A confession - Page 2

ringring · 2013-06-03, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Relocating as stationary turret (mobile turreting, scoot and shoot), opposed to firing on the move.

Don't fire on the move, these are WW2 tanks. Move into position, aim fire.

Firing on the move is a last resort.

BlaxicanX · 2013-06-03, 03:59 AM

That does bug the shit out of me, tbh. These things seem to have no god damn suspension at all. It's such a burden trying to move and shoot with the Lightning, especially because it has the most ass friction for a tank (it literally slides a few meters after you let go of the accelerate, tf is this shit). I really wish they would give the tanks more stability.

Figment · 2013-06-03, 04:17 AM

Well it could suit your style of play.

It's utterly horrible for my use of tanks though since I actually expect to use what capacities a unit has. So if it has a top speed of 60+ and this is actually one of the key elements where the three MBTs differentiate, I expect to be able to use that speed to my advantage, or have it be used against me and having to find ways to compensate by positioning, leading and angling.

Originally Posted by ringring

Don't fire on the move, these are WW2 tanks. Move into position, aim fire.

Firing on the move is a last resort.

There's a couple things that I dislike about this analysis.

WW2.
Move + fire as "Last resort"

Considering they said they designed the Prowler and Lightning as fast moving futuristic flanker tanks, firing on the move should be more than natural to them.

Next to that, I continuously use WWII tanks in WoT on the move and it works wonderously well because most players are horrible at leading a target and protecting their hull from more than one opponent at the same time (they will always turn towards the first unit in their rear instead towards the one with the most firepower). Many of these tanks are completely reliable on constantly moving. So if I use a Lorraine 40t, Patton, T-50-2 or other lower armoured hull unit that is dependent on evasion and hit and run for survival, I'd expect to be able to use it proper: firing reasonably accurately at full speed, outcircling enemies at close range and force them to expose a weak side to me or an ally (ie circle Mag faster than it can rotate, circle Vanguard faster than it can turn its turret, etc).

Tbh, I think tanking (especially from a brawling perspective) in PS2 is at this time horribly primitive due to poor engine based constraints on turret + hull rotation speed combination (seems to be tied to sensitivity settings more than physical limitations) and poor handling (oversensitive steering at times: at even half a kilometer reverse speed turning makes you go the opposite way, very hard. Off-road handling being very... quaint... That sort of thing.

). The handling goes for all ground units. They don't feel quite right and it's easy to lose control even at low speeds. (Again, most noticable with the ATVs).

The entire weak sides mechanic thing falls flat with the turrets as well, since only shot vector with respect to the hull seems to matter on damage dealt, not the location of impact or the angle of impact. You can hit the turret in the rear from the front and it will count as a frontal impact.

A lot of work needs to be done to refine this tbh. Even if you want to just mobile turret the thing back and forth around a corner.

ringring · 2013-06-03, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Considering they said they designed the Prowler and Lightning as fast moving futuristic flanker tanks, firing on the move should be more than natural to them.

Well flanking is still available. Firing on the move is possible of course, just not the best choice, at least for me, and there's that thing when all of a sudden your barrel jumps up and down, sometimes and seems to take forever to stabilise.

As for the other of your points, I'll accept what you say of course as I know you know more about that than me.

Figment · 2013-06-03, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by ringring

Well flanking is still available. Firing on the move is possible of course, just not the best choice, at least for me,

Playstyle difference.

and there's that thing when all of a sudden your barrel jumps up and down, sometimes and seems to take forever to stabilise.

That is fricking annoying (also as infantry). >_> Do Magriders suffer from that as well?

As for the other of your points, I'll accept what you say of course as I know you know more about that than me.

Eh it's just my opinion.

Wahooo · 2013-06-03, 10:53 AM

Mixed bag.

I personally wasn't into being a driver in PS1 much except for the magrider.

I hated the lightning in PS1, like it in PS2. Except the SG.
Only ever drove a wraith in PS1, enjoy the ATV in PS2 but still find it overly squirrely.
Bang Bus I think they're getting there on the roll over crap... been a while since I killed more than just myself rolling down a hill, but I find them... almost even PS1 to PS2. As far as fun factor in driving and gunning, with a slight edge to PS1, they were so terrifying when you saw one coming and you knew it was full of gunners who were on coms and coordinated.

Harasser in PS2 is way fun, but PS1 skyguard was more fun. I'd spend 2K SC right now if I could have the SG gun on a Harasser. SG is just something that driver and gunner need to be separate. YOU CANNOT LOOK UP AND DRIVE AT THE SAME TIME.

MBTs? As I said I didn't drive them much in PS1 except the mag some. But for the fun of being in them? PS1 still. I loved that tank battles were mobile more than just drive out of cover shoot, reverse back into cover. Prowler and Vanguard need the gunner to have the main gun.
I think Mag could use a PS1 style driver gun with the gunner getting a turret.
MOBILE tank fights... so much more awesome.

ringring · 2013-06-03, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Wahooo

Mixed bag.

I personally wasn't into being a driver in PS1 much except for the magrider.

I hated the lightning in PS1, like it in PS2. Except the SG.
Only ever drove a wraith in PS1, enjoy the ATV in PS2 but still find it overly squirrely.
Bang Bus I think they're getting there on the roll over crap... been a while since I killed more than just myself rolling down a hill, but I find them... almost even PS1 to PS2. As far as fun factor in driving and gunning, with a slight edge to PS1, they were so terrifying when you saw one coming and you knew it was full of gunners who were on coms and coordinated.

Harasser in PS2 is way fun, but PS1 skyguard was more fun. I'd spend 2K SC right now if I could have the SG gun on a Harasser. SG is just something that driver and gunner need to be separate. YOU CANNOT LOOK UP AND DRIVE AT THE SAME TIME.

MBTs? As I said I didn't drive them much in PS1 except the mag some. But for the fun of being in them? PS1 still. I loved that tank battles were mobile more than just drive out of cover shoot, reverse back into cover. Prowler and Vanguard need the gunner to have the main gun.
I think Mag could use a PS1 style driver gun with the gunner getting a turret.
MOBILE tank fights... so much more awesome.

I'll agree with you on the lightning, I was a horrible lightning driver in PS1 but not in ps2. I don't know why.

I drove a magrider in ps1 a lot towards the end (when there were all-tech event monthly) and really liked it a lot. We (TR) generally preferred the magrider to the prowler.

DovahTerran · 2013-06-03, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Shogun

ok, now go to the corner and think about what you´ve done!

^ Win.

Anyways, tanking in PS1 was a bit more dynamic, IMHO. It definitely required teamwork to some degree if you wanted it to work efficiently. Especialy in large columns.

In PS2 it's a lot more of a slugfest that guarantees consequences if you take a hit. If you're a lightning that gets whacked by a Vanguard AP shot, chances are you should hear warning bells saying "RUN, IDIOT. RUN!" as the screen flashes red and your health dips below half. It's much more mobile and visceral as compared to PS1's vehicle combat.

I actually like OP's viewpoint. PS2's tank combat is faster-paced and a lot "messier."

glad I'm not the only one.

Rbstr · 2013-06-03, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by DovahTerran

In PS2 it's a lot more of a slugfest that guarantees consequences if you take a hit. If you're a lightning that gets whacked by a Vanguard AP shot, chances are you should hear warning bells saying "RUN, IDIOT. RUN!" as the screen flashes red and your health dips below half. It's much more mobile and visceral as compared to PS1's vehicle combat.

I actually like OP's viewpoint. PS2's tank combat is faster-paced and a lot "messier."

glad I'm not the only one.

Yeah, engagements are much more consequential and tense. PS1 was more of a "Yo dude, man, we got a Prowler ove there on the right" "Ok, lets get the DPS on them" "Yep, alright, keep 'er steady" "She's hurtin' now, just another minute" "Ok good job, pats on the back all around"
PS2 is more "Prowler right, Prowler RIGHT" "Fuck him up" "VULCAN MANNED, SHIT" "I'm gonna jump the berm" "FUCK YEAR! You guys see that?" "Reps, reps, reps, There's another one!"

I would love more levels of warning. A little beep series when you've taken an AP shot like "Yeah, you got hit, if you didn't know". Continuous chime when you're down to half. To a full on fire-alarm when you're just about toast. And they should all stack so you're just a big ball of awwo-beep-ooga-HONK on fire when you barely escape.
Like when everything is going wrong in a control room scene or even some Mechwarrior titles.

wasdie · 2013-06-03, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

I would love more levels of warning. A little beep series when you've taken an AP shot like "Yeah, you got hit, if you didn't know". Continuous chime when you're down to half. To a full on fire-alarm when you're just about toast. And they should all stack so you're just a big ball of awwo-beep-ooga-HONK on fire when you barely escape.
Like when everything is going wrong in a control room scene or even some Mechwarrior titles.

All impact audio needs a major overhaul. AP rounds given their velocity should be much more sharp and high pitched while explosions should be loud but not that disorienting as your armor didn't take nearly as much damage.

Right now you have no idea what you're getting hit by. That really does not help with situational awareness.

Calista · 2013-06-03, 12:08 PM

Vehicles in this game just don't weigh enough and are certainly overly top heavy. I look at how easy it is to send a huge transport aircraft into an uncontrollable spin by a simple tap on it's wing by a smaller aircraft and it's comical. All vehicles need to put on a few pounds (or kilos).

wasdie · 2013-06-03, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Calista

Vehicles in this game just don't weigh enough and are certainly overly top heavy. I look at how easy it is to send a huge transport aircraft into an uncontrollable spin by a simple tap on it's wing by a smaller aircraft and it's comical. All vehicles need to put on a few pounds (or kilos).

Game world also needs a bit of friction. How many times have you found yourself sliding down a hill for no reason? Way too many.

Calista · 2013-06-03, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by wasdie

Game world also needs a bit of friction. How many times have you found yourself sliding down a hill for no reason? Way too many.

Yeah and weight would help that also but the entire physics properties of vehicles in this game is a little "weird" sometimes.

MrMak · 2013-06-03, 02:03 PM

Wierd physics? I was gunning in a Harasser and we rammed a TR lightning in the back at full speed. We were fine but he got fliped upside down.

This is perfectly fine

bpostal · 2013-06-03, 07:03 PM

You enjoy it?! How dare you!