[Rant] Armor needs to be more restricted in operating

Ragni<RangersPL> · Post by **Ragni<RangersPL>** » 2007-09-19 17:51

It's not easy to compare a tank and an attack helo. Crew member responsible for moving a tank (driver) doesn't have any weapon to operate, while helos pilot (responsible for flying) have their rockets. You can't add the same principle for a tank and an attack helo because those vehicles are different.

I prefer to have ta least 2 crewman tank... but if i have to work with someone that i don't know i prefer to take a walk. I'm always using a tank with one of my clanmates (communication is the main reason).
Reasons why i prefer 2 crewman tank:
-> tank with 2 men can faster retreat in dangerous situation (no wasteing time while switching seats)
-> gunner while snipeing with his cannon or coax has a very narrow point of view. Additional pair of eyes (driver) or even two pair of eyes (driver + .50 gunner) can be very usefull in spoting targets and threats.
-> with a little bit of patience and hard work you will be able to hit enemy tank quite often while your tank is moving on a flat terrain (just don't use max zoom)... but as a solo tanker you don't have the opportunity to learn it.
-> while retreating from an ambush you can shoot and moving reverse ta the same time... probably you ain't going to hit anybody but shooting on to enemy positions will make them to avoid fire and hide.

PS. Thats my opinion, you don't have to agree with this.
Sorry for my bad english...

AnRK · Post by **AnRK** » 2007-09-19 18:36

Sadist_Cain wrote:Yes indeed we are striving for realism
Reality = NO SOLO TANKING... END OF now everyone leave it

If your going for the all out realism arguement where's the loader and commander positions. End of the day 32 people isn't very many and the more people in a tank the less playing infantry. I still don't see the problem with solo taking, your at a disadvantage been solo and you can do all the irritating camping BETTER with two people so that's a stupid arguement against it. I want the realism of having a full tank crew ideally, but there's little enough people in a game in the first place.

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2007-09-19 18:40

It's not easy to compare a tank and an attack helo

Actually it is comparable, the gunners do the most killing and the attack chopper equals a sort of "air tank"

Ragni<RangersPL> · Post by **Ragni<RangersPL>** » 2007-09-19 19:51

Outlawz wrote:Actually it is comparable, the gunners do the most killing and the attack chopper equals a sort of "air tank"

I meant that tanks driver can't shot and drive at the same time (because he doesn't have any onboard weapon to operate while he is sitting on drivers seat) and attack helos pilot can fly and shoot at the same time sitting on pilots seat (by using rockets). That's why i wrote that it's not so simple to compare a tank and an attack helo.

Harrod200 · Post by **Harrod200** » 2007-09-19 19:58

Well an attack chopper minus gunner is still a dangerous thing but nowhere near as dangerous as when fully manned.

A tank on the other hand can quite easily operate with a solo user with little trouble.

IMO any armoured vehicle with seperate driver/gunner positions should need the driver position filled to use the gun. If that's out of the question, how about slowing the traverse speed of the turret, simulating lower output without the engine running.

jerkzilla · Post by **jerkzilla** » 2007-09-19 20:19

Outlawz wrote:Actually it is comparable, the gunners do the most killing and the attack chopper equals a sort of "air tank"

On the contrary Outlawz, the attack helo is not at all comparable to a tank.
Because when a chopper has a gunner, it's efficiency is raised exponentially with clear advantages over a chopper with no gunner whereas a fully crewed tank has few advantages over a 1 man crewed tank. In an an open, flat field, a solo tank has just as big a chance to win as a fully crewed tank. With no stabilization for the gun, just about any advantages being a moving target brings are canceled out by the substantial loss in accuracy (exceptions would be clan mates and groups that know themselves and have played a lot together, but those aren't that common). A possible advantage of a 2 man crewed tank is the ability to switch from hull down to hide and vice versa quickly, generally hit and run tactics are a lot easier to employ.
I'd like to point out (again) that the Land Rover's .50 cal is, horizontally at least, stabilized... to an extent.
A slight problem, which I doubt could be fixed, is that the tank tends to move slightly when positioned on irregular terrain and the driver seat occupied. I think it should be looked into but I have no idea on what the problem is.
On a personal note, I think getting things done with a tank while having another crewman with you is a lot more fun than soloing, it's that feeling you get like when you revive your squad leader or picking up a critically wounded medic's kit and reviving him, a sort of pride in teamwork.

[uBp]Irish · Post by **[uBp]Irish** » 2007-09-19 22:06

they totally are comparable.

solo piloted helo

-can still move around
-can still kill things while moving
-can get away if in bad shape really fast.
-doesnt have to switch positions
-isnt limited to fighting on the ground.

solo tanker

-has to position himself before being able to engage
-has to switch positions before engaging the target AND wait for the rounds to load in.
-has to back out of the engagement while probably underfire with no way of defending themselves to get to a spot where they can get to safety.
-has to switch positions between moving and killing.

now, looking at those two, which one do you think obviously has the upperhand.

granted, if both vehicles had their gunner's they would be unstoppable, but in the case of a helo pilot, he doesnt have to switch positions to kill things like the driver in a tank has to.

Also, for the last time, i do not condone solo-tanking. I do it, yes, but not for the points or the kills, but for the ethical reason of making it easier for guys in the back to cap flags.

I do go against the reasoning that any limitation put on a tank (i.e. people needed to operate the vehicle) not be enforced on other vehicles (i.e. attack helo's/transport helo's)

My example about the guy in a hummer is traced back to reality where a soldier in iraq is not going to jump in a landrover/hummer on his own and leave 4-5 other people waiting at the mainbase for a ride to the battlefield. If we are going to enforce reality, than enforce it like that as well. Leaving your teammates at the main flag with no ride to the battlefield isnt teamwork, and if PR is striving for a reality based game that encourages teamwork, than i see no reason why a hummer shouldnt have a passenger limitation put on it, if a tank is going to have a crewman limitation enforced on it. The mere thought is unethical since you are now purposefully singling out one vehicle out of many that have beed adapted to gameplay. If balance with solo tanking is what you want, than i want balance with solo-helo piloting, and smacktards that leave teamates at the flags to walk.

It is rediculous that one vehicle should be singled out, out of all the vehicles in the game, just because if one guy takes it out a hilltop and can continute to knock out enemy units, it's a gameplay issue. Bullcrap. You put vehicle limitations on a tank, and you better have a damn good reason for not putting them on other vehicles as well. If you say gameplay i'm going to say reality and then we have to compromise since that is what PR is working for: gameplay and reality.

Ragni<RangersPL> · Post by **Ragni<RangersPL>** » 2007-09-19 22:27

'[uBp wrote:Irish;489124']
I do go against the reasoning that any limitation put on a tank (i.e. people needed to operate the vehicle) not be enforced on other vehicles (i.e. attack helo's/transport helo's)

I agree with that. If there will be any limitations, it should be added for all vehicles.

jerkzilla · Post by **jerkzilla** » 2007-09-20 12:22

Please excuse the explicit content but if you use an AH without a gunner then: a) there aren't enough people on the server
b) you're retarded
c) the others are too retarded to gun for you
Now case a) is excluded since we're judging efficiency on a decently populated server, when all factors come into play.
As I said in my previous post, an AH with a gunner is far more efficient than one without a gunner. And that is not the case with tanks. Solo tanks can and will, at least occasionally, take out fully manned tanks. The efficiency gap between fully manned tanks and soloed tanks needs to be bigger, like the one between fully manned attack helicopters and soloed gunships.
Also I ,at least, never said anything about anyone doing it for the points or kills, just that there aren't enough advantages for fully crewed tanks.
EDIT: the people that take transports alone, leaving a couple of team mates behind is not the mod's fault.

[uBp]Irish · Post by **[uBp]Irish** » 2007-09-20 12:39

jerkzilla wrote:EDIT: the people that take transports alone, leaving a couple of team mates behind is not the mod's fault.

neither is a guy taking a tank on his own either.

he's adapted to the enviornment of the game. it is hazardous to the crew of a two man tank if they go out over hills and valleys. However on the other side, a solo tanker can go out on his own, setup like a sentry post with a BFG, and just wait for targets of opportunity to roll into his gun sights. Now, why in the world would you waste another person to a two man tank crew, when he would just end up sitting in the driver's slot waiting for the "OMMGG WE"VE BEEN HIT REVERSE REVERSE!!!" command. You have now successfully pulled one guy out of the fight that could be helping to cap flags or something else, but no, you've made him be the poor driver that just sits in the tank and makes circles with his CITV.

jerkzilla · Post by **jerkzilla** » 2007-09-20 13:10

[uBp]Irish wrote:Now, why in the world would you waste another person to a two man tank crew, when he would just end up sitting in the driver's slot waiting for the "OMMGG WE"VE BEEN HIT REVERSE REVERSE!!!" command.

Exactly, there should be a better reason for him to be there, I'm not saying there is.
From what I can tell, you're justifying something I'm using in my argument.
The difference between someone taking a HMMWV alone leaving team mates to go on foot and a guy soloing a tank is that one is bad and the other is not so bad.
You are right, a solo tank can do almost as much as a fully crewed tank right now. And it really shouldn't be like that.

Heliocentric · Post by **Heliocentric** » 2007-09-20 14:48

yunno, all we need are some of the things that scare tanks in real life, like laser guided missiles, and airpower.

Some maps the artillary (small maps that still have tanks) could be a single powerful antitank blast. or it would be great if you could order a "flyby" of a A-10 which would bring some fire down onto anything APC or bigger.

Still, i dont have too much beef with solo tanks, they can be avoided and if they get too close? have your engineer sort it out. 2 man tanks? utterly terrifying, mobile and powerful so its harder to avoid.

[uBp]Irish · Post by **[uBp]Irish** » 2007-09-20 16:26

helio.. have you not played kashan?

a tank moving anywhere on that map can be 1shot killed by the a-10/su-something, with it's ATGM.....

Lucid Nightmare · Post by **Lucid Nightmare** » 2007-09-20 16:49

I think in everyone's fervour to bash solo crewing, we are forgetting some very important points.

Tank crews spend a whole lot of time 'bonding' with each other. The eat, sleep, train and tank together. This allows them to learn each others personalities, quirks and other wonderful things. The combined result means they are a coordinated fighting body that can often act without words being said. They know what the others will do in a certain situation, so they can act with little/no delay when such a situation arises.

Now, the problem here is, we don't get this bond in PR, thus, multicrewed tanks are still going to be terribly sluggish, unless you are multicrewing with someone you know in reality and have this established "bond" with. However, when you solocrew, you can act as fast as you can think, because you are only one person.

We are also missing all the wonderful gadgets and gizmo's that tanks have in reality. These devices are utilised by different members of the crew simultaneously. However, all we have in PR is the optical sight for the gunner, and the drivers camera. No thermal vision, no stabilisers, no autoloaders, nada.

How many people that have posted in this thread consider themselves tankers? How many consider themselves tankers that are above the average? How many people are primarily infantry players that are just having a moan because they just got raped by a tank, regardless of whether it was solo or multicrewing?
Well, I can say, without a doubt, that any tanker with the tinyest amount of grey matter between their ears will no doubt admit that a solotanker is far more effictive than a multicrewer of the same skill level in 9 situations out of 10. It's not the devs fault, it's not the players fault, it's not the tank's fault. It's just the way things are at the moment. The limitations of the BF2 engine make this so.

So, what is the problem here? Well, it's that solocrewed tanks are outrageously more effective than a multicrewed tank. Realistically speaking, this isn't true. For all those realism nazi's that say "people in reality don't drive a tank all by themselves into combat", use a bit of imagination you pathetic dolts. Of course they don't! But who's to say that the single person driving that tank doesn't represent a unified crew acting as one?

"But that's just stupid! They aren't there! It's like they're invisible! Those actions can't be performed because the crewmen are missing!"

Oh no, heaven forbid liberties might have to be taken to smooth things out and make things work with this terrible engine. The abrams doesn't have a loader, but the shells are put inplace!

"OMG, invisible crewmembers are doing work! Blasphemey! Burn the heretic!"

The problem here is not that solotanks are overpowered, it's that multicrewed tanks aren't more appealing due to their ovbious shortcomings. Instead of nerfing the pilot (the primary user) of the attack chopper, what did they do? They made the gunner (the secondary user) utter rapeage. So, theoretically, they should do this with tanks. Make the secondary user (the driver) beyond awesome.

The gunner of the tank is the primary user simply because in a solo environment, that is where they will spend most of their time. Whereas in a chopper, majority of their time is spent in the drivers seat.

So, now we come to the issue of how we make the secondary user more appealing in a tank? Photon torpedoes, death ray, positron shielding, dalek launcher?

Frankly, I have absolutely no idea. But that's what you lot are for. Get those brains working, make the driver one bad arse mother fucker. Make it so that when a tank has one, it becomes the very essence of rapeage given physical form. And do it without nerfing the gunner.

Have fun!

[uBp]Irish · Post by **[uBp]Irish** » 2007-09-20 18:42

damn good post.

be back soon with more feedback, off to class and i'm late.

jerkzilla · Post by **jerkzilla** » 2007-09-20 20:32

I bash soloing primarily because the driver is kinda useless and I despise something useless.

Well, if the CROW system will ever make an appearance, the driver could be the one to use it, but there may be a problem with the MG being the turret's child and not the hull's.
Better smoke screen would be welcome as well.
EDIT just found a video on you tube, see how the MG can keep on target with such ease even when the vehicle makes a tight turn at some point.

Hohum · Post by **Hohum** » 2007-09-20 21:58

Add a 5 second delay to get into a tank or swap between gunner/commander, and a ten second delay to swap to/from driver. Assuming it's technically feasible.

This should reduce the amount of soloing considerably.

Lucid Nightmare · Post by **Lucid Nightmare** » 2007-09-21 01:58

jerkzilla wrote:I bash soloing primarily because the driver is kinda useless and I despise something useless.

Well, if the CROW system will ever make an appearance, the driver could be the one to use it, but there may be a problem with the MG being the turret's child and not the hull's.
Better smoke screen would be welcome as well.
EDIT just found a video on you tube, see how the MG can keep on target with such ease even when the vehicle makes a tight turn at some point.

Horizontal stabilisation is all well and good, but it's the vertical stabilisation that's the problem. Compensating for sideways movement is easy. Not so for the vertical, especially when the tank is bouncing all over the place because it's on the move.

Hohum wrote:Add a 5 second delay to get into a tank or swap between gunner/commander, and a ten second delay to swap to/from driver. Assuming it's technically feasible.

This should reduce the amount of soloing considerably.

No, it won't. Multicrewing will still be unfavourable. Solotankers will just adopt new tactics and fight to the death when they normally would have retreated. . .

You fail at a suggestion. Try again.

RHYS4190 · Post by **RHYS4190** » 2007-09-21 06:36

If you take out solo tanking you'll scruw up PR that simple.

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2007-09-21 06:50

We already did take out solo tanking and APCs. So PR is already screwed then?

You have now successfully pulled one guy out of the fight that could be helping to cap flags or something else, but no, you've made him be the poor driver that just sits in the tank and makes circles with his CITV.

Thats your point of view.
I'd see it as "I just saved a team asset and his gunner from being destroyed."