Upvote
0
Exiting Tanks
- Thread starter -[SiN]-bswearer
- Start date
LOL.
It wouldn't be a transport if the people you transport couldn't get out and fight. Pretty hard not to listen, not that it was even on their minds I'm sure to lock those too.
Upvote
0
I've seen the bail option with BFBC2 and it ain't very good (ooo look there's a person who just appeared from nowhere
), So I say fight with a tank....die a orrible and painful death with a tank.
maybe later TWI or Modders put a bail-out option in (where tankers still die a much less painful and orrible death)....But not the BF/CoD solution.......Please:IS2:
), So I say fight with a tank....die a orrible and painful death with a tank.maybe later TWI or Modders put a bail-out option in (where tankers still die a much less painful and orrible death)....But not the BF/CoD solution.......Please:IS2:
Upvote
0
Passengers will be able to leave transports, otherwise they wouldn't be very good transports eh
But yeah, players can't exit tanks.
What happens when tank gets its track knocked off somewhere in middle of nowhere but manages to kill the lonely enemy who got lost to same?
Commander pushes the "self-destruct" button and kills his entire crew?
Or do they just sit and wait and sit that someone come and kill them?
Attachments
Upvote
0
Passengers will be able to leave transports, otherwise they wouldn't be very good transports eh
Example: Infantry enter awaiting APC and drive off, unable to exit. They have just entered the TWIlight zone, get it?
Upvote
0
Time-consuming as it may be, option number three doesn't provide any loopholes to exploit. If you're stupid enough to bail on your tank at the first sign of danger, you're sure to condemn yourself to death when your avatar tries to get out of the tank while it's being showered by machine-gun fire in the middle of a raging battle.
I just don't see how people can argue "spawn with tank, die with tank" as a means of reinforcing realism - there are plenty of opportunities to clown around like a dick playing as an infantry-man; run around firing off an entire magazine full-auto into the air, crouch-spam and pretending to hump corpses, bayonetting into thin air. Does that mean that we need to take precautions to prevent this from happening? No automatic firing permitted when sights are inclined more than 45 degrees? No crouching within a 3 meter radius of a corpse? No! Idiots will be around, it's a fact.
But like I said, if an idiot decides to bail in the middle of combat, he'll get riddled with bullets before he can escape, should option three become implemented. It's a problem that solves itself, and doesn't affect the individual freedom of players. Players shouldn't suffer from the refusal of certain people to stick with their teammates.
Arbitrarily locking people into a damaged and immobilized tank when the front just moved forward a click or two probably gives birth to more frustration that the original ROOST-system ever did.
More-over, crewmen were only armed with sidearms, and only in rare instances, were given one submachine per tank. Hardly a serious threat.
If locking the tanks are a temporary solution to put the game out earlier, I fully understand that. But if it's a permanent solution for gameplay purposes, I find it contradicting and dumb. (I'm not dissing Tripwire, I'm merely stating my opinion to this particular question)
I just don't see how people can argue "spawn with tank, die with tank" as a means of reinforcing realism - there are plenty of opportunities to clown around like a dick playing as an infantry-man; run around firing off an entire magazine full-auto into the air, crouch-spam and pretending to hump corpses, bayonetting into thin air. Does that mean that we need to take precautions to prevent this from happening? No automatic firing permitted when sights are inclined more than 45 degrees? No crouching within a 3 meter radius of a corpse? No! Idiots will be around, it's a fact.
But like I said, if an idiot decides to bail in the middle of combat, he'll get riddled with bullets before he can escape, should option three become implemented. It's a problem that solves itself, and doesn't affect the individual freedom of players. Players shouldn't suffer from the refusal of certain people to stick with their teammates.
Arbitrarily locking people into a damaged and immobilized tank when the front just moved forward a click or two probably gives birth to more frustration that the original ROOST-system ever did.
More-over, crewmen were only armed with sidearms, and only in rare instances, were given one submachine per tank. Hardly a serious threat.
If locking the tanks are a temporary solution to put the game out earlier, I fully understand that. But if it's a permanent solution for gameplay purposes, I find it contradicting and dumb. (I'm not dissing Tripwire, I'm merely stating my opinion to this particular question)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This is pretty much My opinion too, i like to see a bail out option, but not a 2013 release trying to get it to work, the BFBC2/CoD option (for Me) just breaks the game and is not worth worrying over, As I said maybe later on TWI or the Modding community can get it put in....if not, All good By Me...
Upvote
0
(emphasis mine)
Well I think you got the point here. It's time consuming, as Witzig pointed out in another post, that's over 20 new 1st person (and 3rd person) animations that have to be implemented for 4 tanks with each position modeled (also a 3rd person for the loader if it's an evac).
The other "dicking around" you mentioned would require more work to add those restrictions. That's the opposite of implemented tank egress.
Upvote
0
yeah, basically the instant exit (or apparentely instant if you have a delay) of a tank is unpopular and most ppl don't really want that.
seeing as exiting tanks isn't that usefull or prevalent anyway it has been sacrificed so the large amount of time needed for character and model animations, coding and moving hitboxes/collision can be used for other things like a realistic immersive interiors, and presumably a few other new features.
A new system is in the works to spawn inside a tank- avoiding another annoyance found in RO - and there is no reason it couldn't work the other way if your tank was rendered ineffective or inoperable.
until a week or so ago we would have been happy to hear tanks were comming at all.
Now they are, and you will not be exiting. gotta accept that and deal with it really.
seeing as exiting tanks isn't that usefull or prevalent anyway it has been sacrificed so the large amount of time needed for character and model animations, coding and moving hitboxes/collision can be used for other things like a realistic immersive interiors, and presumably a few other new features.
A new system is in the works to spawn inside a tank- avoiding another annoyance found in RO - and there is no reason it couldn't work the other way if your tank was rendered ineffective or inoperable.
until a week or so ago we would have been happy to hear tanks were comming at all.
Now they are, and you will not be exiting. gotta accept that and deal with it really.
Upvote
0
Hunting tanks as infantry is one of my favorite things in Red Orchestra.
A tank with a track off can be a real jackpot for a sapper.
Currently, moving in on the tank on foot is tempered with the knowledge that they can bail instantly.
That gives them pistols and grenades at the least, but a 3-man-crew-bail to go after infantry is rare.
Since that is being addressed by the no tank bail policy now, it seems fair that at least the commander
might be allowed to pop the top hatch and fire off some rounds with his pistol or toss a grenade out a short distance -
something along those lines.
The height the commander can rise from his hatch is the big visibility question for the commander
on top of the turret. There is no up close visibility right next to a tank when it's buttoned up.
You can't see anything under the cone of vision of the viewing prisms typically
30 feet away or more from the tank in the topmost periscopes.
A demolition charge inside the tank would make for a pretty cool respawn exit.
Say you are stranded out-of-the-action in your minus-one-track tank.
You get the respawn after a short demo charge delay..... BOOM.
I'd love to see some visual cue like the turret flying off, or a different bigger blast
for the demolition exits. *but not if it delays the initial release*
A tank with a track off can be a real jackpot for a sapper.
Currently, moving in on the tank on foot is tempered with the knowledge that they can bail instantly.
That gives them pistols and grenades at the least, but a 3-man-crew-bail to go after infantry is rare.
Since that is being addressed by the no tank bail policy now, it seems fair that at least the commander
might be allowed to pop the top hatch and fire off some rounds with his pistol or toss a grenade out a short distance -
something along those lines.
The height the commander can rise from his hatch is the big visibility question for the commander
on top of the turret. There is no up close visibility right next to a tank when it's buttoned up.
You can't see anything under the cone of vision of the viewing prisms typically
30 feet away or more from the tank in the topmost periscopes.
A demolition charge inside the tank would make for a pretty cool respawn exit.
Say you are stranded out-of-the-action in your minus-one-track tank.
You get the respawn after a short demo charge delay..... BOOM.
I'd love to see some visual cue like the turret flying off, or a different bigger blast
for the demolition exits. *but not if it delays the initial release*
Last edited:
Upvote
0
If you don't want people to "waste" tanks make it so that you can only enter the tank after either a certain amount of time/after a certain object has been hit. If all human players left the tank and you still have AI in it then the AI guy should just try to move back to spawn.
Upvote
0
I don't understand why you shouldn't be able to exit a tank. If its because it will delay the release then by all means make us locked into the tank, but if you can at least implement option #2 then that would be nice, its better than appearing outside the tank like in bf/cod. Like some have already stated, what if the track gets hit and you can't move, or if the tank catches on fire, you would definitely bail in real life.
-Uffz.Juschkat
-Uffz.Juschkat
Upvote
0
![[TW]Ramm-Jaeger](/data/avatars/s/0/2.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
Yes, but like pretty much every feature in the game that we've mentioned that people are asking us to reconsider, they need to wait for the beta and actually play with the systems before they can give real feedback.
Playing ROHOS is like falling in love, you can try to explain to someone what it is like, but until you've actually experienced it, you won't fully understand
No players will be forced to just sit there in a disabled tank. The commander will have the option to "scuttle" his tank if it is disabled. And really not allowing the tankers to get out of the tanks solves a whole multitude of gamey problems with ROOST. In ROOST, usually when a tank gets disabled the driver gets out (robbing the person attacking the tank of a kill), and then usually walks around for a bit before suiciding. That or he hides in the cap zone forever. Either situation is gamey and not really fun. People that choose tank roles should be fighting in tanks.
Upvote
0
Sure you bail in real life. Similarly, IRL, when you get shot in the stomach, you don't die, but you lay there in pain, unable to contribute to the fight for some amount of time, until you get evacuated (hopefully).
Neither of these scenarios makes you combat effective, which is the focus of the game. A tanker not in his tank, isn't an effective tanker. As Ramm said, if you want to be infantry, choose an infantry role.
Upvote
0
Yes, but like pretty much every feature in the game that we've mentioned that people are asking us to reconsider, they need to wait for the beta and actually play with the systems before they can give real feedback.
Playing ROHOS is like falling in love, you can try to explain to someone what it is like, but until you've actually experienced it, you won't fully understand
No players will be forced to just sit there in a disabled tank. The commander will have the option to "scuttle" his tank if it is disabled. And really not allowing the tankers to get out of the tanks solves a whole multitude of gamey problems with ROOST. In ROOST, usually when a tank gets disabled the driver gets out (robbing the person attacking the tank of a kill), and then usually walks around for a bit before suiciding. That or he hides in the cap zone forever. Either situation is gamey and not really fun. People that choose tank roles should be fighting in tanks.
I understand your logic now. That makes sense. It can be rather silly when ejected tank crew members scurry around the battlefield like infantrymen. I do really like the feature of scuttling a tank...
Maybe you can allow for minimal repairs on tanks that are disabled... they move very cumbersomely, etc, instead of a complete scuttle of the AFV.
LOL... but then you would need to have a exit animation for crewmembers and repairs...
:IS2:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
shoot, i totally forgot to mention that's what you told me the other day.......commanders can "scuttle" their disabled tank for a new spawn/tank. if i remember right you said tank crews were trained to scuttle their tank so that enemies wouldn't be able to make use of them.
well, that brings up one point.......in ROOST to do that you just typed in "suicide" and you lost a point for a "death". would "scuttling" your tank also follow that same idea?
Upvote
0