• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

PAX Interview (sorry, gonna have to read :P)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#81
Zetsumei said:
I hope that tank riding will be possible or at least that there is something more common for infantry transport than a UC for the allies.
Click to expand...

For the love of GOD... they seriously need to look into adding riders to tanks. That was a common tactic employed by the Soviets and even Germans (not as readily however). That is one feature which i really hope is implemented. There is nothing more annoying as an infantrymen
than seeing tanks with ample space on them drive off. However, if spawns and transports can alter this annoyance effectively, then tank riding may not be needed after all...

:IS2:
 
Upvote 0
#85
which post? pretty sure i got the "corrections" in there that john already posted on the first page.

if you mean about "bailing", i posted what i was told by both alan and john. one said bailing still might be "considered", the other said "not gonna happen". i like what alan kept saying "there's a lot of things that need to be testing on a large scale" before decisions are made. ;)
 
Upvote 0
#86
Devil_Inside said:
How about "delayed" teleporting? Haven't seen this idea on the forums yet.
Maybe it doesn't look too good, but respawning doesn't look good either, so why not?
Click to expand...

Even if there is a "delayed teleporting" effect, the dismounting player should be visible to those outside the tank and capable of being killed during this "delay". Otherwise, the effect to third persons would be the same as an instant teleport.

RE: Steiner....by default James Coburn is BA. Doesn't matter if he's 30 or 50. :cool: (And don't discount us old farts either. Lots of us are tougher than a lot of 20 somethings ;). Remember, we had to walk to school. And it was uphill both ways. )
 
  • Like
Reactions: -[SiN]-bswearer and Peter.Steele
Upvote 0
#87
-[SiN]-bswearer said:
which post? pretty sure i got the "corrections" in there that john already posted on the first page.

if you mean about "bailing", i posted what i was told by both alan and john. one said bailing still might be "considered", the other said "not gonna happen". i like what alan kept saying "there's a lot of things that need to be testing on a large scale" before decisions are made. ;)
Click to expand...

Orly? You still have that the singleplayer campaign is the same as the MP and that there can only be 3 human tankcrewmen in a tank.
 
Upvote 0
#88
Lucan946 said:
Orly? You still have that the singleplayer campaign is the same as the MP and that there can only be 3 human tankcrewmen in a tank.
Click to expand...

well that's because:

the way Alan described the single/multiplayer campaigns was that there is currently not much difference in the core campaign structure.

and according to Alan there can only be 3 human tank crewmen in a tank......not referring to amount of crewable positions, referring to how many actual humans can be in a tank to crew those positions.
 
Upvote 0
#89
Floyd said:
RE: Steiner....by default James Coburn is BA. Doesn't matter if he's 30 or 50. :cool: (And don't discount us old farts either. Lots of us are tougher than a lot of 20 somethings ;). Remember, we had to walk to school. And it was uphill both ways. )
Click to expand...

Yeah, Floyd, I would never belittle Coburn. Nor the old farts, perish the thought. ;)

I just meant that while Coburn is indeed BA, 50 years old guys are just way over aged being in the front lines of WWII (as ordinary combat soldiers). So I just wished, that the faces of the "heroes" should not be older than maximum 35-39 years old to keep the impression.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#92
I thought TWI said there will be enough tanks for all tankers involved (stock maps). If so, then you won't have a tanker locked out of a tank standing in the spawn.

Now, that may be different when someone creates a custom map with limited numbers of tanks per tankers. In that case, it would be nice if the locking out feature was either a server setting or done in the map per the mappers wishes.
 
Upvote 0
#97
Dwin said:
I'm sure a map with only one or two tanks per side would have un-lockable tanks so this can't happen.
Click to expand...

sorry, I'm still against "forcing" teamwork down anyone's throats. if the commander wants to lock the tank, its because he doesn't want to cooperate and bad things will happen if you force him... (teamkillings, sitting at spawn, and stuff like that) and that is a much greater problem than a tank with only one guy

the number of players manning the tanks will depend on what the tank commanders decide, I don't see any problem in that system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stormer
Upvote 0
#99
Stormer said:
the game should punish the people who don't want to cooperate, not reward them
Click to expand...


Now this is where I have a problem. People play games their own way, and nobody should be forced to play any kind of way, no matter how much it annoys a person or group that plays another way.

Reward teamwork by all means ( Please!! ), but don't punish individuality. The world would be a very dull place without it ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter.Steele
Upvote 0
#100
Stormer said:
the game should punish the people who don't want to cooperate, not reward them
Click to expand...

Well that is relative to the situation, I can think of plenty of situations whilst playing RO where the game has been in relative stalemate - I've taken the initiative, done something no one on the team is doing, and it's sparked things into life. I wasn't cooperating, I was bored and feeling cocky - so I did something entirely for myself and it helped the team.

This all comes down to balancing reward/punishment (as we know you'll get negative things for tk's etc).
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu