Rock Paper Shotgun Tank Interview discussion

[gyps]

who knows maybe in countdown mode tanks have there own objectives ?

 

[Amerikaner]

No complaints with any of the new news from me. Yet another impressive update. The trailer was very professional. When that first arty hit and the ragdoll and dismemberment kicked in in slow-mo I almost got a bonewah. The character in each of the soldiers' faces was excellent as well. Then there's the sim level of tanks and confirmation of free content patches... Just fantastic guys.

 

[Mormegil]

Well, I'll tell you one thing, it's going to make my life as an AT Rifleman a hell of a lot easier, since my targets can't jump out and pistol me while I'm in the middle of reloading the PTRD.

Which is why I hope pistol and grenade ports are functional.

 

[Roland777]

Yeah, I'm also a bit disappointed by locking the crews inside the tank. I like the scope of freedom a game like Red Orchestra provides - being arbitrarily locked inside a tank is a large nick in the armor of immersion. I understand that the developers are taking strides to ensure that the game is played the way it's supposed to, but to this point, it's getting ridiculous.

Unless of course, the tank is unlocked if you start taking serious damage and/or are immobilized. Then I can live with the tank being locked in the start. But to be doomed to stay with the tank until death, despite having the possibility to flee before it brews up sounds pretty maddening.

I'm a staunch supporter of adding entry/exit-animations as well, to solve the issues with bailing crewmen. That'll give bailers a solid disadvantage if they plan on fleeing as soon as they see an enemy tank.

 

[barakas]

Unless of course, the tank is unlocked if you start taking serious damage and/or are immobilized. Then I can live with the tank being locked in the start. But to be doomed to stay with the tank until death, despite having the possibility to flee before it brews up sounds pretty maddening.

I'm a staunch supporter of adding entry/exit-animations as well, to solve the issues with bailing crewmen. That'll give bailers a solid disadvantage if they plan on fleeing as soon as they see an enemy tank.

Whole heartedly agree.

If there are balancing issues with people bailing out, they should balance in a way that preserves realism + freedom.

I.e. give you limited respawns/tank respawns as tankers. Tweak it till the player has incentive to stay in the tank, but also bail when it is appropriate. Or even having some maps with only 1 set of tanks and tankers, so once the tanks are gone, players will have to join infantry, making fear of death, and fear of tank deaths much greater.

The key to great balancing is aligning the players interests with what makes good gameplay. The carrot if far more preferable to the stick. Many games NEVER allow FF because they can't "balance" it right.

And we all know how much poorer RO would be if they decided just not to allow FF because it was too hard to balance.


I have had many exciting games as a tanker, bailing out of a burning tank in Arad, managing to run and crawl my way back to a village, kill an enemy soldier for their rifle, and eventually get picked up by another tank.

good times.

Also, locking in tanks ruins extra possibilities that killing tank crew inside the tanks provide.

Locking in AI makes sense, but players? no way.

Adding slow exit animation would already go along way to fixing balance issues.

 

[Amerikaner]

I would assume the data doesn't really exist, but does anyone know how common it would be for tank crews to bail?

The thing that would most likely make the most sense is only allowing crews to bail when a certain level of damage is dealt to the tank. And even then the amount of time it takes to climb up, out, and down should leave the crews in considerable danger. If TW doesn't have the time/resource to do this before release then I'd lean toward them sticking with crews locked in. This forces players to be responsible. It doesn't seem too likely that soldiers in real battle would be so apt to leave such an important piece of hardware lying around while they run off. Especially the super strict Soviets.

 

[hockeywarrior]

I really do agree with the idea of allowing a tank crew to bail out of a tank. I understand, too, why TWI wants to lock people in. But like others have said, I've always loved how realistic games like RO give you alot of freedom, and locking people in their tank takes away from that freedom. WWII Online also had a system where you were stuck inside your tank, and I always felt really limited as a player.

Personally, the only time I ever bailed out of a tank in RO1 was when my tank was a) immobilized and exposed or b) on fire and about to explode. It would seem rather silly to be in a tank, on fire, and just sit and wait until you explode. Ramm said in that interview that TWI wanted to make you really feel like you're a "person" inside a tank, and that goal is further diminished when the player feels like he is "attached" permanently to his tank.

And furthermore, there's something awesome about bailing out of a tank just in the nick of time, running for cover and continuing to fight, scrounging for AT weapons while the big battle rages all around you. Those moments can be truly epic and would be sorely missed in RO:HOS, especially given all the other great features in the game.

I think that there are ways to compromise, however. If a certain part of your tank is damaged, like the hatch area, then that's on good reason to lock someone in. Furthermore, unlike RO1, I don't think you should be able to bail out instantly -- it should take considerable time to bail out of the tank, depending even more on what position you are currently occupying.

Honestly, I just can't the benefits of this system outweighing the negatives. I doubt TWI will change their mind unless we make a big deal out of it in the beta. Which I hope we do

 

[gyps]

i think wait an see til we beta - this it's not realistic to stop us bailing out is a bit one sided

there were lots of troubles that tankers suffered that arent included this bailing out is a bit misleading, many tanks when hit caused terrible injuryies which stopped the crew leaving because the hull to rattle with the impack making bones turn to jelly especailly the legs - many never had the chance to get out. hatches stuck etc

lots died in there tanks think of the photos with crews hanging out of hatches etc - so staying in is probaly closer to what actaully happened

 

[Nimsky]

It's a tricky subject. On one hand, being able to bail out is completely realistic - if you were a tanker in WWII and the ammunition storage was on fire, would you really stay inside? On the other hand, how many tankers continued to fight and capture objectives after they bailed?

The only way I could see bailing out work is if they add a 15 second bailing out animation and give bailed (injured) crewmen some kind of penalty, like a slower movement speed or whatever.

We have no idea how it'll work, so I'll reserve judgments for now.

 

[LogisticEarth]

On the subject of locking players into tanks. I can understand thier rationale, but it would be great if it could be tweaked a bit, in the following ways:

1.) The player is locked in the tank until which point it is considered reasonable for a crew to bail out. Examples include the engine deck catching fire, the turret getting destroyed, most of the crew killed and tank is immobilized, etc. At this point the player and AI crew can abandon the tank and proceed, with the AI attempting to retreat and the player free to continue.

2.) Failing the above, at the very least allow the player to "abandon tank", which would kick him back into the respawn queue, and trigger the AI crew to bail and retreat as before. This at least would stop the unrealistic behavior of forcing the player and crew to stay in a burning tank just to roast.

 

[Devil_Inside]

I think crew should be able to bail out. As hockeywarrior mentioned - the moments when you survive after bailing out are truly epic, so why getting rid of them?
I can't see why it should be too difficult to do a bailing out animation for the whole crew. So if this isn't a problem then which is?
Tanks being abandoned on the battlefield, limiting tank respawns? Then what if the last crew member leaving the tank will set some explosives inside the tank, so in.. say.. 30 seconds the tank will explode if no-one re-enters it during this time? Dunno if that happened during the war, but I believe I've read smth about that.

Edit: AI could be a problem though..

 

[Mormegil]

Also, locking in tanks ruins extra possibilities that killing tank crew inside the tanks provide.

Why? I'm pretty sure they can still unbutton, so you can still get that whack-a-mole kill. The hatches will still open making them vulnerable, but the players can't leave the tank - not literally locked in as in the door is locked.


That said, I can go either way on this. It'll force more realistic play, as people tend to bail more than they really would. I only bail to man a different tank or if the tank is damaged/stuck and it's useful for some manpower at the cap.

 

[Witzig]

I can't see why it should be too difficult to do a bailing out animation for the whole crew. So if this isn't a problem then which is?

Well you have to do 4 to 5 additional Animations for each Tank you add. Cause you could bail through different Hatches it could be even more. This is possible though not just a little bit of work.

This would effectivly mean that we'd guess less Tanks in the same development time.


It ain't impossible but its quite an amount of work.

 

[barakas]

i think wait an see til we beta - this it's not realistic to stop us bailing out is a bit one sided

there were lots of troubles that tankers suffered that arent included this bailing out is a bit misleading, many tanks when hit caused terrible injuryies which stopped the crew leaving because the hull to rattle with the impack making bones turn to jelly especailly the legs - many never had the chance to get out. hatches stuck etc

lots died in there tanks think of the photos with crews hanging out of hatches etc - so staying in is probaly closer to what actaully happened

If the players would be too injured to carry on the fight, they should be counted as dead, like infantry are.

So theres no excuse not to allow uninjured players to bail out.

Not being allowed to get out of the tank because the hatch is dented = cool realism

Not being allowed to get out of the tank, even though it makes perfect sense = bad gameplay, unnecessarily restrictive of the player

 

[Kenza]

For now, we are going with tank crews being locked into the tank. It removes one of the major problems of tank combat in Ostfront.

But like many things, we'll see how it works out once we hit beta phase.

So what will happen if you get your tracks destroyed or some other part that makes your tank usless and there is none around to kill you? Do we have to bind "suicide" or is there something else planed?

 

[Witzig]

So what will happen if you get your tracks destroyed or some other part that makes your tank usless and there is none around to kill you? Do we have to bind "suicide" or is there something else planed?

I'd personally like to see a Despawn System like in WWIIOL

 

[<AKA>Irish]

We're considering retaining an option to aim with the arrow keys still, but the movement keys are used to give movement commands to the driver. Also, the mouse controls don't work anything like "those other games" of you mean COD or BF. It is more like recent tank sims Kharkov or t34 vs tiger. But the big thing is it's more intuitive for players that never played RO Ostfront, which we all want to grow the playerbase. And it doesn't instantly rotate or anything, they still rotate at realistic speeds.

Fine example of TW listening to us community members. I argue PC v Consolers all the time and they only WISH! they have this kind of response. Great to see taking the good in "those other games" and perfecting ours! It's ufortunate that some think COD tanking is any good. It reminds me of some 80's 2D arcade game where you blast infantry, walls, and airplanes.

Thanks!

 

[Britney Federline]

Well you have to do 4 to 5 additional Animations for each Tank you add. Cause you could bail through different Hatches it could be even more. This is possible though not just a little bit of work.

Or you could simplify it and make all the tankers exit out of a hatch at the bottom of the tank, even if the original tank didn't have a hatch there.

I do like the idea of giving exiting tankers a high chance of injuries if they exit. A messed up arm or leg could let them stay alive but pay the price for getting out.

Plus, if they can't exit the tank, how else can the players in the Soviet officer roles shoot them for exiting state property? That's some fun role playing right there.

 

[L_L]

I like WASD aiming for tanks much more. To me it feels more precise for making small adjustments. I think TW shouldn't be afraid to keep it just because it takes a little bit of getting used to. If anything add tutorials for tanking instead of trying to make it instantly accesible.

I support this idea to.

 

[Dwin]

I'm not a fan of mouse-based turret rotation. It's not easier at all. It's just annoying because you're constantly shifting your mouse to the direction you want the turret to turn in, lifting up the mouse, repeating, etc. Good way to get RSI. It's much easier to just press a key, and it makes more sense for WWII tanks, too. So I hope it will at least be an option.

THIS. Using a mouse to turn the turret is incredibly uncomfortable due to the limited amount of space you have. I'm not sure how TW plans to implement mouse control of the turret while avoiding this issue.

We're considering retaining an option to aim with the arrow keys still, but the movement keys are used to give movement commands to the driver. Also, the mouse controls don't work anything like "those other games" of you mean COD or BF. It is more like recent tank sims Kharkov or t34 vs tiger. But the big thing is it's more intuitive for players that never played RO Ostfront, which we all want to grow the playerbase. And it doesn't instantly rotate or anything, they still rotate at realistic speeds.

I've never played T34 vs. Tiger, but Kharkov uses a keyboard control scheme for turret control, though mouse control is possible (but much more difficult).

The only way I can think mouse control would work would be if it was implemented in such a way as to simulate a joystick; you have an invisible cursor which moves around the screen, and the turret will move in the direction of the position of the cursor relative to the centre of your screen, with a certain amount of deadzone in the middle so that slight mouse movements wont move the turret.