at a time. The other doesn't HAVE to move and can fire freely, but if you're both in the same unit with the same hitpoints, he only needs to chase down one and maybe he'll miss 20% of the shots needed, great. If you were with two, he'd still need 80% more shots to kill the second tank...

Now if your tank also had 100% more hitpoints, you'd be getting somewhere in terms of balance and maneuvring advantage.

At any rate, this would be an option you can turn on and off when you spawn the MBT, there is no loss to overal game experience this way.

It sounds like it at first glance, if you look deeper you'll realise it's a non-solution because it's the exact same, unchanged, tank.

Your main advantage would be on range and hard terrain (forests, ect). These situations ensure that you will not be circled in, if you don't let them.

It is bad to come to conclusions based on only one situation.

Which is why I don't base it on one situation... ANY given situation. ANY situation is better with two of the same units if they have equal firepower because their endurance will always trump your endurance.

You don't cut away anything. It is their choice to use that setup. If it would be disadvantageous they wouldn't use it in the first place. So either it works and is overal better than drivergunner setup and many players will use it, or if it does not work good enough, only those who really want that kind of experience would use it.

Exactly. Meaning it's not a good compromise if only the stubborn keep using it because they sentimentally want to pretend it's still better despite the execution proving them wrong. Thanks for clarifying this to yourself.

Now, I WANT separate roles, badly, but I can't accept giving up manpower, firepower nor endurance per player for it.


The only acceptable solutions for a tank with the same role and built are when manpower, endurance/firepower (damage over time) for X* tanks are equal to the unit where X crew is a requirement. Because only THEN is maneuvrability an added advantage for your group of three.

*Note, X should never rise above three, unless the unit design has exploitable, built-in flaws. Otherwise you create units that are played with less than intended players to maximise endurance per player.

[Accuser]

Originally Posted by Figment

Take a PS1 Lightning. Imagine you cut up the controls. You think a single enemy unit has more issues with two Lightnings or one?

You're absolutely right, 2 lightnings would be more effective than one with divided controls.

But (assuming the lightning had the same health as a -real- tank) would people still use the divided controls version? Hell yes they would. And that's the point. It's not the most effective use of manpower (just as having the team's best sniper and worst pilot flying a Mossy) but some people will still want to do it.

And as a side note, some Infiltrators are snipers and can be called such, whether you like it or not.