Anti aircraft vehicle, Why can they still be used as a solo driven/fired vehicle?

[Mongolian_dude]

Mongol, please, its cut and paste. the gunner w/o driver coding cant be more then 5 or 6 lines. it would take all of a minute to change

I personally can't recall saying it would be in any way difficult to change a single line of game code at any point within this thread. What I do see, however, is me stating that changing the game code would be unnecessary if you solved the problem at its root.
I thought it would have been fairly easy to deduce that from my post, keeping in consideration that I have just suggested a fairly major game change that would actually require a sizeable amount of effort put into changing code, amongst other things.

In actual fact, I have not yet stated whether I feel that changing an AAV to a two-man minimum to operate is a good move. I mentioned that a negative would be that it takes more players away from an already under-manned battlefield. A victory would be that it further promotes teamwork, yet possibly at the a cost. There's a strong chance we would see a large reduction in the population of AAVs on the battlefield, already few in numbers; with those solo-AAVs that make up a sizeable % of AAV numbers ceasing to exist.


I think if we took both initiatives of improving the AAA aspect of AAV gameplay and limiting the minimum required player-capacity, we would see by far the best results. In short, I don't think we should change the minimum players required...yet.


...mongol...

[Oddsodz]

I Think you would be proved wrong on the point about not seeing to may players use the Anti aircraft vehicles. The only one I don't see much use from players is the MEC Gaskin. We all know why. It has not got that extra gun to shot troops with. I See the Tunguska and Avenger used all the time. Including my self. I See that the MEC Gaskin gets used only by pilots that have just been shot down and want revenge. But the rest all get used in my experience.

You point about pulling more infantry away from the front is not a very good line. When the DEVs keep on adding new vehicles or deployable's like Mortars that in themselves take troops away from the front. Remember. You don't just have to cap a flag. You have to hold it also. And there are many ways to do just that. That is the joy or PR. So many ways to achieve the same goal. So yes. Making the Anti aircraft vehicle a 2 man job may take extra troops from the infantry pool. But if all that infantry pool is getting hammered by CAS. You as a team should have to make the choice. Man up the Anti aircraft vehicle or take cover. The answer should not be bring on the all powerful 1 man tank killing jet blowing Anti aircraft vehicle that needs no skill or teamwork to operate.

[ma21212]

Because they hardly get used as it is. How many times have you spawned in the mec main on Kashan to see 4 Gaskins sitting there untouched? Waiting for a air-target to pop onto the radar can get boring and driving even more so.

I like the AAA idea as it does indeed give the user much more input and involvement in ones actions.

I am not too sure I see where forcing the vehicle to have to require 2 crew members will actually have any impact on balance at all? It still comes down to 1 guy still in the turret with a lot of firepower. If anything it will lead to less AAV's around the map which imo there are already very few of.

you know, now that I think about it it does make sence to have it one manned. it takes less people away from the team and we dont have alot as it it.

[mat552]

The gaskin is just a less effective vehicle for its role than others. Its handling is...delicate and requires a skilled hand to avoid flipping the vehicle over while traversing rough terrain. The lack of a cannon or extra secondary weapon is a deal killer to most people, and, opinion lol, it doesn't sound or look quite as good as the other ones.

[Oddsodz]

Well I shall say no more on the matter. The point has been made. If you can't see the point. That's not my fault. If some of you feel that a one man tank jet helo troop killing machine that needs no teamwork to use in the game. Then so be it. I Myself feel it is a just not right. And needs to be changed.

[Tim270]

Maybe a class system of AAV's could be made? A 'heavy' one such as Tunguska etc that are kinda op with one guy that require 2 man and a light class such as the Gaskin that only requires 1.

[Alex6714]

I think taking people of the front is not a problem. Let them choose. And anyway, treat the AAV like an IFV, except instead of TOWs it has AA missiles. Remove one tank or IFV from the map and then the crew that would take that, can take the AAV instead and there is no loss of people. I don?t know why 4 AAVs are needed anyway, if they were 2 manned you can just halve it to 2 and not lose any infantry either.

Then if your team decides its more important to have the 2 extra guys on foot with them than in an AAV to protect them, its their loss/or gain.

[Kain888]

I think taking people of the front is not a problem. Let them choose. And anyway, treat the AAV like an IFV, except instead of TOWs it has AA missiles. Remove one tank or IFV from the map and then the crew that would take that, can take the AAV instead and there is no loss of people. I don?t know why 4 AAVs are needed anyway, if they were 2 manned you can just halve it to 2 and not lose any infantry either.

QFT!

This sums this up very nicely.

[Mongolian_dude]

I Think you would be proved wrong on the point about not seeing to may players use the Anti aircraft vehicles. The only one I don't see much use from players is the MEC Gaskin. We all know why. It has not got that extra gun to shot troops with. I See the Tunguska and Avenger used all the time. Including my self. I See that the MEC Gaskin gets used only by pilots that have just been shot down and want revenge. But the rest all get used in my experience.

You point about pulling more infantry away from the front is not a very good line. When the DEVs keep on adding new vehicles or deployable's like Mortars that in themselves take troops away from the front. Remember. You don't just have to cap a flag. You have to hold it also. And there are many ways to do just that. That is the joy or PR. So many ways to achieve the same goal. So yes. Making the Anti aircraft vehicle a 2 man job may take extra troops from the infantry pool. But if all that infantry pool is getting hammered by CAS. You as a team should have to make the choice. Man up the Anti aircraft vehicle or take cover. The answer should not be bring on the all powerful 1 man tank killing jet blowing Anti aircraft vehicle that needs no skill or teamwork to operate.

I agree that one more man is not a huge amount to ask, but comparing that change to AAVs with the introduction of mortars is, I feel, not a very good comparison.
Mortars are much more justifiable in terms of manpower as they introduce a new element to PR and arguably revolutionised battle dynamics (you now no longer have to wait half an hour to make an attempt at breaking your enemy's almost-impenetrable defence with area attack. Incentives for mobility).

Adding a single man to crew an AAV will quite obviously have a less dramatic effect on battle dynamics. Alex does make a good point about a team's choice though.


...mongol...

[Imchicken1]

Maybe a class system of AAV's could be made? A 'heavy' one such as Tunguska etc that are kinda op with one guy that require 2 man and a light class such as the Gaskin that only requires 1.

I like it. AAV's with only missles (Gaskin, MTLB one, etc) could be one manned, as they only have the missles, while the ones with guns as well (Tunguska, Chinese variant of the tunguska) require 2 men. The missle AAV's can only damage aircraft, while they pose no threat to ground forces unless they come within a very close range. The gun AAV's can pretty much own anything, in the ground and in the air. They get zoom, plus some rapid fire guns

It is silly that AAV's can be one manned though

[Wispit]

How does making it 2 manned change the possibilty of a "base raping raping megamachicne" stop it from happening again. If its dual crewed, not only does th gunner have no warm up time cose he will be constantly manning the vehicle, He will have a driver able to move him should they warrant to much attention.
Thats how they become highly deadly, even just the AA only ones, because it is mobile, it wont be gauranteed to be in the same spot, so you can be seen run off and hide somewhere else while the entire time the gunner can scan the air. Making it much more deadly. especially if the other team never knew it was about.

[Bazul14]

Exactly. And everyone should spawn somewhere else, get a HAT/LAT, own the AAV then do whatever they want.

[Wh33lman]

How does making it 2 manned change the possibilty of a "base raping raping megamachicne" stop it from happening again.

the one will corrupt before the many.

first, you have to have 2 players willing to risk a ban and baserape.
second, with the driver in the vehicle, it shows up on the map. an admin spots them, they're going to be gone.

it might not stop it, but its definatly going to slow it down.

and mongol, your worried about taking more people off the battlefield? the DEVs just implemented mortars, thats 6 people off the frontlines, whats 2 more?

and were assumeing a optimum 32v32 match. 4 guys off either side is still going to make it even.

[Bad&Mad]

Agree with Oddsodz.
Asked myself same questions many many times, and couldnt find the answer..
AAV must be 2-manned, like the other special vehicles.

[Mora]

Why not just remove them all. Problem solved! There is already a lot off AA on the maps.

[eztonia]

Armoured assault can be very hard without AAVs. I hate Iron eagle bc IDF doesnt have a AAV and I get owned by havocs bit too often.

[Bazul14]

the one will corrupt before the many.

first, you have to have 2 players willing to risk a ban and baserape.
second, with the driver in the vehicle, it shows up on the map. an admin spots them, they're going to be gone.

it might not stop it, but its definatly going to slow it down.

and mongol, your worried about taking more people off the battlefield? the DEVs just implemented mortars, thats 6 people off the frontlines, whats 2 more?

and were assumeing a optimum 32v32 match. 4 guys off either side is still going to make it even.

I think that we should also require logitrucks to be 2 manned. You join, get in a squad, take AA kit, steal a INF logi with 4 ammo crates and solo it near the enemy main. There you can camp for jets and helis, and almost nobody will find you. We assume that the enemy team is "special" and that the admins are either drunk, absent or on crack. There, with the AA kit you can camp the enemy base and get all the kills u want if you hide when you need to.



The AAVs would use someone that could have a lot more fun than driving a lightly armored vehicle over the map. Common, driving an AAV is not fun, its worse than driving a tank. At least on a tank you live a while, have some zoom and can look around with thermals. On an AAV you have none, and getting another person to join the squad deaths sucks. I mean common, sometimes tank squads get wiped out. It's not impossible. The mortars are at least kind of fun, because there are something new and you actually have a major impact on the gameplay. Also, they don't need 6 people, but rather 4( the Sqld can spot and fire it, the rest of the sqlds can spot and the commander, it's a lot more usefull)
Also, on most servers, even NoobCore, the admins pay some attention to base rape, and usually stop it before it affects gameplay. If the admins are present, the impact of that soloed AAV is either small or inexistent. Tadaaa.

[Truism]

All the vehicles should be single crewable, just with limitations. Like not being able to fire and maneuvre.

AA is fine being single crewed and it's a waste of someone's time and a player having a driver afking while someone plays GBAD.

[Jonathan_Archer_nx01]

I disagree. AA vehicles are supposed to be defensive units and unless you pay somebody to do it, nobody is going to volunteer a driver. How much fun is that? Sitting in a vehicle and do nothing all day long?

Baserape however, needs to be treated alternatively. With a script kicking players who baserape - it's as simple as that.