Compromise for the driver=gunner issue. - Page 3 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: No humans here, just meat popsicles.
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Reply
Click here to go to the first VIP post in this thread.  
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2011-09-27, 07:12 PM   [Ignore Me] #31
kaffis
Contributor
Major
 
Re: Compromise for the driver=gunner issue.


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
I know that's what they said, but that's a bullshit excuse. Several other vehicles and classes are designed around SUPPORT. Medics, Engineers, to name two infantry support. Transport drivers and to a lesser extent Bomber pilots.

All of those have one thing in common - weapon systems / tools which benefit other people and not themselves.

It is not necessary to turn a vehicle into a one-man killwhore machine just to get people to drive it/cert it. Plenty of people drove galaxies when needed. Plenty of people drove tanks and piloted libs. The tradeoff of the far more firepower and a stronger vehicle emphasized teamwork and coordination with gunners/bombardiers.

As a longtime tank driver what rewards me is not the ability to shoot. It is knowing that my tank crew was kicking ass and impacting the battle. Of course I'm going to cert things that make my entire tank better. You don't need to motivate me or distract me with a main gun.
As a player whose most offensively oriented cert was special assault, and who had liberator, sunderer, deliverer, galaxy, ams, and ran around gluing bases back together during defenses, I really hope the devs can wrap their heads around what you just said.

Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
I'd much rather understand the real design vision and gameplay goals of this change. Giving the certed person the ability to shoot from the vehicle is a poor excuse and I know that isn't the main reason they made the change. They wanted to run design impacts by the playerbase so they have to be straight with us with what they intend with things.
I'm sympathetic to the notion of "hey, give the guy buying the certs the chance to use the gun." I don't think the path they've indicated is the best way to do that, though. I've outlined a simple solution that does that (as the stated goal) without mucking about with cooperation dynamics and team vehicle vs. solo vehicle balance.

I will admit, though, I'm skeptical, as well, as to whether that's the entirety of the intent. After all, they've gone out of their way to declare that they're providing lots of support roles for people who aren't good at standard FPS skills. One would think, then, that essentially allowing the "driver pulls the vehicle" to create a "driver" support role, and they'd be find with that.
kaffis is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-09-27, 07:16 PM   [Ignore Me] #32
Raymac
Brigadier General
 
Raymac's Avatar
 
Re: Compromise for the driver=gunner issue.


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
I know that's what they said, but that's a bullshit excuse.
It's not a bullshit excuse. Bottom line is that ANY tank without a secondary gunner is going to be nothing but wreckage when a Reaver flies by.
__________________
"Before you say anything, prepare to stfu." -Kenny F-ing Powers

Raymac is offline  
Reply With Quote
This is the last VIP post in this thread.   Old 2011-09-27, 07:23 PM   [Ignore Me] #33
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Compromise for the driver=gunner issue.


Originally Posted by Raymac View Post
It's not a bullshit excuse. Bottom line is that ANY tank without a secondary gunner is going to be nothing but wreckage when a Reaver flies by.
Only if there is NO other AA nearby. It's an MMOFPS, not a 1v1. All it takes is one good AA in the vicinity to ward off reavers. It could be a MAX, or a Wasp, or good reaver pilot, or infantry-based AA.

Even if none of those exist, you'd only need minimal secondary gunners.

4 tanks, only 1 has a gunner with an AA config. 5 people, 4 tanks. Lots of main gun firepower. Lots of tank hit points to destroy before they're gone. Way better than running 2 tanks.
__________________
Malorn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-09-27, 09:22 PM   [Ignore Me] #34
Raymac
Brigadier General
 
Raymac's Avatar
 
Re: Compromise for the driver=gunner issue.


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
Only if there is NO other AA nearby. It's an MMOFPS, not a 1v1. All it takes is one good AA in the vicinity to ward off reavers. It could be a MAX, or a Wasp, or good reaver pilot, or infantry-based AA.

Even if none of those exist, you'd only need minimal secondary gunners.

4 tanks, only 1 has a gunner with an AA config. 5 people, 4 tanks. Lots of main gun firepower. Lots of tank hit points to destroy before they're gone. Way better than running 2 tanks.
You're right. It's not 1v1. And yet all these threads are based on this vaccuum idea of tank v tank. But we've all been in the game it's tank with air and AV troops and snipers all in 1 mega....how did Higby put it? ah yes clusterfuck battles. I mean of course balance has it's place, but I don't see the different sides of this debate agreeing unless it's some split the baby solution, which is what may end up happening.
__________________
"Before you say anything, prepare to stfu." -Kenny F-ing Powers

Raymac is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-09-27, 09:30 PM   [Ignore Me] #35
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Re: Compromise for the driver=gunner issue.


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
Even if none of those exist, you'd only need minimal secondary gunners.

4 tanks, only 1 has a gunner with an AA config. 5 people, 4 tanks. Lots of main gun firepower. Lots of tank hit points to destroy before they're gone. Way better than running 2 tanks.
I don't see the problem. That's perfect teamwork. Everyone is engaged in the fight in combat roles. It's what an MMOFPS is supposed to be about. Combat. Also I'm glad you finally figured out the game isn't 1v1. We've been pointing that out for a while. It's about a lot of people working together to fight. You don't need some do nothing driver role. It adds nothing to a shooter game when you already have teamwork with people working in groups.

This is the same reason you don't see a mossy with a driver and a guy controlling the guns. It's just not as fun as having control of the weapons. People try to latch onto these points and go "oh but the fighters are solo players and won't work together". No you just have groups of them destroying the enemy. That is working together. You don't need one guy driving and another firing the bullets to get things done.

Last edited by Sirisian; 2011-09-27 at 09:32 PM.
Sirisian is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-09-27, 10:04 PM   [Ignore Me] #36
Zulthus
Colonel
 
Zulthus's Avatar
 
Re: Compromise for the driver=gunner issue.


Originally Posted by Sirisian View Post
I don't see the problem. That's perfect teamwork. Everyone is engaged in the fight in combat roles. It's what an MMOFPS is supposed to be about. Combat. Also I'm glad you finally figured out the game isn't 1v1. We've been pointing that out for a while. It's about a lot of people working together to fight. You don't need some do nothing driver role. It adds nothing to a shooter game when you already have teamwork with people working in groups.

This is the same reason you don't see a mossy with a driver and a guy controlling the guns. It's just not as fun as having control of the weapons. People try to latch onto these points and go "oh but the fighters are solo players and won't work together". No you just have groups of them destroying the enemy. That is working together. You don't need one guy driving and another firing the bullets to get things done.
It seems that more than 90% of the forum users are against one man MBTs. Regardless of what you think as stupid and boring, many, many people find driving and gunning being separate from each other very much superior to solo killwhore vehicles, including me. Coordinating with each other is great fun and you operate much more efficiently with people concentrating on one role at a time.
Zulthus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-09-27, 10:04 PM   [Ignore Me] #37
BorisBlade
First Lieutenant
 
Re: Compromise for the driver=gunner issue.


Originally Posted by Lonehunter187 View Post
As long as no single driver with a gun can beat a tank with a driver and gunner It'll be fine
No, you are missing the point. Its still a solo buff rather than a vehicle. And there are plenty of us who love to just drive. I dont even use the PPA on the magrider when i play, other than once in a million years (of course it was a pain to use with all the sway). I love driving for my crew and focusing on gettin them a good shot while avoiding enemy fire. Nothin more fun than having a good driver paired with a good gunner(s). And dont get me wrong i dont mind gunning, thats fun when ya get a good pilot. But i do not wanna gun and drive at the same time, and unlike the magrider, you cant not use the main gun or you are worthless. On top of that, if you are in the secondary slot, you have to put up with half ass driving from someone who is tryin to shoot and drive all at once. Screw that.

And because it is so solo focused it will have to have much weaker armor compared to what a real tank should have. It will be much more like bf where you die rather fast even in a tank. And in a game with a zillion people thats awful design. We need a vehicle that can take the hits, its slow and cumbersome as a downside and needs its 3 people but has high armor and can take a beating to help push forward.

The teamwork focus is so much more fun, this is not a random deathmatch game, its an MMO. We will have Outfits (guilds) and make many friends all of which who can gun for us as we drive. It gives the feel of teamwork and an actual operation goin with reality in drivers not gunning. It improves the social aspect. And prevents the "buff" feel that solo vehicles get, and the more solo mindset you get. I dont really feel like part of my squad when we are all runnin around in our own lightnings. It just doesn feel as epic at all.
__________________
Waiting for the return of the superior, real PS style teamwork oriented vehicles with drivers not gunning, and in fixed vehicle slots so we can once again have real, epic, vehicle battles where the tanks actually move in combat rather than a silly 1700's era line up and shoot.
BorisBlade is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-09-27, 10:13 PM   [Ignore Me] #38
BorisBlade
First Lieutenant
 
Re: Compromise for the driver=gunner issue.


Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD View Post
we don't know that the gunner thing isn't going to be changed,we don't need to be compromising yet.

wait for beta and let everyone see how this idea sux
I have been sayin that about most ideas, because they can be changed easily enough. This one tho, isnt so easy. If they keep this up, then we get more of those awful magriders which will not work for a team based vehicle at all. And it could apply to other things like skills etc that are based on this non-teamplay idea.

If we have a bunch of vehicles, skills, weapons, systems, etc all designed for this solo way, then it becomes too difficult and time consuming to change it all at that point and so we get stuck with it. Even the very limited info we know already requires a complete redo of the magrider. (i vote shrink it and make it the ES variant of the lightning!!!)

But yeah, most other things can be ironed out in beta, just gotta catch the stuff that really cant before it gets developed too far into the core of the game.
__________________
Waiting for the return of the superior, real PS style teamwork oriented vehicles with drivers not gunning, and in fixed vehicle slots so we can once again have real, epic, vehicle battles where the tanks actually move in combat rather than a silly 1700's era line up and shoot.
BorisBlade is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-09-27, 10:29 PM   [Ignore Me] #39
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Re: Compromise for the driver=gunner issue.


Originally Posted by Zulthus View Post
Coordinating with each other is great fun and you operate much more efficiently with people concentrating on one role at a time.
That's why I'm a big proponent of allowing the driver to release the main cannon to the gunner for people that wish to play that way. You don't always need AA or AI support, so you can keep the gunner busy using the AV cannon. There are a lot of times when a skilled player can just drive and gun at the same time and make their own shots. This was obvious in the Magrider. My driver would be taking shots then just because I was bored I'd be hitting them with the PPA. That whole time I could just be firing the main cannon and my gunner could be launching a mortar shell at infantry. I do understand that people feel strongly about driving though so it's important to allow that for people tat don't want to focus on both actions at the same time especially when moving fast.

Originally Posted by BorisBlade View Post
And because it is so solo focused it will have to have much weaker armor compared to what a real tank should have. It will be much more like bf where you die rather fast even in a tank. And in a game with a zillion people thats awful design. We need a vehicle that can take the hits, its slow and cumbersome as a downside and needs its 3 people but has high armor and can take a beating to help push forward.
This is more of a balance issue. I too am a fan of long TTK on vehicles even with a single person. That's why I prefer it takes a lot of AA rounds to kill a plane and focused fire to kill a tank.

To fully understand this imagine 4 solo tanks go against each other. 4 prowlers vs 4 vanguards. You're imagining a necessity that they'd die in a few hits. It doesn't need to be that way. They could have a ton of health and take 10+ direct hits to kill each other. Tanks that focus their fire together using teamwork would destroy a single of the enemy tank in 3 turns. (4 * 3 = 12 rounds). This would destroy the enemy tanks much faster than randomly shooting which would damage the tanks evenly basically however with focused fire the enemy would be down a tank and lose much faster at that point. So a long TTK is really important to gameplay and give players many choices when they're being attacked.

Okay fun. If you look at this program you can see the math. (This shows 5 tanks firing randomly at the enemy will beat 4 using focused fire if they have 10 health). Click clone then change the Health and team sizes and run it to see the outcome at the bottom. It gives you a hit for hit battle report assuming the tanks are trading rounds and firing all at the same time.

Last edited by Sirisian; 2011-09-27 at 11:28 PM.
Sirisian is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-09-27, 11:14 PM   [Ignore Me] #40
Marth Koopa
Banned
 
Re: Compromise for the driver=gunner issue.


I support driver drives gunner guns because it gives me more EXP when my Lancer rips tanks apart.
Marth Koopa is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-09-28, 12:58 AM   [Ignore Me] #41
Raymac
Brigadier General
 
Raymac's Avatar
 
Re: Compromise for the driver=gunner issue.


Originally Posted by Zulthus View Post
It seems that more than 90% of the forum users are against one man MBTs. Regardless of what you think as stupid and boring, many, many people find driving and gunning being separate from each other very much superior to solo killwhore vehicles, including me. Coordinating with each other is great fun and you operate much more efficiently with people concentrating on one role at a time.
Actually it's 50%, but whatever. So half of a vocal minority of an obscure cult game in a very non-scientific poll think something. That frankly means jack squat.

I'm not quite sure how many times the devs need to say PS2 is a team based shooter. I mean some people around here are acting as if they took the 2nd seat out of the tanks altogether. Personally, I think people just need to deal with the reality that people play shooters to shoot. When is the Gran Turismo MMO coming out again?
__________________
"Before you say anything, prepare to stfu." -Kenny F-ing Powers

Raymac is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-09-28, 02:41 AM   [Ignore Me] #42
Azren
Sergeant Major
 
Re: Compromise for the driver=gunner issue.


Originally Posted by Sirisian View Post
That's why I'm a big proponent of allowing the driver to release the main cannon to the gunner for people that wish to play that way. You don't always need AA or AI support, so you can keep the gunner busy using the AV cannon. There are a lot of times when a skilled player can just drive and gun at the same time and make their own shots. This was obvious in the Magrider. My driver would be taking shots then just because I was bored I'd be hitting them with the PPA. That whole time I could just be firing the main cannon and my gunner could be launching a mortar shell at infantry. I do understand that people feel strongly about driving though so it's important to allow that for people tat don't want to focus on both actions at the same time especially when moving fast.
Releasable main gun is not possible due to the Magrider.

If it was possible, balancing it would be hell, since all the properties of the main gun would have to change the second it got released to the gunner.
One way for this to work would be to give driver operated main gun 50% slower reload rate than the released gun has. This option I could accept, but only if we have it from the getgo and not as a cert along the way.

Originally Posted by Raymac View Post
Actually it's 50%, but whatever. So half of a vocal minority of an obscure cult game in a very non-scientific poll think something. That frankly means jack squat.

I'm not quite sure how many times the devs need to say PS2 is a team based shooter. I mean some people around here are acting as if they took the 2nd seat out of the tanks altogether. Personally, I think people just need to deal with the reality that people play shooters to shoot. When is the Gran Turismo MMO coming out again?
12.50% of the voters want PS 2 style tanks
50% want PS 1 style
The rest is the "BFR Style", "other" group. The people who want "releaseable main gun for gunner" belong to this group too.

So what you are saying that 50% of the people's opinion "means jack squat". 50% is a huge number in any vote, even greater if you consider that your side only has 12.50%.

At any rate, why does someone who clearly wants to play as a reaver pilot most of the time, want to tell those who want to be dedicated tank drivers to get in line? Really while your opinion should be noted, it should not be of much weight here.
Azren is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-09-28, 03:40 AM   [Ignore Me] #43
sylphaen
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Re: Compromise for the driver=gunner issue.


the tanks are trading rounds and firing all at the same time.
@Sirisian: Thanks for sharing your ideas. You made me realize about another big difference between 1-man vehicles and crew-vehicles.

With a team of people in 1-man tanks and assuming that you cannot come back to the battle right away with a new tank, once you're taken out, you're out. Out of the heat, out of the action, etc... You're left alone respawning at the base to get a new vehicle, thinking how you could have played better in the previous round while reflexively proceeding to get back to the battle.

I do not know if I am the only one who experienced this feeling of being left out of the team once in a while but it can suck...

Now in a crew-vehicle, you never miss the climax of the battle ! How ? Well, the climax is either when you defeat your target or when your whole crew gets blown up.



In PS1, while dying as infantry was expandable and just as fast to respawn. In the contrary, losing your tank was like taking a hit because the vehicles were slow and you had to come back all the way. On the other hand, the tanks were durable if you took care of them. In any case, my point is that having fun with your crew through both the best and hard times was the whole point of tank play.


In essence, either 1-man tanks or crew-tanks are viable in a game function-wise. However, the feeling is much different. Just like requiring a secondary gunner to function vs. being already effective and seeing the secondary gunner as a bonus. The feeling/immersion is much different.

Let's wait for beta and see how things will be.


half of a vocal minority of an obscure cult game
@Raymac: yes, people will run tanks in PS2. But also: yes, people who run those PS2 tanks will be very different minded...

I mean some people around here are acting as if they took the 2nd seat out of the tanks altogether.
Please, understand that I am not trying to argue what you are saying since people would be stupid to forget that PS2 tanks will still have 2 seats; however:
PS1: 2 seats, driver, MAIN-gunner
PS2: 2 seats, driver/MAIN-gunner, secondary

The people who need to realize that people play shooters to shoot also realize that between PS1 and PS2, there was a big difference in design philosophy.

Can you realize that some people enjoyed some PS1 aspects more than you did ? Driving for great gunners (along with footzerging on bases) is what made me come back to PS1 repeatedly (and willing to shell out 15$/m).

I am not saying that this preference is superior to other preferences (like killwhoring) or that the devs must switch back to PS1 system because 15 players like me enjoyed driving tank with BFGs. The devs will (and should) do what it takes to make their game successful.

By voicing their concern, the 50% cult-followers are essentially trying to alert and warn the devs that something out there offers some diversity (driving) to the core gameplay of a FPS (shooting) and that it adds a lot of value to some players. Now if the devs want to make a MMOFPS which offers 100% of the same thing to air & land & infantry (i.e. killwhoring with different guns in different ways but always killwhoring), then it's their call.

In PS1, I never felt like a lame driver. I felt like the guy that multiplied the potential of big-fucking-guns on rails, baby ! And I was always thankful to my gunners because they (almost) never failed to seal the deal. And we had FUN !

So yah... PS2, different game, different people. Not necessarily bad, just different preferences.

btw, I also find it unecessary to be so condescending towards people who enjoyed PS1 vehicle style and defend it: it's a matter of taste. To conclude, I'll stay vocal where I feel it's necessary (i.e. to defend what I enjoyed the most in PS1 because I want PS2 to be as enjoyable) and no, I do not enjoy racing games like Gran Turismo (is it truly possible to make a MMO out of that ? ).

PS2 devs will do what they deem best for their success. It does not mean it will be the right formula for everyone either. Time and beta will tell !

Last edited by sylphaen; 2011-09-28 at 03:43 AM.
sylphaen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-09-28, 04:50 AM   [Ignore Me] #44
Baneblade
Contributor
Lieutenant General
 
Baneblade's Avatar
 
Re: Compromise for the driver=gunner issue.


As one of the best tank drivers ever to play PS, I can say with certainty that the only thing a tank driver needs for a gun, is a 20mm 60 deg forward MG. Not very good at killing air, but useful against infantry and light vehicles.
__________________
Post at me bro.

Baneblade is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-09-28, 06:07 AM   [Ignore Me] #45
FastAndFree
Contributor
Major
 
FastAndFree's Avatar
 
Re: Compromise for the driver=gunner issue.


Originally Posted by Azren View Post
12.50% of the voters want PS 2 style tanks
50% want PS 1 style
The rest is the "BFR Style", "other" group. The people who want "releaseable main gun for gunner" belong to this group too.

So what you are saying that 50% of the people's opinion "means jack squat". 50% is a huge number in any vote, even greater if you consider that your side only has 12.50%.

At any rate, why does someone who clearly wants to play as a reaver pilot most of the time, want to tell those who want to be dedicated tank drivers to get in line? Really while your opinion should be noted, it should not be of much weight here.
For the record, I am also guilty of being a reaver pilot in the tank discussion, but I still want to point out that "50% of the votes" sure sound better than "just over a platoon's worth of votes". Because that poll only has 64 votes, total.

About a game that we hope thousands will play, probably many of whom never played or even heard about Planetside 1

So yes, I would say that the result of the poll is only indicative of a fraction of active PSU users' preferences, who are apparently a drop in the ocean.
__________________

Last edited by FastAndFree; 2011-09-28 at 06:09 AM.
FastAndFree is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
  PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Bookmarks

Wiki Activity Read More >
Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:30 AM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.