• 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/

Exiting Tanks

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#61
Mormegil said:
I don't think anybody's arguing it wouldn't happen in real life.

The point is, when you leave your tank, you aren't an effective tanker. You are combat ineffective as your chosen role. It is equivalent to being a critically injured/crippled (but living) infantryman.

Neither of these scenarios need to be modeled.
Click to expand...


Yes and in addition to that one should keep in mind that there will be limited Tank Commander Roles avaible for each side. And this is the limiting Factor on how many Tanks will be avaible to each side.

So if 2 out of 3 Tanks get bailed from, your down to 1 Tank.... while it may be nice to get Exit Animations, if implemented i'd like to see a special System in use.
This System will remove your hold on the Tanker Class, so if someone else decides to use your Tank Slot, you'll have to respawn as Rifleman when you finally die.
Might not be nice, but one could blend in a Warning (if Game helpers are active) that you loose the Tanker Class if you decide to abandon your Tank.
 
Upvote 0
#62
I go for option 1. A tanker is useless without a tank. If he bails it's just to save his skin and make his way back to get another tank ...

Also I like the idea of scuttling. I will allow others to crew my tank just so I can drive out of the spawn and then activate the scuttling charge with them all trapped inside!

MAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!1111
 
Upvote 0
#63
Flanker15 said:
Considerer it purely from a gameplay perspective:
What's better for your team?
-You scuttle your tank and have a new tank after you respawn.
-You jump out of your tank and play as a useless infantry man then die and wait to respawn with a new tank, denying your team a tank for a longer period of time while contributing nothing in return.
Click to expand...


well think of it from a capping perspective or from a reinforcements perspective......

in ROOST every player regardless of class has "cap power". i'd imagine ROHOS will be the same way, i mean there will be a tanking only map in territory mode so obviously tank crewmen will have to have the ability to cap an objective. if you are stuck in a burning tank 25 yards from an objective that the enemy is starting to capture, would it not be better for your team to exit your immobilized tank to get in the capzone to save it? it would take much longer to scuttle the tank, wait to respawn, finally respawn and then have to drive halfway accross the map to get to that zone you were just literally a few steps away from.

from a reinforcements perspective, in ROOST each crewman's life counted towards reinforcements. if you die, your team loses reinforcements. therefore would it not be better for your team to bail out of an immobilized tank that you are doomed to die in as that would save on reinforcements? especially if it were in the above situation where the crewman could help save/take a capzone. this could change depending on whether the live of the crew counts or the life of the tank. imo, both should count. that way crew can bail to save part of their reinforcements, but a "killed" tank still takes away from reinforcements and rewards the enemy for eliminating a threat.

there will be a lot of possible senarios in combined arms maps where tactical decisions like the previously stated two should be left in the hands of the players to decide what to do.....i for one wouldn't like to see the game take that freedom away from them in attempts to encourage untested theoretical gameplay philosophies. ;) the concept that "a tanker is a tanker" and "an infantryman is an infantryman" just doesn't sit well with me. would be like saying "a cook is a cook and therefore shouldn't be able to fight as infantry". in the battle of the buldge, a crap load of cooks picked up a grease gun or garand and get in a foxhole. while i agree that tanking should be the focus of a tanker and infantry fighting the focus of an infantryman, the game shouldn't completely limit the ability for players to adapt to the situation and logically decide a plan of action to take.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MEGADETHTHRETH and dogbadger
Upvote 0
#64
@ -[SiN]-bswearer


All of the following is my opionion and might be complete BS :D


Not that i compeltly disagree with you, just wanted to mention that there is already a combined Arms Game that uses the same approach (WWIIOL). And it works fine, if people enter a city with Tanks they usually request Infantry Support, to cover them against enemy infantry.

Though i do agree that Exit Options would be "nice to have", but i see the great amount of work required to make fitting Exit Animations. It doesn't fit the current state of the game with fluid animations which are on a totally different level than in RO:OST to get some instant Pop Out Tankers or some crude Animation.


As to the debate hurting/helping your Team: If you bail out of your Tank, this means one less Tank can be spawned for your Team (Tanks being limited by Tank Commander roles), and this will hurt the Team a lot more in the intermediate time.
 
Upvote 0
#65
-[SiN]-bswearer said:
well think of it from a capping perspective or from a reinforcements perspective......

in ROOST every player regardless of class has "cap power". i'd imagine ROHOS will be the same way, i mean there will be a tanking only map in territory mode so obviously tank crewmen will have to have the ability to cap an objective. if you are stuck in a burning tank 25 yards from an objective that the enemy is starting to capture, would it not be better for your team to exit your immobilized tank to get in the capzone to save it? it would take much longer to scuttle the tank, wait to respawn, finally respawn and then have to drive halfway accross the map to get to that zone you were just literally a few steps away from.
Click to expand...

You have to remember, "capzones" are an abstraction for gameplay. Really holding a position means having "boots on the ground" - with rifles. That is the point of the infantrymen (obviously different with tank maps). A tank crewman with a sidearm isn't as effective at holding a position as a properly equipped infantryman. So if a tanker could exit the tank, they shouldn't have full cap power, or some might say any, since they're not tankers anymore, nor really infantry. So from that perspective, it sort of kills the point of exiting to cap.

We've covered exiting to get back to spawn is being combat ineffective, like an infantryman with a crippling, non-lethal wound. So there's no point in that - besides, it's highly unlikely there would be an empty uncrewed tank back at base waiting for tankless crewmen in real life.

the concept that "a tanker is a tanker" and "an infantryman is an infantryman" just doesn't sit well with me. would be like saying "a cook is a cook and therefore shouldn't be able to fight as infantry". in the battle of the buldge, a crap load of cooks picked up a grease gun or garand and get in a foxhole. while i agree that tanking should be the focus of a tanker and infantry fighting the focus of an infantryman, the game shouldn't completely limit the ability for players to adapt to the situation and logically decide a plan of action to take.
Click to expand...

That's a matter of opinion. I suppose TWI could implement cooks as a role, so they can occasionally fight as infantry, but I think that would be a waste of resources for TWI.


My guess is it's a moot point anyway, since Ramm said it solves a lot of gameplay issues, and saves a LOT of dev time. From their perspective, it's win-win. So good luck changing their minds.
 
Upvote 0
#66
-[SiN]-bswearer said:
i2.) YES, with an "unbuttoning" system like DH/MN (exits are driver/commander hatches, transferring to "empty" positions requires full animation)
Click to expand...

One option (and a quite realistic one) would be to allow the crew to redeploy with its vehicular MG. British armored car crews did this regularly in Normandy.

So tankers could be given options:
1) abandon/scuttle tank (and return to spawn to get a tank)
2) get out and take off at least one MG and deploy as infantry
3) stay in tank until it blows up

This way you avoid the useless guy with a pistol infantryman. A role I always enjoyed in RO, but apparently it isn't popular.

I guess the problem is that it makes starting as infantry a bit redundant. You could just start everybody with a vehicle of some kind:
Fresh (non-heroic) Rifleman: bicycle
Semivet Rifleman: Motorcycle
assault rifle man (with lots of grenades): Truck
semiheroic SMG or sniper: APC
Heroic MG or sniper or SMG: tank

This might make tanks a more rare operational option since you would just drive to the battle and deploy, but if the riflemen in the area wanted to step up they could man the tank with a high confusion factor to slow them down.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#68
Mormegil said:
You have to remember, "capzones" are an abstraction for gameplay. Really holding a position means having "boots on the ground" - with rifles. That is the point of the infantrymen (obviously different with tank maps). A tank crewman with a sidearm isn't as effective at holding a position as a properly equipped infantryman. So if a tanker could exit the tank, they shouldn't have full cap power, or some might say any, since they're not tankers anymore, nor really infantry. So from that perspective, it sort of kills the point of exiting to cap..
Click to expand...

Personally I hope that cap power doesn't depend on numbers in the cap zone or theoretical strength of someone. But is based on the actual strength of someone. There are just too many weird unrealistic issues with a numerical cap zone system.

If tripwire would end up using an area based cap system where the team that covers the most ground owns the cap zone regardless of enemy amounts hidden in cap edges then ill be a happy man.
 
Upvote 0
#69
Personally the only way tankers should be allowed to leave a tank is if they scuttle it. They cannot leave the vehicle until they have decieded to abandon it and blow it up, not under any other cirumstances i.e vehicle damage.

P.s for Vehicle Animations for Bailing out why dont they have the crew exit the Tanks (T34/PzIV) under the belly of the vehicle (There is a hatch there incase the tank is flipped on its side) thus the crew can slip out under there without anyone needing to see any fancy animations and can crawl out from underneath. It can also serve to hasten the exiting of the tank incase of self-damage from sabotaging your own tank, Maybe the last one out cant crawl fast enough and is doomed to death thus further enphasising why not to scuttle your tank only as the last resort.

Sturm
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#70
Redit said:
Skip to 3:00. Not WW2 but the same thing applies, run away from your tank and you die. (Waltz with Bashir, animated film about the experiences of IDF soldiers in the 1982 Lebanon war.)

[url]http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LSNBal1_tE[/URL]
Click to expand...

Yes, because under all circumstances in which I will be bailing from a tank, my only option will be to sprint across an open field covered by assault rifles and machine guns!
 
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