Tank drivers acting as gunners in PS2 - Page 16

Draep · 2011-09-26, 07:11 PM

You put me and my peoples up in a two person tank, we'll drive circles all day around 1 man battle tanks. With one man tanks I see people usually stopping to lay down accurate fire and in any case, it'll be much tougher for a one man tank to traverse the turret fast enough while maintaining excellent driving standards. With one man tanks, you sacrifice a lot of movement and maybe some accuracy. What's the point of having twice the firepower with half the hits and half the mobility?

You wouldn't have to give any sort of disadvantage in terms of rate of fire to single manned tanks, because they'll have a tough enough time getting around and surviving air attacks.

Talek Krell · 2011-09-26, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by Draep

You put me and my peoples up in a two person tank, we'll drive circles all day around 1 man battle tanks.

Not sure I understand you. The driver would have to work the main gun regardless of whether the tank is fully crewed, so...

Captain B · 2011-09-26, 08:00 PM

I'm not particularly fond of the idea that ALL tanks will have access to the main weapon. Even the secondary weapon, if they are as powerful as the team is suggesting, would be too much. Maybe an add on weapon like a machine gun or something to clear out infantry from point A to point B would be nice, but the whole idea is to have people working together.

Baron · 2011-09-26, 08:30 PM

As much as I'm very pro-gunner having control of the guns I think there might be a problem with that. Given that the driver controls the main gun and the gunner controls the secondary, tank weapons will most likely operate like the PS1 prowler.

Meaning, each gun can rotate independently of the other (they can shoot at different targets).

Now, give control of both of those to one person (the gunner) and you can see an issue. How can that person control two independent turrets? Say you "lock" them both forward and the gunner can switch between gun types like in PS1...however now you have lost some of the freedom to fire separate weapons at different targets. In a sense penalizing the tank who's gunner has control of both weapons.

BorisBlade · 2011-09-26, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by Baron

As much as I'm very pro-gunner having control of the guns I think there might be a problem with that. Given that the driver controls the main gun and the gunner controls the secondary, tank weapons will most likely operate like the PS1 prowler.

Meaning, each gun can rotate independently of the other (they can shoot at different targets).

Now, give control of both of those to one person (the gunner) and you can see an issue. How can that person control two independent turrets? Say you "lock" them both forward and the gunner can switch between gun types like in PS1...however now you have lost some of the freedom to fire separate weapons at different targets. In a sense penalizing the tank who's gunner has control of both weapons.

Well thats because the best option is to just add a pilot only slot, then have a main gunner and a secondary gunner. You avoid the prowlers "2nd gunner" issue by just having a good gun for the secondary gunner. If they do it right, it will not only be worth it but nearly mandatory. Then you have the mainpower required to allow for the vehicle to be a real tank that can take some good damage and dish it out. If they keep the solo power idea then they will have to make em much weaker to compensate for them really just being powerups.

Peacemaker · 2011-09-26, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Higby

One of the biggest unlock lines for mbt's are secondary weapon unlocks. You'll be able to switch out a variety of weapons up there that add a ton to your tank's situational viability. These will rival the power of the main guns depending on the vehicle and situation and will be a lot of fun to use. Imagine putting a mortar cannon on top of your vanguard, now you can sit behind cover and shell an area; or, add an AA Flak cannon for defending against reavers. There will be a lot of variation here and having a good secondary gunner will always be a major benefit.

Higby,

This statement makes me cringe. There should always be a rock paper scissors effect. MBTs should NOT have any powerful AA. Gunships > MBTs. Its how the world goes round. Wanna make them BETTER at AA? Ok, thats fine, but they shouldn't win in a equal skill 1 v 1. Dedicated AA vehicles are a must. These vehicles should be weak vs infantry and other ground vehicles. Tanks should be weak to Air but pwn infantry. Air is weak to AA vehicles. Infantry can out maneuver armor.

Sirisian · 2011-09-26, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

MBTs should NOT have any powerful AA. Gunships > MBTs. Its how the world goes round. Wanna make them BETTER at AA? Ok, thats fine, but they shouldn't win in a equal skill 1 v 1. Dedicated AA vehicles are a must. These vehicles should be weak vs infantry and other ground vehicles. Tanks should be weak to Air but pwn infantry. Air is weak to AA vehicles. Infantry can out maneuver armor.

Well it would be a 2 person MBT. Nothing is stopping you from pulling two Reavers instead and just launching a barrage of rockets at the MBT. That would probably decimate it. That and I think they want the same level of difficulty for Reavers as there was in PS1. That is a Reaver vs a tank wasn't always an easy kill was it?

NapalmEnima · 2011-09-27, 12:11 AM

Trying to think of other av-thats-not-just-direct-damage weapons that might make folks want to have a secondary AV...

Shield Transfer Ray. Add one point to your shield for every two drained from theirs perhaps.

Immobilizer. Locks up the enemy drive system (hits the breaks hard) for a second or two. Takes twice that to recharge/reload between shots. Yes, two of them could completely tie down one tank. Team work is awesome like that.

Hit a dive-bomber with it and enjoy as Hilarity Ensues (splat).

Talek Krell · 2011-09-27, 01:49 AM

I think the immobilizer/EMP needs to be paired with something else to be balanced. You can't make it so potent that it will completely disable a tank or 1v1 fights will just be weird. But if you make it too much less effective then it starts to look less and less desireable. Maybe it could work as a tertiary weapon system, something kind of pricey and far down the cert tree...

You might consider putting this up in the ideas thread. See what people will come up with.

Azren · 2011-09-27, 04:04 AM

There seams to be an ongoing line of thought about the secondary gunner having AV capabilites. If you think such a thing would justify using a gunner instead of two tanks, you are sadly mistaken. Lets see what we have here:

1 tank has an armor of 100 points, and has a main gun that deals 20 damage, and a secondary gun that deals 20 damage aswell (would probably be much lower, but just for the argument's sake, lets make it 20 too).

now then, two tanks have an armor of 200 points, main guns that deal 20 damage each (20+20=40).

So what you are proposing would mean that the damage output is the same, however the armor value isn't. In a 2v1 fight the 2 tanks would always win.

Lets see now about that other idea, about driving circles around one manned tanks and killing them with your gunner.
1 - if you drive around, you will not be able to shoot him, or be prepared to hit a tree or some small stone.
2 - your gunner will probably have much lower AV damage than the main gun does.
3 - your enemy will have much greater firepower than you, because he will be using the main gun

So what this all adds up to is: you either fight him face on, and probably win, or you drive around, trusing your gunner and you lose. So if you will fight him face-on anyway, why bother with gunner? Just roll two solo tanks and the poor guy will have no chance.

About that third idea, giving the driver the option to release the main gun to the gunner:
Just who in his right mind would give up more than 50% of the vehicle's firepower? Just think about it, a gunner will not be able to shoot more than one gun at a time anyway, so giving him two guns is pointless, if you can use it yourself.

There really is only one way to balance this and please everyone: Make two types of tanks. Make a one manned variant where the driver gets the main gun, but has 65% less armor than the normal tank. Make a normal tank where the driver has no guns, but the gunner gets to use the main canon and a secondary one (if he wishes to).

2coolforu · 2011-09-27, 04:17 AM

It looks to me that the simplest solution is to just switch control of the guns so that the driver gets his super-special certed secondary weapon and the gunner gets the proper main cannon + turret. I think Higby said they would experiment with this too so its all good, it doesn't require much modelling or changing either.

My favourite idea would be to have two cert trees, one which heads towards a weaker, faster, lighter one man tank similar to the lightning and another which heads towards a slower, stronger, heavier two man MBT which has a gunner and a driver (although this requires modelling, scripting and textures)

Captain B · 2011-09-27, 05:12 AM

Also, as T-Ray said, beta comes first. And since a buncha' PSiders will be in it, I doubt that this will go through without changes or at least considerations.

Azren · 2011-09-27, 06:00 AM

A failed beta might just be the end of PS2. How many do you think will stick around if they do not like what they get? Sure you can argue that it will be fixed by release, but these are Core gameplay issues we are talking here, not some minor detail, these will not be fixed.

TheRagingGerbil · 2011-09-27, 09:38 AM

Posted this in the other thread too...

I have a feeling this issue is being blown way out of proportion. We do not even know if vehicles will be driven from first person or third. Now if a tank is driven from first, I suspect you will be forced to switch to a gunner view making driving very difficult.

My guess is the driver will have the ability to drive and gun at the same time, but unless this is taking place in an open dessert it will be very ineffective. I bet the option will be to have a gunner in the vehicle who can take control of the main gun or the secondary.

I am guessing that everyone is thinking tanks will be in third person with a reticle visible?

BlazingSun · 2011-09-27, 10:04 AM

I didn't care to read the whole thread, but I'd like to leave my take on this subject here:

Should SOE chose to stick to this idea, they should do the following in my opinion: It is important to split the power. The drivers gun should not be that good against infantry. It should mainly be for AV purposes. A gunner would be required to increase the tanks chances against Infantry. Airdefense should be weak at best (unlockable).

This way it could work.