Forum Opinion on Tank Bailing Poll

[dogbadger]

Lazy is the word I've chosen to summarize all the rational arguments against TW's no-bailing decision, which you would realize if you are really following this discussion.....

You can't really criticise ppl for not following a thread, if you are going to attempt to create confusion about your use of the word lazy - which not 20 mins before was clearly directed at tripwire.

If players will be upset that they won't be very effective on foot as a tanker, wouldn't it follow that they would be even more upset if they were able to do absolutely nothing once their tank has been disabled?

Infantry are able to do nothing once they themselves are disabled.
Why should tankers have a 2nd chance to be effective, to any degree, if they have allowed their equipment to be rendered useless.
If they are going to be upset, they should be upset with themselves.

 

[Grobut]

Generally tankers don't go fighting on foot in Ost anyways because all they have is a pistol, whereas tank commanders can still call arty and have SMGs. If you give all tankers pistols only, and disallow them to capture objectives (which they shouldn't be anyway), then tankers will have little incentive to fight on foot, and even then, only to fight off any immediate dangers they face after bailing out, after which they can despawn themselves (with an appropriate delay so they can't just despawn themselves to escape death) rather than continue fighting on foot.

Thouse aren't bad suggestions, as it would prevent people from abusing the tank class as a personal "maximise my kill/death ratio" powerup rather than the teamplay minded class it should be, but it's still a lot of work for little gain.

The only real loss i see from removing tank bailing (once we remove all the silly gamey reasons that where abused in Roost) is the abillity to scout ahead whilst the tank remains hidden, that would be a valid reason to exit the tank, and on tank-only maps (not so much on combined arms maps, as all the infantry crawling about would make it very risky indeed) that can be considdered a downgrade, not a gamebraking one, but yeah, a downgrade.
(as for bailing to prevent death, i see no reason why scuttling the tank coulden't perform that task, all it really must do is preserve reinforcements)

But it's a huge amount of work to make this system just for that, the work that would have to be put into it is far in excess of what i suspect most people realize, on par with all the anim work put into switching between all the positions, and harder to code, it's no small thing that would have to be done here.

 

[Ender]

question is, if your tank has 3 human players and 1 of your teammates is getting killed, has your teammate the option to get in a new tank with bots or does he have to wait until the rest got killed?

I am going to guess and say they spawn with their crew as a whole. But who knows how the squads work. you maybe able to leave and make a different one so you don't have to wait.

 

[Mormegil]

From what I know, tankers actually bailed quite often - pretty much when they felt they had little chance of surviving. The tank battle in Cologne that Hans posted is a good example of this. The Panther takes one hit, and the crew bail out, even before (IIRC) the tank catches fire. The Sherman takes a single hit, wounding 3 of the 5 crewmembers, and they all bail out. A tank that has been penetrated by an enemy weapon is definitely not safer than being outside your tank (which may not necessarily be an open field). Not only are you a bigger target, which the enemy has already zeroed in on, after the first hit, its quite clear that the tank WILL be destroyed, while escaping on foot still leaves you with some chance of escaping.

Sure they bailed. But did they go on to fight on foot with pistols? Or did they retreat back to the rear?

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Thouse aren't bad suggestions, as it would prevent people from abusing the tank class as a personal "maximise my kill/death ratio" powerup rather than the teamplay minded class it should be, but it's still a lot of work for little gain....

That is a good point that hasn't been brought up much, that it's a lot of work for very little gain; and that is ignoring all the gamey and unrealistic abuse that most likely would result from this.


Doesn't hurt to repeat this again either...

Originally Posted by Quote from Battlefront forums
However, it goes a step further. When we provide support for a particular tactic, even if unintentionally, it will get used if a player perceives it to be beneficial (perception is more important than actual results in our experience). The use of that tactic can then be far, far out of proportion to how it was used in real life. This then leads to a fundamental problem with supporting outlier type situations:

The outlier situation is supported to make the game more realistic, but if it is used unrealistically often then that lowers the overall realism of the tactical environment.

 

[Yoshiro]

Sure they bailed. But did they go on to fight on foot with pistols? Or did they retreat back to the rear?

This is our stance on the situation. Any bailed crew would be combat ineffective, just like we treat any shot that would take a soldier out of combat as "fatal" in game.

As much as we would like to do bailing animations for each crew position, it would leave us with the choice of having tankers running around the battlefield (which we would probably leave with no capping power), or having AI run the characters to retreat. One would take a lot of work and not bring anything to the game. The other would take more work, and still not bring much to the game.

So when it comes down to managing resources, this is not a high priority versus the many other things that are going into the game.

 

[Zetsumei]

If it would be either bailing out of your tank or an ability for infantry soldiers to ride on tanks. I would easily vote that I would prefer the infantry to ride on the tanks .

 

[Kashash]

Will it be possible to ride on tanks and have someone as a scouter/observer and to be able to be in contact with the tank crew and give the crew useful information about the situation in the battle?

Something kind of Clint Eastwood aka Kelly forwarding the sherman and combing the area in front of him
YouTube - Kelly's Heroes part 14

BTW notice how at 4:55 crew of a Tiger bails out completely for no reason? lolwut
I know hollywood movie is not the best example though

 

[Dwin]

Sure they bailed. But did they go on to fight on foot with pistols? Or did they retreat back to the rear?

If they were attacked while retreating, they would fight. As I've said, there are greater reasons for being able to exit the tank other than fighting.

This is our stance on the situation. Any bailed crew would be combat ineffective, just like we treat any shot that would take a soldier out of combat as "fatal" in game.

As much as we would like to do bailing animations for each crew position, it would leave us with the choice of having tankers running around the battlefield (which we would probably leave with no capping power), or having AI run the characters to retreat. One would take a lot of work and not bring anything to the game. The other would take more work, and still not bring much to the game.

So when it comes down to managing resources, this is not a high priority versus the many other things that are going into the game.

Thank you.

 

[JCoquillon]

I also disagree with the wording of the poll. Feels very leading to me.

The poll should read: "Should you be able to exit the tanks as a tanker?"

Yes - I want to be able to huff it out on foot
No - I want to get back into the action in a tank ASAP
Whatever - I'm easy with whatever system gets used

 

[RedGuardist]

/off topic, sorry

BTW notice how at 4:55 crew of a Tiger bails out completely for no reason? lolwut
I know hollywood movie is not the best example though

For no reason? There was no one else in the tank anymore and the tank was hit once already (wasn

 

[Nimsky]

I don't see a reason why you'd have to leave the tank? The only reason that seems reasonable would be to scout ahead, but isn't that what the infantry is for anyway?

You can scuttle the tank so the argument "I don't want to be a sitting duck with my tracks blown off" doesn't hold water either. Sure, real tankers might bail out if the interior catches fire and then run back to friendly lines, but what fun is it to run back to spawn for a new tank?

I think it's great that tankers spawn and die with the tank. No more racing for the tanks and unrealistic scenarios where a single tanker fights on foot. The pros definitely outweigh the cons IMO.

I do wonder what happens with the AI crew members when you scuttle the tank. Will they bail out and run off to the sides of the map, or do they keep sitting in the tank until the tank gets fully destroyed or disappears?

 

[Hans Ludwig]

I have played a game called Steal Fury: Kharkov 1942 - a panzer sim - that allows you to command your AI crew to get out and do repairs, usually on the tracks. I believe this would give any panzer commander relief in knowing he isn't worthless or should just respawn because his tracks were blown.

 

[jalex3]

I have played a game called Steal Fury: Kharkov 1942 - a panzer sim - that allows you to command your AI crew to get out and do repairs, usually on the tracks. I believe this would give any panzer commander relief in knowing he isn't worthless or should just respawn because his tracks were blown.

I dont see this working to well in hos. it would seem to be allot of work, would you need to leave tank and do animation? otherwise it would end up like bc2

im also wondering how easy it will be for tanks shells to kill the crew and how easy will it be to destroy tracks?

 

[MEGADETHTHRETH]

I have played a game called Steal Fury: Kharkov 1942 - a panzer sim - that allows you to command your AI crew to get out and do repairs, usually on the tracks. I believe this would give any panzer commander relief in knowing he isn't worthless or should just respawn because his tracks were blown.

Hans, there is some tripwire fanboys in here that doesn't like you cause everyone of your posts are thumbed down, whether good or bad.
I personally like your posts cause they are the truth, and none of the fanboys wanna hear your truthful suggestions.

 

[SheepDip]

You need to get some perspective. These things require considerable development, and implementing them when they bring very little to the game is a waste of development time that could be used to improve things that are far more important.

 

[Pvt.Skoko]

I'm okay with the no bailing even though I voted for bailing. Tripwire has a very good reason to not put bailing and I understand completely. Personally I would like to be able to get out of the tank for realism sake, but the pros of not being able to outway the cons and it is definately a good decision

 

[Hans Ludwig]

I love how all the fanboys are "this would require too much effort for TWI." But then they contradict themselves when they praise TWI for making something more realistic, more immerssive with more features than the cookie cutter COD series that presently dominates the PC/console gaming market.

 

[SheepDip]

I love how all the fanboys are "this would require too much effort for TWI." But then they contradict themselves when they praise TWI for making something more realistic, more immerssive with more features than the cookie cutter COD series that presently dominates the PC/console gaming market.

Yeah, cos having balance in development is such a bad thing.

 

[Xendance]

I love how all the fanboys are "this would require too much effort for TWI." But then they contradict themselves when they praise TWI for making something more realistic, more immerssive with more features than the cookie cutter COD series that presently dominates the PC/console gaming market.

How is that a contradiction?