Do you want developers to FORCE teaming up in Tanks?

[MkH^]

Wow. I think the word "retarded" just got a new meaning *goes to make a thread about how players shouldn't be forced to die from single bullets*.

What the hell does "forcing" crewed tanks mean? Obviously you have never been into a tank nor do have any idea of how one works. Well, let me tell you this here, without a crew, THEY DON'T.

Red Orchestra is a realism game, and the current tank system requires a complete overhaul. Don't like it? Here's a game for you.

 

[REZ]

Of course tanks were never crewed by one man... but it isnt impossible, you'd just be at a huge disadvantage, which should be correctly modelled (or as close as can be) with animations that take a little while to happen.

Newsflash Gomer, you are forced to play in certain ways in every game you play.

ahhhh, if only we were speaking in such general terms... but we're not. We're talking about a, oh I dunno what you'd call it, a 'feature' maybe, thats a bit more specific than the fact we're playing a game on computers in a virtual environment. It may be okay with you to make it impossible to drive a tank alone, but to me.. and it seems like a few others too, if I were 'forced' into only being able to drive a tank with another person... I would stop playing with the tanks, and that strips alot of the value of the game from me. So there are other consequenses in the decision to force people to play a certain way. You dont always have the luxury of being on a full server, not to mention with people who have a clue about tanking. Gomer.

 

[Terminxman]

I want it to be so that crewed tanks reload faster, and have an advantage, but I don't want teaming forced.

 

[akd]

Why is that some people have such a hard-on for forcing an artificial advantage (i.e. not based on player skill, but RPG-esque stat bonuses or other such handicaps), beyond the INHERENT advantage that 2 people filling two roles simultaneously have over 1 person filling the same two roles? What is the rational behind this? Seems entirely illogical to me.

And once again, simulating the player actually moving from one position to another abstractly is absurd. The player is NOT actually moving from position to position. He is switching from role to role. This is NO DIFFERENT than the gun reloading without the player doing anything. That role is being filled by an "AI" entity. The player does not have to fill that role because it is occupied by some other entity. In a single-crewed tank, the player must switch from entity to entity, filling the role of each simultaneously in the absence of EITHER a human player or an AI entity. Anyways, actually depicting the player climbing around the armored vehicle in game would be a collosal waste of time, especially considering that this wasn't even possible in some circumstances.

If damage to crew was modelled, this would have more impact on the player. If the human player is in the turret and the driver "position" (whatever entity occupies it at the time) is killed and the human player survives, they have just lost access to that "role." That is when a "delay" should kick in, or it should remain outright inaccesible.

If the devs actually want to simulate a single person operating a tank, they would be better off just locking out tanks to single players. Why would any higher level command allow a single person to operate a "brand new" and quite costly vehicle. In fact, they game should require extensive prequalification for every member of the crew before a player is allowed to use a tank on a server. That would be "realistic."

How can you possibly argue that a player should be punished for not having three people in the tank when realistically there should be 4-5 on the grounds of "realism." Why stop there? A machinegunner who does not have an assistant who does nothing but feed the ammunition belt and help spot shots should have an penalty applied to their accuracy and reload time. The game should also impose frequent jams on the player that take twice as long to clear. Barrel changes should take longer and the player should only be able to carry 50-100 rounds of ammunition. This would be realistic. Would it be fair? Would it improve gameplay? Would it actually lead to a MORE realistic battlefield experience, or just widespread frustration?

This is not about realism. It is about rewarding one style of gameplay while punishing another. Those in favor of artificial advantages for multiple human-player crews would have an excellent argument for both realism and fairly balanced gameplay IF solo players were given some sort of advantage, like competent AI crews that filled the other responsibilities in the tank simultaneous to the human player filling his chosen role, or if the solo player were able to manually drive the tank while remaining unbuttoned in the top turret and scanning with binoculars.

Personally, I jump at every opportunity I get to crew up with a competent and mature player. The advantages to this are INHERENT and abundantly OBVIOUS. It means less work for me, more concentration on situational awareness and at least double the effectiveness in combat.

Unfortunately, these opportunities are few and far between. Consequently I chose the solo tanker option. If that option is force removed through ridiculous penalties under the guise of "more realism.," I would just not play. The frustration of working with complete idiots is far too great. Perhaps I'll join a good squad someday. No doubt I'll be a much more effective tanker and enjoy the game much more.

Force me to do that and I'm gone in a heartbeat.

 

[gonzman]

A seat change delay is stupid but if it comes in i'll just do what the rest of the currently "frustrated with the lack of good team mates to tank with" are going to do, stop playing on tank maps or leave as soon as Mr **** player/Dumbass gets into your tank, whenever the tank maps roll around or get voted in the server will hopefully half its player count and the rest of you will have to enjoy your 6v6 game.

I'd probably remain in the game if everybody on my team knows what their doing and listens to communication, however, that's not very bloody likely.

 

[Oberst Freitag]

Wow. I think the word "retarded" just got a new meaning *goes to make a thread about how players shouldn't be forced to die from a single bullet*.

What the hell does "forcing" crewed tanks mean? Obviously you have never been into a tank nor do have any idea of how one works. Well, let me tell you this here, without a crew, THEY DON'T.

Red Orchestra is a realism game, and the current tank system requires a complete overhaul. Don't like it? Here's a game for you.

so you're going to nitpick on this one issue and leave the others alone? hypocrisy much?

i think so

 

[Golf33]

snip

akd +1

 

[BoltActionJackson]

114-36. Ouch!

 

[Brad]

Why is that some people have such a hard-on for forcing an artificial advantage (i.e. not based on player skill, but RPG-esque stat bonuses or other such handicaps), beyond the INHERENT advantage that 2 people filling two roles simultaneously have over 1 person filling the same two roles? What is the rational behind this? Seems entirely illogical to me.

The advantage of a crewed tank over a lone tank is minor, and the advantage of TWO loner tanks versus ONE crewed tank is major. That's the issue here. We're trying to push for less incentive to lone tank.

Anyways, actually depicting the player climbing around the armored vehicle in game would be a collosal waste of time, especially considering that this wasn't even possible in some circumstances.

As stated above, in my mind it's not so much to depict realism, more to encourage people NOT to lone tank.

How can you possibly argue that a player should be punished for not having three people in the tank when realistically there should be 4-5 on the grounds of "realism."

That's it. I've resigned to dealing with this argument EVERY TIME someone posts in these kinds of threads. It's inevitable.

This is to encourage people to crew up in tanks. There is a difference between having 2-3 people in a tank (yet not a full 5 man complement) and having only ONE person man a tank. Just because we can't have a 5-man crew doesn't mean that it's okay to let everyone run around in their own personal tank all the time, with only a few tanks holding more than one crewmate.

This is not about realism. It is about rewarding one style of gameplay while punishing another.

That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. I would most like to see lone tanking only happen rarely, when there's an odd man out and an extra tank with no-one but that single person to crew. That's not 'punishing' lone tanking, it's just making it less common.

Consequently I chose the solo tanker option. If that option is force removed through ridiculous penalties under the guise of "more realism.," I would just not play. The frustration of working with complete idiots is far too great. Perhaps I'll join a good squad someday. No doubt I'll be a much more effective tanker and enjoy the game much more.

Here's this strange phenomenon I witness every time this argument arises... people seem to believe that the vast majority of RO players or incapable of the slightest bit of communication and teamwork. It boggles my mind, and I have seen nothing to suggest a scale of ignorace to this degree in the RO community.

I TT as much as I can, but also LT when I have to. If players have to end up teaming up in tanks I find they can more often than not end up working together to a degree that the game is enjoyable. That's even with people that would previously rather lone tank if the option was open to them.


Look, akd, my main argument is that TTing is fun, and enjoyable, and that in order to encourage it, and improve the overall TTing skills of the community, certain measure must be taken. If not, a lot of people are missing out on the best part of tanking.

 

[genghis]

omfg

omfg

r u all serious? the only reason i still play this half abandoned dodgy game is cos of the tank maps. if i had to keep dying cos of idiots who don't have mics/ skill/ brain, i would never bother returning. if you can't manage to drive a tank yourself [and let's face it it WOULD b possible in real life ] then piss off back to that stupid muddy flat nothing of a map konigsplatz. this is the ONLY thing i enjoy about this game. the game also sux so much that in australia only about ten people play it. how may tank teams is that?. if anything has to go it's artillery, and MASSIVE CODE BUGS and the STILL unresolved ZA ISSUES ETC.
WHY DOES EVERYONE WANNA CONTROL THIS GAME?. I said it once i said it again, no point arguing in the bridge of the titanic, it won't fix the 70 metre hole in the side of the ship.

 

[MkH^]

so you're going to nitpick on this one issue and leave the others alone? hypocrisy much?

i think so

What are these other issues you are talking of, because I can't really think none. If they however add to the realism, and improve gameplay and teamplay, I'm all for them. If you read the forum, you might notice that my biggest grudge with the game is with tanks. Like I said, they require a complete overhaul and are the very I've stopped playing tank maps for the time being.

 

[EGF_PeeGee]

So, for Arad the server has 24 players tonight. 12 per side. 3 tanks with forced crews of 3 each leaves 3 infantry - one commander, one PTRD, one sapper. Cool! Three tanks and three infantry, it's a little World War 2 in miniature

(Summary:Tanks - don't force it, fix it)

 

[Murphy]

if you can't manage to drive a tank yourself [and let's face it it WOULD b possible in real life ]

No, you can

 

[akd]

This is just getting stupid. The game is not simulating a single person operating a large battle tank. This is essentially impossible. Hopping from position to position is switching from "body" to "body" in the tank, representing the single player having to juggle the various roles simultaneously with absolutely no crutches or AI assitance. In some tanks, moving from position to position would be impossible or only possible under certain circumstances. The whole scenario is absurd and would not happen in real life. You cannot include this in the game on the grounds of realism.

The disadvantage of solo tanking would be better represented by these other "bodies" in the tank being vulnerable to incapacitation. Furthermore, there are much more pressing realism issues when it comes to crewing tanks, for example:

1. The magically reloading gun.

2. The ability for the driver/gunner of a tank to communicate with players outside the tank while actively performing their role.

 

[gonzman]

So, for Arad the server has 24 players tonight. 12 per side. 3 tanks with forced crews of 3 each leaves 3 infantry - one commander, one PTRD, one sapper. Cool! Three tanks and three infantry, it's a little World War 2 in miniature

(Summary:Tanks - don't force it, fix it)

Ha ha ha ! Pwnd, That quote pretty much summerises exactly how it will be if tanking gets forced.

Probably even that way if they stack up too many advantages against people who lone tank (as in adding position switch delays) as people who hate that will leave the game, you'll end up with a 3v3 tank game anyway!

Fabulous idea!

You guys may in the end get what you want but you'll never get the rest of us to just give up and start trying to Team Tank with you from now on, once these changes are made the game wont become a perfect reflection of ww2 tank squad realism you guys dream about having, actually alot of crap you guys ask for is just "dreaming". Get back to reality and remember this is just a game and don't sacrifice other peoples enjoyment of the game for your crazy thirst for gameplay busting realism.

 

[MkH^]

Wait a second, lets rethink... The server has 32 players. That makes for 16 each side, now divide that by two - driver and commander for each tank and you have 8 crewed tanks. Holy crap Batman! That's more tanks than there are available on most maps!

 

[gonzman]

The guy said 24 for his example.

Let's also consider the players who'll go infantry or the players who'll leave the game because they hate team tanking and you're probably down to a max of 20 or so.

 

[Ron]

Ok i'll say it again 90% of team tankers dont want to force anything all they're looking for is delay in switching positions and exit animations to stop some gamey tactics.

 

[Mike_Nomad]

Wait a second, lets rethink... The server has 32 players. That makes for 16 each side, now divide that by two - driver and commander for each tank and you have 8 crewed tanks. Holy crap Batman! That's more tanks than there are available on most maps!

Bingo!! Amazing things happen when people begin to think!! Thanks for doing the math.

 

[gonzman]

Ok i'll say it again 90% of team tankers dont want to force anything all they're looking for is delay in switching positions and exit animations to stop some gamey tactics.

That's cool, but i'm commenting in relation to the title of thread (Because I haven't gone through and read every single post, just some from the point on when I started to post) and since the thread is called Do you want developers to FORCE teaming up in tanks? it's only fair to discuss that particular problem here.