Gameplay: Dedicated driver certification for MBT

[fod]

i agree with the OP X10000 (over 9000.!)
anything that lets me have separate driver and gunners im all in for

also make the mag have a rotating turret (like the OP mentions) - i dont see why it was even changed in the first place

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

...then I'm good with it. I don't think it should give any added bonuses to the tank. The purpose is to allow people the classic MBT style of control, not make it "better" than the current one.

we finally agree on something

[Sledgecrushr]

I would agree with this post if they put the magrider on tracks like the other two tanks.

[fod]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I would agree with this post if they put the magrider on tracks like the other two tanks.

then we give up our empires ability - if so the TR should fire slower and the NC do less damage per shot which dont make sense at all

TR fire fastest
NC hit hardest
VS agility and maneuverability

[Azren]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I would agree with this post if they put the magrider on tracks like the other two tanks.

Such a change is not required. They worked out how to balance the MBTs in PS1, they can work it out in PS2 too. It has to do with change in firepower armor and speed.

Besides, strafeing is not all that useful as it sounds

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Azren

Such a change is not required. They worked out how to balance the MBTs in PS1, they can work it out in PS2 too. It has to do with change in firepower armor and speed.

Besides, strafeing is not all that useful as it sounds

Don't forget to have the above properties divided by required manpower.

Strafing definitely is a benefit, but for the Magrider it's mostly compensation for not having a turret and therefore being easy to flank as the deadzones of the tank are ginormous and you have to turn your hull and therefore lose a lot of potential directional movement while aiming "sideways".

Where other tanks can fire sideways at high forward speeds, a Magrider would become a completely stationary rotating turret without strafing. With strafing it gets to circle strafe at close range though.

[Flaropri]

My thoughts:

1. Asymmetric Balance is fine. While it might be a disappointment to some VS players, I don't think the Magrider NEEDS the option, and I could see it causing balance problems to implement on top of the extra animation/modeling effort. While balance could be resolved, it isn't necessary to go through those steps in my opinion. (Side note: I currently intend to play VS, so I'm not just saying this to limit a faction I don't like.)

2. One way of helping balance the Cert is to potentially reduce the resource cost (counter-intuitive though this suggestion is) of spawning the vehicle slightly. In this case, Manpower would be additional limiting factor to make up for that cost decrease and make it an attractive option. For example, a 15-20% cost decrease. EDIT: That may be too much of a discount of course, I fully expect it would be played with, and in the long term it's not perhaps needed, but it's the best way to make it a more attractive option in the short term.

3. I agree that the stats of the vehicle should not be changed from 2-3 crew variants.

[Figment]

Manpower is THE most limited and scarce resource on Auraxis. Wasting it like you are all suggesting with this setup makes the option completely uninteresting as it is completely underpowered.

Loss of 33% firepower and 50%-66% endurance for 10%-20% better maneuvrability is completely unacceptable.

Hey Ratstomper, if Manpower doesn't matter as you claim, why do we even bother balancing units against each other both for individuals and groups of players?

It is at the very basis of game design.

@Flapropi: You never heard the sarcasm jokes about the TR design philosophy? If you say it was no problem in PS1, then you really missed how it was felt and perceived by its users. TR hated always requiring more men to fill a whole unit. Even if it was to add functionality, even if Prowler doesn't need the dual 15mm to out-dps a Vanguard. They hated that both Van and Mag could fire at the sky while they could not, while spending equal manpower.

It is an issue. A HUGE issue even. Don't dismiss or ever underestimate manpower requirement balance or you will design the next Raider.

[Accuser]

Originally Posted by Figment

Manpower is THE most limited and scarce resource on Auraxis. Wasting it like you are all suggesting with this setup makes the option completely uninteresting as it is completely underpowered.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

[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.

[fod]

Originally Posted by Figment

Manpower is THE most limited and scarce resource on Auraxis. Wasting it like you are all suggesting with this setup makes the option completely uninteresting as it is completely underpowered.

manpower is the least limited resource imo - with 666 players on your side its going to be easier to get a gunner than ps1 which had 400 players TOTAL on a cont

so im guessing you are against a separate driver and gunner? its hard following your posts and what you exactly mean

are you against it because you think its weaker than a 1 man tank? and if you are then why? you can always go and get a single man tank yourself - you dont have to force us to do the same, if you think 2 man tanks are weaker then why argue? just use 1 man tanks yourself all the time then

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Figment

Hey Ratstomper, if Manpower doesn't matter as you claim, why do we even bother balancing units against each other both for individuals and groups of players?

It is at the very basis of game design.

I never said that manpower doesn't matter. I said there's already enough advantage for 3 guys to use a massive gun platform. You don't balance individual units against each other in a game like this, you balance team structure against other team structures because the game is designed around large battles with multiple people.

Now, splitting up all the positions over a gunner=driver system is, in my opinion, giving an advantage to the 3-manned tank. I'm ok with that because 1) I'm not a nitpicky asshole 2) there's a slight tradeoff for the small fact you might get three kills instead of two if you kill it.

Your crappy driver and gunner setup isn't even viable in PS2 and would only screw MBTs over.

Originally Posted by fod

ahh now i think i understand - its been confusing with all the huge posts different people post it makes it hard to exactly follow whats going on, its probably nobodys else fault but my own but oh well (also i think i was starting to get different people confused)

Not necessarily. Figment is usually incoherent and likes to talk out both sides of his face. It makes it difficult to understand what he's saying when he isn't blatantly insulting you for having a different veiwpoint.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

I never said that manpower doesn't matter. I said there's already enough advantage for 3 guys to use a massive gun platform.

But one guy in a massive gun platform with the hitpoints of 3 guys in a massive gun platform has no advantage at all. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Certainly not if they can bring three.

Oh man, you're funny.

You don't balance individual units against each other in a game like this, you balance team structure against other team structures because the game is designed around large battles with multiple people.

Then why are you so adamant on balancing ONE unit against ONE other unit based on the power of ONE man? Because that is what you are doing.

Now, splitting up all the positions over a gunner=driver system is, in my opinion, giving an advantage to the 3-manned tank.

No, it's giving the advantage to the lone gunner.

I'm ok with that because 1) I'm not a nitpicky asshole 2) there's a slight tradeoff for the small fact you might get three kills instead of two if you kill it.

1. Indeed, you're an ignorant asshole and a hypocrite.
2. A slight trade-off

Your crappy driver and gunner setup isn't even viable in PS2 and would only screw MBTs over.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You support a weak "team"-solo unit, where you put a theoretical option for three crew in, make it viable for ONE crewmember and also give him access to changing position inside the tank. Then you pretend someone would actually fill it up with three (where two is already unlikely), continue to call it better than a single other unit without having any evidence, nor maths to suggest that it COULD even theoretically tackle multiple enemies (and just presume from the fact there's more guns that this is magically enough to make them useful, which is an utterly retarded assumption if you look at the maths even if you assume horrible efficiency of other tanks).


You do realise that in a perfect TTK, two single crew tanks fighting one tank with two gunners have the equivalent firing live of three tanks due to numerical leverage, right? Meaning that in a perfect two crew TTK on the other units, the other two would already have to perform at 66% efficiency each AND NOT MAKE USE OF ANY POSITIONING AND FLANKING advantages that multiple crews have? Meaning that if the two crew misses some shots or the gunner of the two crew loses tracks, the other two tanks would have to have a an efficiency each of below 40% in order to lose?

Oh wait, you don't have any argumentation to support your stance, you just have "wet finger in the air to see where wind is blowing" first impression opinions.


RIIIGHT. You're just interested in solo power so you can personally abuse it and kill two or three at once. Admit it. Stop being selfish. And if you're not, then you're just acting a hypocrite, possibly on purpose. And if not that, you're just being stubborn because you hate me enough to not let me "win" a debate from you. One thing is for sure, you don't have an educated opinion.

Pick one. Come on.


But you were saying that my design philosophy screws over team-vehicle players? Let me get back to laughing.

You do realise you are saying that EVERY PS1 unit that requires more gunners is SCREWED OVER as like in MY version of driver + gunner they equal the power of the equal amount of solist users and then have a slight teamwork advantage in maneuvring over said units.

Instead, you have the "compromise version" YOU MIGHT SUPPORT, where they are LESS than the equal of the equal amount of solist users and are thus substantially WEAKER than in my variant.

And then you have YOUR version, where they don't really need to exist at all!

RIIIIIIGHT. I am the one screwing teamwork over! Clearly! Stop making up stupid arguments, it makes you look utterly stupid. And this isn't an insult, it's fact.




For the record, the design philosophy I propose was applied extremely succesfully on balancing the fast majority of PS1 multi-crew combat units.

Even if it took some buffs and nerfs (particularly to buggies, which had to be made substantially more powerful to compete with multiple solo air units in particular).


Plus, it's funny in light of PS1 balance between units:

Examples of vehicles in PS1 that are balanced in the way the compromise here suggests: Prowler (token second gunner), Harasser (way too weak), Raider (outperformed by Deliverer, Aurora and Thunderer as they require less crew for virtually same power), Marauder (only Mortar interesting, 12 mm is rather worthless most the time), but also: Bassilisk (too weak compared to infantry (!) to be attractive).

Examples of vehicles in PS1 that are balanced in the way you suggest: Mosquito, Reaver. There'd be no balanced team vehicles as everyhing would be a solo vehicle first by far. At most there'd be a few with unrecommended, optional crew second. If there were, they'd be akin to the above units. All PS2 vehicles aside from the Sunderer, Liberator and Galaxy fall under this, only the Liberator could be seen as a combat unit at this point, while the others are discardable units.

Examples of vehicles in PS1 that are balanced like I suggest: Skyguard, Enforcer, Tresher, Vanguard, Thunderer, Deliverer, Lightning (post-buff since it was far too weak compared to team-vehicles to be near competitive, but two still can't take on a single MBT without working together really, really hard for it), Magrider (because the driver has a much weaker gun than the gunner and a second Magrider-driver can't out-"damage-over-time" a Magrider gunner even with the added endurance - which is not true for PS2 solo MBTs because they got equal capacity guns!), Liberator. Note also that, if you couldn't switch seats, the PS2 Liberator falls under this.


So.... I'm screwing over multi-crews? Riiiight. I doubt you will comprehend what I'm saying though and even if you would, you'd never admit it.

Not necessarily. Figment is usually incoherent and likes to talk out both sides of his face. It makes it difficult to understand what he's saying

What makes it difficult for you is your incapacity to keep track of what scenario I'm talking about, because there are so many I run. Including the scenarios of the "opposition" and the "compromise" group. I'm NOT incoherent, each and every argument I've made are in the context of the discussion of that moment and all relate to why there's IMO only one option out of the four possible implementation scenarios (note, these are not the hundreds of combat scenarios I've gone through - which your side keep reducing to one scenario because it's too complex for them).

That's the irony because it means they're just incapable of understanding the argument made. They can't even see which context or argument is being made.

You saying I'm incoherent is just typical of your side. You're either not capable or willing to think complex enough to have a thought-out argument. You're uncapable of placing yourself in the position of other players that are unlike yourself, are uncapable of admitting your solo-prefered side has been catered wealthily too and want a 100% solo-side game with some token team units that you can just ignore unless you find yourself alone against them.

Which shouldn't happen much unless you're a dumb, anti-social player that's incapable and unwilling to work with other players. Hmm... Incapable of finding gunners and wanting each unit to be usable on your own...

Not insinuating anything, but...

when he isn't blatantly insulting you for having a different veiwpoint.

Not at all. I'm coherent, you just see paradoxes that aren't there because you don't understand the design philosophy and are apparently uncapable of following the discussion in the context of each argument.

You know how often I've had to re-explain something to you by showing the consequences to YOUR side of the argument, then going back to how I'd do it.

So yes you're ignorant. That's not an insult, that's a fact. A frustrating one. So yes, I'll ridicule your ignorance till you do better. You're worse though, you're just dismissive of things you don't comprehend because you can't admit you might not be smart enough to follow it, OR simply ask for clarification: you just assume I must be wrong without understanding why, or even what I'm saying.

For you still don't, even if you pretend you do.


I'd even say you're probably unwilling to understand it because you don't like me personally. I take the time to carefully layout what's what. That's all the courtesy you will get from me when you act dumb and tbh, it's more than you deserve most the time.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Figment

But one guy in a massive gun platform with the hitpoints of 3 guys in a massive gun platform has no advantage at all.

Having three guys in a tank manning all stations means that tank has more efficiency than a gunnerdriver and gunner tank. The same amount of duties are being split among 3 people instead of two. That's an advantage. It's offset by the fact that if you want 3 guys in your vehicle focused on one thing each, then if the tank blows up, they all may die. That's a fair tradeoff.

Then why are you so adamant on balancing ONE unit against ONE other unit based on the power of ONE man? Because that is what you are doing.

I'm comparing the variants of the one vehicle, not against anything else. If we're talking an optional sidegrade to separate gunners and drivers, then the optional sidegrade shouldn't have substantial benefits over the original.

I'm not reading the rest of your BS wall of text. Learn to keep up with the discussion and then maybe I'll take you seriously.