Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by moosepoop

im not arguing for the sake of arguing. im arguing because i know the devs read forum feedback and im trying to give clear concise statements about how i think it is a bad idea. and it is a bad idea.


-single man tanks with heavy firepower allows for tank spam, ruining infantry combat outdoors. the number of tanks will be doubled and tripled, and might even outnumber infantry.
-> Terrain and structures.
-being able to solo such power tanks makes drivers lose team cohesion and decrease teamwork, in a game where teamwork is vital
-> Power balance in beta. If teamwork is vital, it will be used.
- the unique sense of comeradery and intensity with gunning with other players is lost
-> Still will have secondary gunners
- being able to single man battle tanks eliminates need for light tanks and light vehicles. why drive a three man buggy when you can drive a solo killing machine?
-> Smaller, faster, and more manueverable, just like the enemy Migs -Top Gun
- at least reaver has low hp. a tank has high firepower and high hitpoints. it will be used extensively for farming infantry, which ruins gameplay.
-> Wouldn't change even with dedicated drivers

Trite responses in red

I know those sound rude, and I honestly am not trying to be rude. I can totally see why you don't like it. I'm not a fan of it either. I just don't think it's gamebreaking. Even though I tend to use quite a bit of hyperbole myself, I just think the point is better expressed if you don't ignore some basic things.

The maps arn't going to be all salt flats. Also, right now in PS1, 1 solo AV infantry can turn away multiple MBTs. It's way too early to criticize damage balance.

[Night]

I must say I am not a fan of this. One of the good things in PS1 was to team up. The time after release was the best. Then everybody rode together in a Gal for example. In the end everyone soloed all the time.

A big tank needs a crew as well. I remember the differance when you managed to pick up a good gunner compared to a bad one. The same thing for driver, the driving was a big part of the tank fight. Just make it so both people in the tank get credits for the kills made. Then you dont have to run people over all the time to get a few kills for yourselve.

I hope, what they mean is that you can operate the big gun by yourselves but you can also let a gunner do it. That would solve the "VNG!" problem.

[moosepoop]

i think a giant super heavy tank with multiple gunners (like juggernaught, but with more firepower ) would be cool.

[moosepoop]

Originally Posted by Raymac

Trite responses in red

I just don't think it's gamebreaking. Even though I tend to use quite a bit of hyperbole myself, I just think the point is better expressed if you don't ignore some basic things.

The maps arn't going to be all salt flats. Also, right now in PS1, 1 solo AV infantry can turn away multiple MBTs. It's way too early to criticize damage balance.

i seriously think it will be game breaking, speaking from experience:

-TR and VS av weapons in ps1 need direct line of sight, while tanks can fire over cover; cover is more advantageous to the tanks than infantry.
- one time i ambushed a group of footzerging TRs with a lightning, and i killed 6 of them under 30 seconds. they tried to take cover, but my lightning shells fire OVER the cover. if i were to get my hands on a solo main battle tank, it would be a total disaster, i would be able to relentlessly rape outdoor infantry. i dont want to resort to that, i want the game to be fair, and everyone to have fun.
- tanks will swarm infantry outdoors. one of the best aspects of ps1 was the outdoor infantry combat.


i am not exaggerating my opinions, i really think this is a very bad idea.

in bad company 2, if i get my hands on a tank, or even an apc, i can stay alive the entire game, and get 20:1 kill ratio. especially on wide open maps like heavy metal. that wouldnt be fun in mmofps format. there would be no time limit, no other servers to go to. the infantry will be farmed for hours.

[Raymac]

If you are able to hit infantry behind cover, then that's not cover is it? Here's a perfect clear example of what I mean by 1 solo AV can turn away multiple MBTs. We've all fought on that hill on Cyssor between Kaang and Itan, directly east of Gunuku. You can rain AV all day long down on the tanks on the road and there is nothing they can do about it. THAT'S cover. If you can still get hit by a tank shell where you are, you are not behind cover.

Infantry caught out in the open is always going to be toast whether they are caught by a Lightning, a Reaver, or other infantry. Nothing is going to change that, and it shouldn't.

One of the first things Higby ever said about the terrain of Planetside 2 is that there will be open areas that are condusive to vehicle combat, and there will be more dense terrain that will give infantry the advantage....not too different from PS1. That's basically why I don't think it's gamebreaking. On the other hand, I just responded to Malorn's post that I'd prefer to see dedicated drivers and gunners, just as you would.

[moosepoop]

im glad we both agree on something. since the devs pay attention to the forums, its better not to be apathetic but to have a clear stand on something.

devs dont want to know what fans prefer, but what we want.

[dsi]

-being able to solo such power tanks makes drivers lose team cohesion and decrease teamwork, in a game where teamwork is vital
-> Power balance in beta. If teamwork is vital, it will be used.

Both of you are making the assumption that teamwork will be required, even when one of the most basic forms of teamwork has been removed from the game.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by dsi

Both of you are making the assumption that teamwork will be required, even when one of the most basic forms of teamwork has been removed from the game.

Mandatory teamwork you mean? PS2 doesn't really need it. Players will work together without it.

[Talek Krell]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Mandatory teamwork you mean? PS2 doesn't really need it. Players will work together without it.

This from the man who planned to dual box a second account rather than find a Lib gunner?

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

This from the man who planned to dual box a second account rather than find a Lib gunner?

Indeed. If you ever saw me in the game using a liberator 90% of the time I didn't have a bomber. Forcing a bomber to rely on someone else (mandatory teamwork) to use a primary feature of a vehicle isn't fun for me. Most of the time I used the liberator's front machine gun to take down BFRs, Lightning, infantry etc from afar. I was ecstatic when I heard that liberator's driver will be dropping their own bombs. I'll finally be using a bomber for what it's meant to be used for. This also moves the secondary gunner to the tail position which is how it always should have been. That is the gunner offsets the driver's weakness.

[Talek Krell]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Indeed. If you ever saw me in the game using a liberator 90% of the time I didn't have a bomber. Forcing a bomber to rely on someone else (mandatory teamwork) to use a primary feature of a vehicle isn't fun for me, and thus no one else. Most of the time I used the liberator's front machine gun to take down BFRs, Lightning, infantry etc from afar, thus establishing my superiority to everyone else. I was ecstatic when I blindly assumed that the liberator's driver will be dropping their own bombs. I'll finally be using a bomber for what it's meant to be used for without having to share any of the glory or work as part of a multi-person group. This also moves the secondary gunner to the tail position which is how it should have been. That is the unworthy gunner offsets the weakness of the glorious driver master race. Of course the unworthy gunner is not actually there because the tail position is empty, just like it always was in the first game.

I have modified your post in a manner that is both amusing and highlights some of the problems I see in your way of thinking. I know it's long. Fear not! There's a TLDR.

TLDR: Our idea of teamwork is everyone supporting each other. Sirisian's is everone supporting him. This colors his ideas and I feel they lead the game in a bad direction. Bad for everyone else, anyway.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

Sirisian's is everone supporting him. This colors his ideas and I feel they lead the game in a bad direction. Bad for everyone else, anyway.

You edited my post just enough to say something I didn't say at all. Good job?

In the future my ideas are for vehicles and infantry to work together to offset each other's weaknesses. The goal isn't to promote solo-play. It's to remove anything that might be non-interesting for normal FPS players. I used "me" in my posts to specifically denote where my opinions are. This is in contrast to how people in forums will often say "the community wants X". I don't do that because I respect other's opinions.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by dsi

Both of you are making the assumption that teamwork will be required, even when one of the most basic forms of teamwork has been removed from the game.

Do you know why I know there will be teamwork? BECAUSE THERE ARE 3 FUCKING TEAMS.

If they make PS2 a free-for-all deathmatch, then yeah, there likely won't be much teamwork.

[Talek Krell]

Originally Posted by Raymac

BECAUSE THERE ARE 3 FUCKING TEAMS.

Empires. Working as a team means more than just being the same color and running in the same general direction.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

Empires. Working as a team means more than just being the same color and running in the same general direction.

Wow, professor. I'm glad you are here to tell me these things.

There will be solo rambos no matter what, but when you have teams, err excuse me, empires, then many people will naturally work together. I've been seeing both going back to my CounterStrike days 10 years ago.