Poll on driver gunning

[CutterJohn]

Pick your preference.

Poll options:

Current PS2: Driver on primary turret, gunner(s) on secondaries. Gunner weapons roughly equivalent in power to primary.

PS1: Driver has no/weak guns. Gunner controls primary and secondary weapon.

BFRish: Gunner controls Primary, Driver controls weaker secondary.

Option D: Primary and Secondary weapon control can be swapped by the driver, the gunner, and a secondary gunner. Primary weapon more powerful, but has a limited forward firing arc when controlled by driver to make it more painful to use solo.

Edit: A couple have said this could be OP by allowing the driver access to, for instance, both the AV primary and AA secondary. This could be balanced by limiting driver access to certain turrets, or enacting a swap timer akin to holstering a gun and drawing a new one to prevent instant swapping when new threats show up. Or something else. The main goal with this is just giving the driver control over how the vehicle is operated.


For option D, weapon control would be set in a little gizmo on the hud or in the vehicle control screen if such exists, simple click to assign, that looks a bit like this:

        |W1|W2
Driver  |X |
Gunner1 |  |X
Gunner2 |  |

The driver would just click in the spots to change who controls what.

[Sirisian]

Option D seems the best.

Don't really need a fancy UI element. Gunners would see the option become available when a driver right clicks and released control of the main gun. The driver could take it back at any point by right clicking forcing the gunner back to their weapon.

[Bags]

I like PS1 but I frankly don't care. I don't use ground vehicles that much.

[Zulthus]

PS1 style. I know I'm the minority but I hate the idea of drivers being the only gunner they need.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

PS1 style. I know I'm the minority but I hate the idea of drivers being the only gunner they need.

Imagine a Reaver flying down on a tank. How vulnerable do you think that tank is having just its main cannon? I'd say it's probably going to die.

[basti]

Option D is pretty good. It allows you to do stuff if you want to as a driver, but it also allows you to just drive and let others gun.
And thats important, especialy if you have ever tried to lead a tank collum. You cant just do everything at the same time...

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Imagine a Reaver flying down on a tank. How vulnerable do you think that tank is having just its main cannon? I'd say it's probably going to die.

Yes, a Reaver is designed to take down a tank. Your point?

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

PS1 style. I know I'm the minority but I hate the idea of drivers being the only gunner they need.

I prefer PS1 style. Too many fucking changes, and a lot of them seem dumb, twitch-oriented, or just "HEY LOOK WHAT I CAN CHANGE!"

[Accuser]

Originally Posted by Firefly

I prefer PS1 style. Too many fucking changes, and a lot of them seem dumb, twitch-oriented, or just "HEY LOOK WHAT I CAN CHANGE!"

I'll give them time to work it out in the Beta... but I know that (for example) Bad Company 2 tanks are very powerful because a driver controls the main gun. HOWEVER, the tanks go down with a few AV shots, they're limited to a max of 2 per side, AND they have a 1-2 min respawn time.

Since PS2 tanks obviously won't have the same restrictions, I get the impression that either the main gun will be laughably underpowered or the tanks will die VERY easily.

So far it sounds like MBTs will be unshielded BFRs on wheels... do not want.

[nathanebht]

Originally Posted by Firefly

I prefer PS1 style. Too many fucking changes, and a lot of them seem dumb, twitch-oriented, or just "HEY LOOK WHAT I CAN CHANGE!"

Its not change for no reason. SOE is making PS2 faster with a lower TTK. They are aiming for no slowdowns, pure action. They are following the lead of modern FPS games like the BF series.

So it makes sense to get rid of the whole "I need a gunner" deal.

[2coolforu]

The thing about BF:BC2 is that it did alot of good stuff, it also had a lot of bad ideas. The balancing was some of the worst I've ever seen in a game, look up the kill stats from pre M60 patch and you'll see that about 50% of all the kills were made with that weapon.

I also think the vehicles were balanced poorly, I think they were balanced poorly in BF2. I'm sure someone else has said it but people treat the tanks in BF:BC2 like powerups and hop in them as an afterthought. If they want to have any level of survivability they hang back way out of the fight and just act like a form of indirect fire - in Planetside tanks were a hammer, used to spearhead the assault and soak up damage while infantry actually held the ground. The way tanks worked made them very good at their job, they could take enough damage to allow them to face down a large amount of fire for small amounts of time which allowed a screen for infantry to move up behind.

I feel that with only one person effectively having all the power of the tank they will be used as one-man killwhoring devices just like the reaver was. Although it was bearable with a reaver I don't see tanks being as bareable in the 'one man whoring vehicle' category.

[Traak]

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

I feel that with only one person effectively having all the power of the tank they will be used as one-man killwhoring devices just like the reaver was. Although it was bearable with a reaver I don't see tanks being as bearable in the 'one man whoring vehicle' category.

No, it wasn't bearable in the Reaver and was one of the things that ruined the game. I agree with you, one-man killwhoring, whether it's from cloakers to tanks is unacceptable. It isn't PS.

In PS, we want well-oiled teams to be dominant, one-man bands to be merely potentially effective. Not the other way around.

An aggressive anti-cheating policy will assist this.

[Majikk]

Not only do I like option D, but it makes sense out of having a crew of 3 in your tank. Let one person drive, one person use the main cannon, and one person use the secondary cannon, if you like.

[Talek Krell]

To no one's suprise I prefer the PS1 model.

Option D is also quite acceptable though. Especially with the limited firing arc, I like the idea of forcing a solo driver to use the vehicle like a tank destroyer.


Edit: I would like it noted that PS1 contained single person vehicles, it just wasn't them exclusively.

[kaffis]

Other: As "B", but does not require any specific position be filled by the person with the vehicle's cert, so long as at least one position is.

In other words, I'm sympathetic to the plight of those who argue that the guy who puts the cert time in should get to gun, but don't believe that warrants combining seats to arrange this.