Tripwire Interactive Forums

Go Back   Tripwire Interactive Forums > Red Orchestra 2 / Rising Storm Forums > RO2/RS General > Ideas and Suggestions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 04-11-2012, 10:34 AM
defektive's Avatar
defektive defektive is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 663
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekhazzio View Post
The idea that an M1's longevity is massively increased by someone following it around with a power wrench is just patently ridiculous and has no possible analogue in reality.
Not so, the uber-engie does have a greater foundation in plausibility than the RO2 equiv.: Nomad's (insta-repair in his mind, apparently) mobile repair crews. The TF2 Engie is an entity that is mobile, has to reach the asset and can be killed whilst attempting to repair said asset; whereas the nanite potato delivery vessels are fixed, indestructible, everlasting, are located in silly places and cannot be stolen (so you can make a dash for that nanite potato stack that's currently within enemy terrirory and it will dutifully fix you up just as readily as it will still fix up enemy tanks). Make no mistake, both approaches are ***-backward and worthy of raspberries but the BF silliness-approach is more authentic than the RO2 silliness-approach. Of course, one of these two game is meant to be silly, the other isn't.

Pulling back to a safe location for AFV field repair should only mean one thing in RO2: the initial spawn point. (That’s assuming that tanks need to be repaired at all during matches which are typically over in far less than one hour – which I am of the mind that they shouldn’t be.) Anything less would just be a watered down McTank drive-thru.

None of this was a problem in ROx and it all leads back to not being able to get out of your iron coffin in RO2.
__________________
defekt
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-11-2012, 12:05 PM
Mike_Nomad Mike_Nomad is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 5,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by defektive View Post
Not so, the uber-engie does have a greater foundation in plausibility than the RO2 equiv.: Nomad's (insta-repair in his mind, apparently) mobile repair crews. The TF2 Engie is an entity that is mobile, has to reach the asset and can be killed whilst attempting to repair said asset; whereas the nanite potato delivery vessels are fixed, indestructible, everlasting, are located in silly places and cannot be stolen (so you can make a dash for that nanite potato stack that's currently within enemy terrirory and it will dutifully fix you up just as readily as it will still fix up enemy tanks). Make no mistake, both approaches are ***-backward and worthy of raspberries but the BF silliness-approach is more authentic than the RO2 silliness-approach. Of course, one of these two game is meant to be silly, the other isn't.

Pulling back to a safe location for AFV field repair should only mean one thing in RO2: the initial spawn point. (That’s assuming that tanks need to be repaired at all during matches which are typically over in far less than one hour – which I am of the mind that they shouldn’t be.) Anything less would just be a watered down McTank drive-thru.

None of this was a problem in ROx and it all leads back to not being able to get out of your iron coffin in RO2.
Go back and re-read my post.... I am all for being able to get in and out of any vehicle.

Insta repair?? NOT hardly... there were however complete sections equipped (an example) to make reasonable field repairs - not right on the front line but relatively close in the rear.

Knock off the sarcastic BS.

Last edited by Mike_Nomad; 04-11-2012 at 01:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-11-2012, 04:01 PM
MarioBava MarioBava is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 810
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_Nomad View Post
Go back and re-read my post.... I am all for being able to get in and out of any vehicle.

Insta repair?? NOT hardly... there were however complete sections equipped (an example) to make reasonable field repairs - not right on the front line but relatively close in the rear.
Here's the rub: in defending your claim about field repairs, you've doubled back to a statement that actually supports the idea that you started out arguing against. Because while now you admit that "field" repairs are done not on the front line but "relatively" (relative to what, I wonder) close in the rear, the only thing even remotely resembling the "rear" of a front line in RO2 is guess what? the rearmost spawn point! The only place it could ever be considered reasonably safe enough for a crew to perform major repairs. So: if we don't get rid of field repairs altogether, let's have them only available at the rearmost spawn point, as Mike has exemplified here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_Nomad View Post

I notice how conveniently you ignored the points illustrated.... why?

Two things needed.
  • The aiming & other trubs pointed out in the OP. (good post BTW)
  • Allowing the tankers to dismount/remount and allowing infantry to hitch a ride.
Why? 2 reasons. Firstly because they don't mitigate my disagreement on the other point because they have nothing to do with it, so ignoring them is hardly "convenient" in this context. Secondly because point one is essentially a "yea, what he said"...hardly anything to comment on as far as your contribution there.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-11-2012, 04:09 PM
Nikita's Avatar
Nikita Nikita is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,871
Default

The main point of this thread is the armor system, not tank repair. In fact, until the armor system is fixed, I think we need the insta-repair supply points to stay around. If your loader gets killed, for instance, you need a way to get new crew members if you can't reload on your own. If an AT-rifle can wreck your main gun and leave your tank combat ineffective, then you need some way, however unrealistic, of fixing that, because it shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Once the armor system behaves a little more predictably, I wouldn't mind not being able to repair your tank at all.
__________________

Classic forever.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-11-2012, 04:32 PM
Mike_Nomad Mike_Nomad is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 5,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarioBava View Post
Here's the rub: in defending your claim about field repairs, you've doubled back to a statement that actually supports the idea that you started out arguing against. Because while now you admit that "field" repairs are done not on the front line but "relatively" (relative to what, I wonder) close in the rear, the only thing even remotely resembling the "rear" of a front line in RO2 is guess what? the rearmost spawn point! The only place it could ever be considered reasonably safe enough for a crew to perform major repairs. So: if we don't get rid of field repairs altogether, let's have them only available at the rearmost spawn point, as Mike has exemplified here.



Why? 2 reasons. Firstly because they don't mitigate my disagreement on the other point because they have nothing to do with it, so ignoring them is hardly "convenient" in this context. Secondly because point one is essentially a "yea, what he said"...hardly anything to comment on as far as your contribution there.
Rave on........... We are enjoying the game. Are you?

@ Nikita; You mean like in RO and DH?

Last edited by Mike_Nomad; 04-11-2012 at 04:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-11-2012, 08:24 PM
Mekhazzio's Avatar
Mekhazzio Mekhazzio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikita View Post
The main point of this thread is the armor system, not tank repair. In fact, until the armor system is fixed, I think we need the insta-repair supply points to stay around.
That was my first reaction to hearing that they were removing it, too. As long as there's such a huge difference in durability between the Pz4 and T-34, the only way the T-34 can even attempt to maintain an equivalent battlefield pressure to its counterpart is to blatantly abuse the nanopotatos to fix the constant stream of damage and crew loss that comes from virtually any hit to the thing. It can't just find a good hull-down position and fire from there forever like the Pz-4 can.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-12-2012, 06:35 AM
defektive's Avatar
defektive defektive is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 663
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_Nomad View Post
Knock off the sarcastic BS.
You may call it sarcasm, Mike, but I call it a tool to highlight the inconsistencies in your arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarioBava View Post
Here's the rub: in defending your claim about field repairs, you've doubled back to a statement that actually supports the idea that you started out arguing against.
HANNIBAL
(lights up a cigar)
I love it when a plan comes together.
(winks at the camera)

Nanite potato repair stations probably are helping to counteract the weakness of the T-34 but there's not much, aside from placement, to stop the PzIVs from similarly benefiting from the 27th century auto-repair facilities. However, the problem seems to sit within the way that the tank damage model works and if the playing field between the T-34 and the PzIV is to be levelled – if you’re in any doubt that the playing field currently is not level then see how badly AI T-34s do against AI PzIVs - then the fault needs to be tackled directly and not bandaged over with strange field repair measures.

The day that an engagement between a T-34 and a PzIV is generally decided by which ever tank scores the first hit on t’other will be a happy day indeed. Both tanks should be able to fairly reliably knock each other out without too much difficulty (or sniping ‘weak’ spots) within ~800 yards.
__________________
defekt
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-13-2012, 02:29 AM
Field Marshal Rommel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikita View Post
I mean, the PTRS couldn't possibly have been intended to penetrate the T34's turret, killing the commander, wrecking the front turret mantlet...
Why not? Judging from their previous game (RO I), I believe it was deliberately intended for the PTRS to penetrate said things with the very same overpowered capability that the RO I PTRD was capable of:

Red Orchestra NoWay#01 PTRD-41 on Arad - YouTube


Hedgehog's T60's 20 mm weapon is another example of deliberate overpowering.



.

Last edited by Field Marshal Rommel; 04-13-2012 at 02:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-28-2012, 11:04 AM
Nikita's Avatar
Nikita Nikita is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,871
Default

More armor headaches:



This is more of a map issue, but it's possible to accidentally get your T34 stuck while trying to repair it here on Pavlov's House. No amount of throttle manipulation or turning will get you unstuck. Quite annoying.



Yep. That's right--I just lost my driver, loader, and hull machine gunner, and had my turret's front armor destroyed... by the PTRS. At the range I was, with the angle I had to the building with the anti-tank gunner in it, there should be no way that the PTRS should do more than scratch my tank's armor.



I couldn't scuttle the tank, either, forcing me to wait until an enemy tank emerged. Unable to return fire because of the death of my loader, I simply hosed it down with my coaxial MG, watching the bullets bounce off its armor, until it finished me off.
__________________

Classic forever.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-02-2012, 09:35 AM
RiccardoTheBeAst's Avatar
RiccardoTheBeAst RiccardoTheBeAst is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Italy
Posts: 574
Default

It's discretely embarassing, i must say.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-17-2012, 03:30 PM
Nikita's Avatar
Nikita Nikita is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,871
Default Remaining issues...

Reviving this thread because one somewhat vexating issue remains... and I have a few comments that might be helpful.

The armor penetration fixes with the GOTY patch seem to work pretty well now... armor-wise, the tanks are behaving much more accurately, and the anti-tank rifles are now more limited in their abilities.

If your loader is killed, however, your tank remains completely and utterly helpless. Your gunner/commander simply will not swallow his pride and load the main gun himself... Why not just force the gunner out of the gunsight view during the reload and greatly slow the rate of main gun loading? Or something! 4x slower reloading would be a more than adequate penalty. This issue does not come up with every tank duel, but when it does, the system is extraordinarly frustrating.

Another emerging issue is that of tank respawns. Waiting even thirty seconds for another spawn is simply not long enough. On a map like Pavlov's House, with two tanks on a restrictive playing field, the resultant armored footprint becomes far too great. The battle literally sees a steady stream of tanks arriving on the tiny battlefield for twenty minutes.

Some system increasing the length of time required for tanks to respawn would be excellent. Such an addition would also mean that killing an enemy tank becomes a much bigger deal, since it removes the tank for a long period of time. Tankers begin playing more conservatively, even retreating to repair and recrew, and AT riflemen and Engineers start feeling like their efforts actually make a difference. Tanks should also cost more reinforcement points.

Thirdly, currently, crew inside a tank are knocked around and "suppressed" to a degree when an enemy shell hits and penetrates--but if the player is looking through any sort of optics, this effect does not occur. The screen desaturates slightly, but a player looking through optics is not "knocked around". Possible bug or oversight?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Finally, here's a suggestion that would probably take a little more effort to implement, but it would solve that immersion-breaking explosion that occurs when you "scuttle" your tank.

--Replace "Tank Heavily Damaged--Press K to scuttle tank" with "Tank Heavily Damaged--Press K to abandon tank"
--Create a new animation where the tank's hatches open and smoke billows out of the tank.
--Enemy gunner recieves notification "Enemy Vehicle Abandoned! +5 Team Points"
--Abandonment of the tank results in only half the loss of reinforcement points that would have been lost had the tank been destroyed outright.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just food for thought. The tanks themselves work pretty well now, it's just a few bugs and a few incongruities with how they mesh with gameplay.
__________________

Classic forever.

Last edited by Nikita; 06-17-2012 at 03:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-17-2012, 03:56 PM
Avtomat's Avatar
Avtomat Avtomat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hungary
Posts: 345
Default

It would be nice to see more lethal rounds too. Sometimes tanks can take 3-4 or in rare cases even more penetrations before getting knocked out. This of course is completely unrealistic. IRL tanks were usually abandoned after 1-2 penetrations due to the massive effects on the crew.

Also, it would be cool to see some new destroyed /knocked out models.
Like the tank won't explode every time it gets knocked out, instead it would more often just stop and drop smoke or start burning out of one or two of the hatches.
__________________

♫Когда поют солдаты - Спокойно дети спят♫
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-17-2012, 03:56 PM
Proud_God's Avatar
Proud_God Proud_God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Belgium
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikita View Post


Another emerging issue is that of tank respawns. Waiting even thirty seconds for another spawn is simply not long enough. On a map like Pavlov's House, with two tanks on a restrictive playing field, the resultant armored footprint becomes far too great. The battle literally sees a steady stream of tanks arriving on the tiny battlefield for twenty minutes.

Some system increasing the length of time required for tanks to respawn would be excellent. Such an addition would also mean that killing an enemy tank becomes a much bigger deal, since it removes the tank for a long period of time. Tankers begin playing more conservatively, even retreating to repair and recrew, and AT riflemen and Engineers start feeling like their efforts actually make a difference. Tanks should also cost more reinforcement points.
I definately agree that something must be done about tank respawn. Also see threads:

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.co...ad.php?t=79897

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.co...ad.php?t=80377

The other suggestions I can agree with as well.
__________________

By Dibbler & Team

Support the IOM - Join unranked IOM servers - Join the IOM group
Signature:©Kleist productions
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-18-2012, 09:51 AM
Barber[FG] Barber[FG] is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Albany New York
Posts: 196
Default

Quote:
Two things needed.
· The aiming & other trubs pointed out in the OP. (good post BTW)
· Allowing the tankers to dismount/remount and allowing infantry to hitch a ride.
Indeed! However, I’d go a bit further than that short list, in what I feel would make tanking the best experience possible in RO2

· The aiming & other trubs pointed out in the OP
· Allow the tankers to dismount/remount and allow infantry to hitch a ride.
· Allow the driver to turn off the Engine.
· Add additional tanks and Tank destroyers
· Add Hero costumes to high ranking tanks much like the infantry Hero progression is shown whereas high ranking tank commanders would be visually demonstrated in a tank that has dents, scratches, chipped paint and perhaps even some netting on the tank to help conceal it a bit better.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-18-2012, 12:09 PM
AtheistIII's Avatar
AtheistIII AtheistIII is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 439
Default

I'd love some kind of killscratches on the turret
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2005 - 2014, Tripwire Interactive, LLC