Forum Opinion on Tank Bailing Poll
- Thread starter Mormegil
- Start date
- Status
Realistically, if a tanker bails out to kill infantry, the infantry will just destroy him before he gets to see them. It only worked in Ostfront because of the instant teleport, with a realistic system, it wouldn't work at all, making it a useless feature anyway.
Are you serious?
So you don't mind going in missing half your tanks? What about half the infantry? Are you OK playing a match of 16 v 8? You wouldn't mention team balance?
If anything, being outnumbered would be more realistic, but I doubt most people want to play ROHOS like that.
I did read it, but just like every opposing view you come across, I also brushed it aside like nothing was written at all.
Clearly some people just aren't happy unless things are done their way.
Explain to me how being the first person to actually address the arguments in favour of no tank bailing and present NEW alternatives that attempt to satisfy both sides of the argument that haven't been repeated ad nauseum "brushing it aside"?
Clearly some people aren't happy when TW takes lazy and unimaginative ways to solve problems. Clearly some other people aren't actually willing to have a rational discussion.
hockeywarrior
FNG / Fresh Meat
Rational discussion? So calling TWI "lazy" is part of your rational discussion? No thanks.
I don't see it as lazy -- I see it as the simplest solution to a very complex problem.
No. If you are unable to bail out of your tank, and your tank is disabled, people will be upset that they might as well be dead since they can no longer do anything in any capacity.
Give players the ability to bail out and fight in a limited capacity, and that feeling will be diminished because you will have given the player some chance of self-defense even after their tank has been disabled (until they find a safe place to despawn).
If this is basically their function in the first game, and you predict this will upset people, then how is FURTHER restricting the tanker's abilities better?
Lazy is the word I've chosen to summarize all the rational arguments against TW's no-bailing decision, which you would realize if you are really following this discussion. To quote REZ,
is why no-bailing is a bad solution, when better alternatives which preserve the positive aspects of bailing, while largely eliminating the problematic ones (like the one I suggested) exist.
Simplest solution? Yes. Best solution? Not by a long shot. It would be a fine solution if none other existed. But as I recall, I posted some suggestions that have yet to receive any significant amount of rebuttal. Can you explain to me how my suggestions are worse than TW's?
Last edited:
It's a problem that just because something is realistic doesn't always mean it's the best idea to have in an interactive enviroment for diffrent reasons. As much as there are some decent arguments why tankers should be able to exit tanks, there would be considerable delay (or I hope so, in case if they would revise the system) compared to Ost's instateleport. Now the time it takes to exit a tank if there is anyone near you you're dead before you can even finish the animation, and the general 'delay' would be quite notable and also realistic. Now let's say some tankers decided to go too much CHAERG on a street and they get assaulted by some satchel charges and the tank is disabled yet some of the crew is alive -> bail out -> get slaughtered the moment you'll put your head out of any of the hatches during the animation. This would cause a problem than being able to exit the tank AND survive would be nearly impossible combination unless you were KO'd at quite long range where infantry weapons or machineguns can't really touch you that well anymore, in which running around is already pointless. So by all means if they make bailing out possible, everyone should be ready for the simple fact : you're going to die alot when you do that under typical engagement ranges, which is not that much diffrent in comparasion to 'despawning' yourself.
Another example of the realism thingy would be tank ramming and boarding. It happened occasionally on both fronts and there's some quite detailed accounts about them aswell but wanna take a guess how
Because it isn't restricting them at all?
Tankers weren't given many weapons or ammo for a reason. Their profession surrounds the tank, and that's it. People choose the tank classes to drive and operate tanks.
Previously in RO, when tanks were disabled by track damage, few bailed because the tank was still able to cause damage. The only time anyone ever bailed out of a tank was to save their own skin and deny other players a kill. Mostly because they KNEW when the tank was going to be destroyed. They would pop out even if it meant being completely useless to the team for however long they managed to survive.
In real life, I can't imagine wanting to bail out from a tank for anything but a serious fire. You are much safer with thick steel surrounding you than a wide open field. But I do imagine there was some sort of procedure for this in order to deny the enemy vital technology. Simply ditching a vehicle because the tracks are off is out of the question.
Restricting player tankers to the confines of the tank works best to satisfy realism, gameplay, and realistic development time. If you can't agree with that then there is no swaying you and we're all here basically talking to a wall.
Last edited:
I don't think it's a laziness issue. It's a judgement call. Ramm has stated he believes tankers fighting on foot is "lame."
So why would they put something in they think is lame, that comes with a bunch of extra complications?
So why would they put something in they think is lame, that comes with a bunch of extra complications?
Oldih said:
...or, you could be in an urban environment, your tank has been badly disabled but not destroyed by enemy anti-tank soldiers, however friendly infantry was able to dispatch the enemies and create a safe surrounding for you to exit your tank.. now you are with your team and moving into the nearest indoor capzone helping them by adding to the cap power and killing ability.
or... you could be in a wide open Russian steppe map and you want to get out to look over the next rise with your binoculars before just blindly driving your tank over it into possible danger.
oooor, you could be a tank commander who has more cap power and is holding a capzone by yourself while reinforcements are trying to get back to help you, but you know there are enemies in the capzone with you, possibly anti-tank soldiers or another tank, and you feel like exiting the tank would give you better odds of survival since you wont be a huge target just sitting there. In this instance your survival could mean the win or loss of the map.
In each of these three examples, being locked inside of your tank is detrimental to gameplay. The first one the team has to wait while you scuttle and wait for you to return with a new tank, meanwhile the complexion of the moment could change. They may lose the momentum for no other reason than you not being able to go on foot. The second one is obvious and would just be frustrating to have to blindly enter dangerous areas without checking them out first. The third is a scenario which happens all the time and if you are forced to sit there in a big tin can and cant hide yourself you basically have lost the map because you werent able to do anything about your situation... combined arms maps will frequently have tanks alone near anti-tank soldiers and if you cant defend yourself or hide yourself because you are locked in your tank - that's what I would call LAME.
This is just based on what you said. If players will be upset that they won't be very effective on foot as a tanker, wouldn't it follow that they would be even more upset if they were able to do absolutely nothing once their tank has been disabled?
It is a restriction, because not being able to leave your tank denies you the ability to perform actions (aside bailing out) that are indeed realistic with respect to tank operation. It's not just about the ability for tankers to fight as infantry. Heck, you could give them nothing but binoculars, and it would still be beneficial for tankers to be able to get out of their tank. For example, scouting ahead of your tank on foot, inspecting the position of your tank and spotting on foot for a better view, which in Ost and DH are thing tankers will do frequently (though this mainly applies to large maps).
From what I know, tankers actually bailed quite often - pretty much when they felt they had little chance of surviving. The tank battle in Cologne that Hans posted is a good example of this. The Panther takes one hit, and the crew bail out, even before (IIRC) the tank catches fire. The Sherman takes a single hit, wounding 3 of the 5 crewmembers, and they all bail out. A tank that has been penetrated by an enemy weapon is definitely not safer than being outside your tank (which may not necessarily be an open field). Not only are you a bigger target, which the enemy has already zeroed in on, after the first hit, its quite clear that the tank WILL be destroyed, while escaping on foot still leaves you with some chance of escaping.
In Ost, players don't care about their virtual lives, and this results in unrealistically suicidal behaviour. If it were a game, that Panther would most likely fire back at the Pershing, possibly damaging it and leaving it ill-equipped to fight the next battle. Unless we're assuming that all tanks are ordered to fight to the death in every scenario, this is not realistic.
When a player does bail, it is usually to deny the attacker a kill. This motivation works well as an analog to fear of death, as it produces the same effect: players don't want to die. Once the player bails and, if they manage to survive the next few seconds, they can respawn themselves in a new tank without penalty.
Nice try. I disagree, but up there are my reasons why. Walls can't give you a reason for anything.
As I understand it, Ramm thinks it is "lame" because of the problems that were present in the first game. Fix those problems (as per my suggestions), and it won't be lame.
Of course, if TW is fundamentally opposed to tankers getting out of their tanks for any reason (which as I argue in my previous post, has realistic and beneficial applications apart from fighting as infantry), then there is nothing to discuss, and I'll frolic on home happy with everything else that TW has shown us so far. But I've yet to hear of or see any TW dev tell us that they are fundamentally opposed to tankers getting out of their tanks for any reason.
Last edited:
Those are quite valid points based on RO:Ost but just to give short counterpoints:
#1 We don't know if HoS capsystem is same as in Ost, but presuming it is the scenario you presented would actually benefit for a brief moment. However it is unknown how long the capture would last and after that they still would have to resort to suicide in order to bring another tank in, and in case if the enemy tank would appear there in some coordinated counterattack (possibly by some clanmembers on the team doing some teamwork), presuming the turret was still functional in the heavily damaged tank if they are inside it they could atleast try to delay. If it was completely botched then it wouldn't of course make a diffrence.
#2, this is one reason why I can perfectly understand why leaving the tank is a 'good' idea in its own ways, given they have sufficient delay (long enough to make it mildly tedious to make it less abusable) it's perfectly fine.
As for #3, presuming they have realistic AT systems (so no longer wonder PTRD, as fun as it was to use), taking a tank down even on urban enviroment would require assaulting with some sort of explosives and getting that close is a problem. If the tank is parked in 'good' location it's close to impossible while even when assaulted the tank may still be 'alive' despite having several areas damaged and maybe a crewmember down. Staying inside the steel coffin would actually be more safe under certain circumstances than climbing out and waiting for someone to turkeyshot you in the process, or get shot from some window while you're seeking cover -> your cappower is lost.
Dwin said:
That is partly where the problem becomes notable. Fight to the death scenario is not realistic, but it is impossible to simulate real fear of death in any interactive medium which is a limitation we cannot overcome. However, if you bail out from a tank the freedom player has due to aforementioned limitations is something that becomes possible issue. You could simply have people charging in, bail out and start fighting as infantry would. The tank is 'wasted' in this case and we could say it's partitially gamey, to say the least. Experienced crews - from realistic perspective - are more important when safe behind friendly lines rather than being Rambo on the frontline, which is also 50-50 issue with player freedom, unless they make a system where the game rewards players for fleeing and getting to safety rather than "ok my tank is screwed I'll fight to death as infantry." scenario.
You did mention that allowing despawning while bailed out, and while it could work it still would have the problem bail out -> start assaulting and fighting as infantry does -> oh sorry we're screwed let's despawn. The conditions required for despawning on foot would require severe restrictions.
However the bailing out would also have the problem that presuming they actually have realistic damage model for penetrations and internal damage, let's say T-34. In early models only way to get in or out was the large turret hatch, and if that got stuck by some reason there was no way out unless someone pried it open outside. Now how since it was common for tank to keep shooting another tank until visual was for crew bailing out or it was on fire, let's say fire one shell to the turret and keep butchering it. There would be no way to escape really as even penetrated body could block it sufficiently so removing it could be very difficult, and let's say somehow it got stuck -> impossible to bail out. It wouldn't really require much effort (considering it doesn't take much to learn about where all the hatches are) to simply shell the most important areas, presuming you're in range to actually penetrate the other tank.
I do have to admit it would be quite cool (in grotesque sense) to see that the player is bailing out from the turret and suddenly your crotch is full of fragments or missing entire part due to that AP shell that just penetrated and watch how your avatar is rendered completely incapable of doing anything anymore.
Last edited:
Generally tankers don't go fighting on foot in Ost anyways because all they have is a pistol, whereas tank commanders can still call arty and have SMGs. If you give all tankers pistols only, and disallow them to capture objectives (which they shouldn't be anyway), then tankers will have little incentive to fight on foot, and even then, only to fight off any immediate dangers they face after bailing out, after which they can despawn themselves (with an appropriate delay so they can't just despawn themselves to escape death) rather than continue fighting on foot.
You have to consider the effort required to "fix" all the issues and weigh that against the benefit to the gameplay it would bring.
As far as I can tell, the most effort would be concentrated in creating the necessary animations. For two tanks at release, that would be an additional 9 animations (one exit animation for each crew member, or even less if we make all crew members exit from one or two hatches), which doesn't seem like a lot given the amount of detailed animations TW has already done.
Though I understand it might not be feasible given TW's goals, I don't think that was ever in question.
Last edited:
Keep in mind that any possible exit animation would most likely require an entry animation as well. Those are probably more involved.
question is, if your tank has 3 human players and 1 of your teammates is getting killed, has your teammate the option to get in a new tank with bots or does he have to wait until the rest got killed?
- Status