Please remove Vehicle seat swapping.

[Klockan]

Originally Posted by Ranik Ortega

Oh please. That's an awful example.

Your examples are quite absurd as well.

Originally Posted by Ranik Ortega

I'm sure it has nothing to do with say an HA guy noticing a single man tank firing his AA gun in the air and wanting to exploit the vulnerability to put a couple of rounds into that tank without the enemy instant switching to the driver seat and blowing the shit out of him.

Just don't stand where the barrel is aiming and the tank is harmless even with seat swapping. When the barrel slowly starts turning against you then move away behind a rock. Also 2 rounds kills the tank so if you shoot it once from behind, move behind a rock and then move forward to shoot it again most likely you win since the tank wont find you in that time.

Originally Posted by Ranik Ortega

I'm sure it has nothing to do with say an aircraft trying to put a couple of rounds into the tanks on the ground without having multiple tanks just stop and switch to AA almost as effectively as a 2 man tank.

If you as an aircraft are trying to attack several tanks alone then you are an idiot. Even if you didn't know of instant seat switching the AA guns could still be manned without you knowing. If they aren't fully manned you are in the best case scenario since the tanks will take ~1 second to start firing on you (they need to readjust to the new view after the switch and then they need to find you in the sky). That assumes that there is no problem for them to just stay in the spot they are in etc, most likely it will take longer than ~1 second.

Originally Posted by Ranik Ortega

I'm sure it has nothing to do with a Mosq/Reav/Scyt chasing down a liberator bombing ground troops trying to get a few shots into the rear of the liberator before the bomber instant switches to the tail gun.

You will just have to learn to stay above it like you are supposed to instead of noobing it behind it like you could in PS1. You know that they can start shooting you with it if you want. Also instead of machinegunning them just fill them with rockets, as long as you don't shoot them the tailgunner wont be manned so you can wait a bit till you can get a clean shot.

Your examples here all assumes that the person doesn't know about seat swapping. Think how you can capitalize on their lack of information, don't just play like an idiot standing right in front of the tank barrel thinking that it is fine.

[Karrade]

Really you can swap seats in any vehicle? Then why take anyone along at all?

I know you can give me a why, but I can give you a lot more why's as to why two vehicles are better than one, let's start with twice the hull/armor/shields.

So instead of going alone: Get a team mate, get two vehicles and seat swap. Don't forget even if out numbered, you can instantly jump out and use AV, so no problem there.

This is possibly the silliest thing I've heard, apart from instant AV after leaving vehicle. I am speaking from a gameplay perspective, not realism before anyone brings that into it, as referenced above.

I will never be grouping with anyone in this setup. - Unless badly outnumbered, or seriously lacking vehicles.

[Revanmug]

Originally Posted by Karrade

I will never be grouping with anyone in this setup. - Unless badly outnumbered, or seriously lacking vehicles.

Get ready to be rape by 2 man tank which the top gunner beeing a repair bitch.

And seriously, the liberator example is just bad. Seat swapping or not, you will probably only 2 man it anyway so the "less teamplay" is wrong.

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by Karrade

Really you can swap seats in any vehicle? Then why take anyone along at all?

I know you can give me a why, but I can give you a lot more why's as to why two vehicles are better than one, let's start with twice the hull/armor/shields.

So instead of going alone: Get a team mate, get two vehicles and seat swap. Don't forget even if out numbered, you can instantly jump out and use AV, so no problem there.

This is possibly the silliest thing I've heard, apart from instant AV after leaving vehicle. I am speaking from a gameplay perspective, not realism before anyone brings that into it, as referenced above.

I will never be grouping with anyone in this setup. - Unless badly outnumbered, or seriously lacking vehicles.

You essentially announced yourself to be a free kill.

So allegedly tanks will have vulnerable rears compared to their front. In an air to ground engagement, the air has a massive advantage over the ground in mobility and maneuverability. Any aircraft with a gun will out maneuver a ground vehicle easily. If air has superior or equivalent firepower to deal with the ground, naturally the ground is going to want to deal with the air on equal terms.

In an engagement between air and ground in which the ground target opts to sacrifice mobility (never mind maneuverability) in order to engage the air with superior firepower, the ground will die. There is no exception to this.

In an engagement involving two ground targets against one air, the ground will have an advantage in numbers but the air still holds numerous other advantages including mobility and maneuverability. It is entirely the pilot's option whether to engage the tanks or not, and how to approach. Twice the armor in this situation does nothing but drags the engagement out. Having a single tank with active AA firepower AND mobility gives the tank more control over the engagement and prevents the air target from using his superior maneuverability to get a fix on your vulnerable rear.

The flat mathematics argument only works in engagements based on attrition. And battle of attrition fought between air and ground will always result in the air dying first, so fighting in this manner as a pilot is suicidal and foolish. Air has to use hit and run, maneuverability, and shot placement to maximize his chances over a ground target. And stationary ground targets rarely live long against air raids and air born threats.

[Karrade]

Originally Posted by Revanmug

Get ready to be rape by 2 man tank which the top gunner beeing a repair bitch.

And seriously, the liberator example is just bad. Seat swapping or not, you will probably only 2 man it anyway so the "less teamplay" is wrong.

The first comment missed the fact there are two tanks with TWICE the armour and manoeuvrability, tank to tank is the worst example of your point. Tank to tank, two heavy tanks vs one heavy tank x2 ppl is going to lose, as they don't have twice the firepower - whereas with driver guns you do have twice the firepower + twice the manoeuverability + the fact the second guy can get in the tank that is left!. Not to mention one can more easily get to fire at a weaker armor area of their opponent, flanking the single tank. Given these conditions, best guess, you may get one enemy tank with two people, but you won't get two most of the time, especially not with insta AV in the mix.

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

You essentially announced yourself to be a free kill.

So allegedly tanks will have vulnerable rears compared to their front. In an air to ground engagement, the air has a massive advantage over the ground in mobility and maneuverability. Any aircraft with a gun will out maneuver a ground vehicle easily. If air has superior or equivalent firepower to deal with the ground, naturally the ground is going to want to deal with the air on equal terms.

In an engagement between air and ground in which the ground target opts to sacrifice mobility (never mind maneuverability) in order to engage the air with superior firepower, the ground will die. There is no exception to this.

In an engagement involving two ground targets against one air, the ground will have an advantage in numbers but the air still holds numerous other advantages including mobility and maneuverability. It is entirely the pilot's option whether to engage the tanks or not, and how to approach. Twice the armor in this situation does nothing but drags the engagement out. Having a single tank with active AA firepower AND mobility gives the tank more control over the engagement and prevents the air target from using his superior maneuverability to get a fix on your vulnerable rear.

The flat mathematics argument only works in engagements based on attrition. And battle of attrition fought between air and ground will always result in the air dying first, so fighting in this manner as a pilot is suicidal and foolish. Air has to use hit and run, maneuverability, and shot placement to maximize his chances over a ground target. And stationary ground targets rarely live long against air raids and air born threats.

Here you make the point much better, but have missed the fact there is twice the manoeuvrability in two tanks, so the single tank is actually MORE vulnerable in the rear. Sure air can hit ground hard, good, I wouldn't have it any other way. This single set up would favor AA, but don't forget, you'd have twice the AA focused on such an aircraft in two tanks, so it'd be situational - if you are comparing apples to oranges, which is of course not right in large fight where many situations can happen out of the blue - the main advantage of two in a vehicle is the fact they can react to more situations quicker.

Still i'd take two tanks in some situations nearly always, with 2 individual drivers who can seat swap, over 1 tank with 2 people. Certainly in tank to tank battles nearly all of the time i'd take two tanks, if the enemy was rolling mostly armor, i'd advise going to a single tank with seat swap + insta AV at this point.

[Flaropri]

Originally Posted by Karrade

The first comment missed the fact there are two tanks with TWICE the armour and manoeuvrability

Groups are inherently LESS maneuverable than individuals. You can potentially attack from multiple vectors, but you can't maneuver as a group nearly as well. The larger a group, the less maneuverable it is compared to smaller groups.

[Karrade]

Originally Posted by Flaropri

Groups are inherently LESS maneuverable than individuals. You can potentially attack from multiple vectors, but you can't maneuver as a group nearly as well. The larger a group, the less maneuverable it is compared to smaller groups.

This isn't relevant. You are not targeting the group at once.

We are comparing 1 to 2, 2 to 1.

2 are harder to hit than one when speaking about which is more powerful, as they move in different directions, they flank a target easier, they spread themselves out easier. - Surely you can see this, you'd have to hit both together for the damage to be the same. Comparing group damage vs single damage here only, as that was the point made.

You have a missile, how do you hit two moving targets at once with it, unless they are stupid enough to cluster up?

-edit
I hold out hope the vehicle bays (queue time) will balance it, or resources, but I honestly don't feel that will happen.

[Flaropri]

Originally Posted by Karrade

This isn't relevant. You are not targeting the group at once.

It is relevant to being able to actually take on a target 2 to 1. If the group spreads out too much, the single tank can divide and conquer with superior firepower. If they are too close together, it is possible for the single tank to take advantage of terrain to either escape, limit attack vectors/flanking, or even put one enemy tank in the way of the other at least delaying the second tanks offense

Moving as a group, they are less maneuverable than an individual. An army of 50 tanks can cover more terrain than a group of 10, but they will take longer to get into position, will have to be more careful about crashing into each other, and will take longer to bring about their full weaponry at a specific target (or group of targets).

A larger group is also much easier to spot, and therefore to sneak up on with a smaller group. Especially if most are focused on driving while gunners can focus on spotting. 50 tanks can and should be able to take out 10 tanks in a straight fight, but they could be picked apart with hit and run tactics to the point where those 10 tanks at least make their resources' worth and further delay the column.

2 are harder to hit than one when speaking about which is more powerful, as they move in different directions, they flank a target easier, they spread themselves out easier. - Surely you can see this, you'd have to hit both together for the damage to be the same.

You have a missile, how do you hit two moving targets at once with it, unless they are stupid enough to cluster up?

1. In this case, you have two "missiles" that can attack in multiple directions. Offensive output is the same.*

2. Why would you want, let alone NEED, to hit both targets instead of focusing on one at a time?

*(Obviously depends on weaponry and stuff.)

We are comparing 1 to 2, 2 to 1.

Which is honestly quite silly, considering the nature of the game.


EDIT: In response to your EDIT: I think you should have more optimism, and push for it if you see it not happening in Beta. I think that even if seat swapping is removed there will be problems with vehicle balance if resources and timers aren't an appropriate balancing factor.

[Revanmug]

You seem to be quick a forgeting the important part...

Originally Posted by Revanmug

... repair bitch.

As soon as the tank is able to maneuver out of los for a few sec, he already got health your 2 1 man tank won't get. Do you really think the top gunner will stick to the gun when he can repair the vehicule while the pilot make sure things are fine?